Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[PR] Cyclists Welcome Continuing Ban on Motorbikes Use of Bus Lanes

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

    He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

    Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.
    You're the first person who'd be responding if someone made a similarly blanket and inflammatory generalising statement about cyclists.


  • Options
    #93
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,932 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.



    That's a terrible thing to say. Nobody deserves to be injured or killed by other peoples incompetence.

    And again, you are tarring all bikers as lunatics but if anyone says that cyclists break a law you say stop making generalisations:confused: Everyone admits there are stupid bikers, and most people apart from you admit there are lunatic cyclists. But we don't say run all cyclists down because of a few nutters

    He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

    And again, when there is a broken white line motorcycles can legally cross it like everyone else.
    Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

    The only people who don't want to share with motor bikes are you and some bunch of lunes called the DCC. Most other people can see that safety is improved for everyone not just the bikers.


  • Options
    #94
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The old militant cyclist mentality is starting to out itself now.


  • Options
    #95
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    First off I think the NRA's stance on the cable barrier is stupidity amounting to recklessness.

    But while cyclopath2001 might not have been very diplomat, the stats on motorcycling deaths does at least somewhat back him up.

    As for generalisations, welcome to this thread! :)
    faceman wrote: »
    Well i guess its not clear what he's saying.

    I think it is clear that he was not saying cyclists shouldn't have to abide by the rules, and I also think it's clear that - by accident or not - you replied misquoting him in a way it looked like he was saying it was ok.

    faceman wrote: »
    There is so much mud slinging in the thread its become really pointless.

    I fear you might be correct.... the end is nigh!!! :o

    seamus wrote: »
    Copenhagan. ...my Irish colleague called over a taxi, walked straight across the cycle lane and caused a number of cyclists have to brake sharply and wait for her and her luggage to get off the lane. She was completely oblivious, didn't even notice that the cyclists were there.

    Oh they couldn't have been real Copenhageners! Where were their bicycle bells???... the fact she was a visitor to the city was likely very clear to them.
    seamus wrote: »
    And it's this second bit that has me so-so about separated lanes here - I can't see Irish people taking them seriously at all. ...

    I think respect or notice would come - at least to a large extent - with time, and partly forced too as the lanes would cycling look safer and more attractive.
    seamus wrote: »
    ... I can also see it causing cyclists to lose out, i.e. motorists will think that because cyclists aren't on the road, that they don't have right of way, and pulling across the lane without yielding would be rampant. You'll have pedestrians and joggers using the lane exclusively and tutting and complaining when a cyclist tells them to move.

    Couple that with Dublin City Council/SDCC's complete inability to create a cycle lane that presents any kind of convenience or safety for the cyclist, and it ends up in a whole world of pain.

    A lot of this comes down to design, and, yes, as Dublin's current lanes can testify - there are major problems here. Hopefully the city council getting full time engineer / cycle officer.


  • Options
    #96
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    monument wrote: »
    But while cyclopath2001 might not have been very diplomat, the stats on motorcycling deaths does at least somewhat back him up.

    No, they don't. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, motorcyclists (like cyclists) are vulnerable road users, vulnerable to their own mistakes yes, but more often the careless driving of others.

    75% of car-motorcycle collisions are entirely the fault of the car driver, this is a fact confirmed by motorcycle insurers.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

    On your bicycle???

    He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

    No, he was justifying legal overtaking, while legal it is less safe than using a bus lane.
    Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

    Reported.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #98
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    ninja900 wrote: »
    No, they don't. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, motorcyclists (like cyclists) are vulnerable road users, vulnerable to their own mistakes yes, but more often the careless driving of others.

    75% of car-motorcycle collisions are entirely the fault of the car driver, this is a fact confirmed by motorcycle insurers.

    I said deaths... as quoted before from the RSA...
    The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors.

    The above facts do seem to back up cyclopath2001's views.


  • Options
    #99
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    monument wrote: »
    I said deaths... as quoted before from the RSA...



    The above facts do seem to back up cyclopath2001's views.

    Totally irrelevant to this thread which is about bus lanes, and anyway the RSA is making a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up. 'more likely'. Facts please.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #100
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Halfdog wrote: »
    The NRA are correct, they have their priorities right, They know how to kill and seriously maime motorcyclists like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets and decapitating them by placing cable barriers along all our national highways.
    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    The NRA is not responsible for motorcyclists riding illegally and dangerously. That's the responsibility of the individual motorcyclists.

    Wow...
    ninja900 wrote: »
    No, he was justifying legal overtaking, while legal it is less safe than using a bus lane.
    Del2005 wrote: »
    And again, when there is a broken white line motorcycles can legally cross it like everyone else.

    Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".


  • Options
    #101
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Totally irrelevant to this thread which is about bus lanes,

    It is relevant to what has been talked about between your posts this morning and your last posts a few days ago.

    I like when people engage, but when you don't feel like it please don't tell me what's relevant or not. Report my posts to the moderators if you wish.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    and anyway the RSA is making a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up. 'more likely'. Facts please.

    Ok, lets look at what is fact and assumption...
    The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors.

    "The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas" - these are facts. And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

    So... where is "a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up"? Maybe you're looking at the stat that 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. And then like any reasonable person you're thinking if they are single vehicles at least the majority are likely to be the drivers' fault*.

    If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

    [I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,932 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    monument wrote: »
    Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

    Perspective is where palying chicken and legal overtaking comes from. From someone sitting in a car or on a cycle lane it looks like a bike is playing chicken, but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.
    monument wrote: »
    Ok, lets look at what is fact and assumption...



    "The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas" - these are facts. And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

    So... where is "a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up"? Maybe you're looking at the stat that 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. And then like any reasonable person you're thinking if they are single vehicles at least the majority are likely to be the drivers' fault*.
    The bit I've highlighted is the assumption. There has been no studies done to prove that driving powerfull motorbikes is more dangerous the less powerfull ones, and some anecdotal evidence that less power bilkes are more dangerous as they can't react quickly enough to dangers, all it is the EU and goverments don't like motorcycles. As they are disproportanly killed on all EU roads, and it's easier for goverments to try and ban them then implment proper safety procedures for them.

    Also our RTA reporting is so bad no assumptions can be made from it. 65% of fatal motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, but since the report forms that our Gardai use don't record all the factors they are pretty much useless.
    If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

    [I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]


  • Options
    #103
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Del2005 wrote: »
    but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.
    In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?


  • Options
    #104
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,932 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?

    I've never seen cars leave enough of a gap on any road so they aren't really going into cars safe braking zone.

    There are lots of gaps in traffic which bikes, and bicycles, can fit into that cars can't. It also relates to lane position, a bike/bicycle can take a position in a lane that won't affect cars safe braking distance.

    Which brings us back to the original issue. Why needlessly place motorcycles into these positons when international studies have proven that if they use the bus lane it's safer for ALL road users, not just motorcycles?


  • Options
    #105
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,941 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    ninja900 wrote: »
    On your bicycle???

    Some people do use more than one mode of transport you know...
    monument wrote:
    Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

    As far as I know, it's legal if you do it at low speed (filtering). Illegal if done at high speed afaik.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Options
    #106
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    monument wrote: »
    Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".
    Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.

    There was a discussion on the motorbikes forum recently enough about it and it turns out that the law doesn't require the oncoming lane to be empty, it simply requires the motorist to have adequate room to overtake such they don't present a danger to themselves or other motorists.
    In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?
    I think he was referring to gaps in the oncoming traffic. You wait behind the vehicle, once there's a gap in the oncoming traffic, you overtake. Motorcycles are just exceptionally able for this because of their superior acceleration.


  • Options
    #107
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    monument wrote: »
    If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

    [I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]

    Crap roads and bad signs leading motor cyclists into dangerous situations I imagine could be one cause of it.


  • Options
    #108
    Quint
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Quint


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

    He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

    Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.


    Where do I start?
    1. It's the motorcyclists fault when they have accidents on motorways? Nice generalisation and assumption!

    2. Completely legal to drive on the wrong side of a street! But i'll make my own generalisation here, as a cyclist I assume you have no idea of the rules of the road.

    3. Seems that no cyclists has a problem with it! Bus drivers certainly don't, they always wave me in to bus lanes, same with taxis. No cyclists here seem to mind either. Police certainly don't mind. "Nobody" seems to be just you!


  • Options
    #109
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Quint wrote: »
    1. It's the motorcyclists fault when they have accidents on motorways? Nice generalisation and assumption!
    I said that motorcyclists should take responsibility for their own safety. Shouldn't we all?
    Quint wrote: »
    2. Completely legal to drive on the wrong side of a street!
    Actually I did not say that either. In general, in heavy traffic, it would be illegal.
    Quint wrote: »
    No cyclists here seem to mind either. Police certainly don't mind. "Nobody" seems to be just you!
    Actually, if you read my postings you'll see that I was in favour as long as they did not obstruct cycle lanes. I'm nervous about making any concession as so many motorcyclists already drive illegally in bus lanes and frequently get in my way in cycle lanes.

    Since then, an anti-cyclist element has tried to dismiss any reservations by cyclists by asserting that cyclists were less law-abiding than everyone. Which, of course, is both stupid and not true.
    seamus wrote:
    Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.
    Alas, this is not an accurate quotation of the overtaking regulations. Not only must you overtake safely, but you must also do so without causing inconvenience to anyone else.
    seamus wrote:
    I think he was referring to gaps in the oncoming traffic.
    I was referring to small safety gaps in the traffic being overtaken, left there by drivers to provide themselves with adequate space to stop if the vehicle in front slows or stops.


  • Options
    #110
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I presume that legally a cyclist should overtake on the right of slow moving/stationary vehicles unless a cycle lane/track is present?


  • Options
    #111
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    murphaph wrote: »
    I presume that legally a cyclist should overtake on the right of slow moving/stationary vehicles unless a cycle lane/track is present?
    No, the regulations permit the overaking of slow moving, stationary and right-turning traffic on the left, with or without a cycle lane being present.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Tarabuses
    Registered Users Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Tarabuses


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    No, the regulations permit the overaking of slow moving, stationary and right-turning traffic on the left, with or without a cycle lane being present.

    You seem to be quoting the circumstances when it is legal to overtake in the inside lane where there is more than one lane in the direction of travel. It does not apply to single lane roads.


  • Options
    #113
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Alas, this is not an accurate quotation of the overtaking regulations. Not only must you overtake safely, but you must also do so without causing inconvenience to anyone else.
    Alas, you seem to have missed the line after the one you quoted :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #114
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,932 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »

    Actually, if you read my postings you'll see that I was in favour as long as they did not obstruct cycle lanes. I'm nervous about making any concession as so many motorcyclists already drive illegally in bus lanes and frequently get in my way in cycle lanes.

    Since then, an anti-cyclist element has tried to dismiss any reservations by cyclists by asserting that cyclists were less law-abiding than everyone. Which, of course, is both stupid and not true.

    You're complaining about motorcycles blocking you in cycle lanes. But if it has broken lines they are perfectly allowed into it, once they give right of way to bikes, and if they then happen to get blocked thereby blocking you it's not the motorbikes fault it's the damn cars:D If it has a solid line then yeah they are being muppets, but I'd bet more cars/buses/trucks block cycle lanes then motorbikes.
    I was referring to small safety gaps in the traffic being overtaken, left there by drivers to provide themselves with adequate space to stop if the vehicle in front slows or stops.

    As I said earlier I've rarely seen cars leave a proper gap for safe stopping, especially in cities, and generally if I leave a big enough gap a truck will jump in never mind a motorbike.


  • Options
    #115
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Tarabuses wrote: »
    You seem to be quoting the circumstances when it is legal to overtake in the inside lane where there is more than one lane in the direction of travel. It does not apply to single lane roads.
    The regulation (SI 182/1997) does not mention lanes at all. Are you looking at this regulation or another one?

    If you are to insist that one can only overtake in a separate lane, then that would make any kind of same-lane overtaking, in heavy traffic, illegal.
    seamus wrote:
    Alas, you seem to have missed the line after the one you quoted
    The line I quoted was "(1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person."
    The next lines are:
    (2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver
    ( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and
    ( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
    seamus wrote:
    You're complaining about motorcycles blocking you in cycle lanes. But if it has broken lines they are perfectly allowed into it, once they give right of way to bikes,
    That's what I'm afraid of. At the moment I only have to contend with law-breaking motorcyclists.


  • Options
    #116
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,309 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    OK folks, be nice to each other.


  • Options
    #117
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    monument wrote: »
    I like when people engage, but when you don't feel like it please don't tell me what's relevant or not.

    I like it too. Unfotunately I am not getting the impression that you yourself want to engage here.
    And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

    Del2005 replied well to that already, so I'll just say this - why are the RSA making assumptions?
    IF they gave a damn about really improving motorcycle safety, a little research would get real answers here. But they just want a stick to beat motorcyclists with. Real answers would require action - where is the basic training they promised years ago? Where are the local authorities being taken to task for leaving road surfaces in a dangerous condition? Just blaming the victim (even when it was their own fault, it's still a failure of the system) is a cop-out and achieves nothing, it is an abdication of responsibility by the RSA, a body I had high hopes for when it was set up. It's just been assimilated, same as all the rest were.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #118
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Del2005 wrote: »
    Perspective is where palying chicken and legal overtaking comes from. From someone sitting in a car or on a cycle lane it looks like a bike is playing chicken, but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.
    Stark wrote: »
    As far as I know, it's legal if you do it at low speed (filtering). Illegal if done at high speed afaik.

    The point here is a poster has been criticised for criticising the use of "playing chicken" as a description for overtaking, and then other posters seam to think "playing chicken" could mean legal overtaking - please let me know if any of you are going to use that description on front of a judge, I'll pay to see it!

    seamus wrote: »
    Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.

    There was a discussion on the motorbikes forum recently enough about it and it turns out that the law doesn't require the oncoming lane to be empty, it simply requires the motorist to have adequate room to overtake such they don't present a danger to themselves or other motorists.

    Well I wouldn't call that "playing chicken". Would you? If not I don't know why you brought it up in the context of "playing chicken" being used.

    Del2005 wrote: »
    The bit I've highlighted is the assumption. There has been no studies done to prove that driving powerfull motorbikes is more dangerous the less powerfull ones, and some anecdotal evidence that less power bilkes are more dangerous as they can't react quickly enough to dangers, all it is the EU and goverments don't like motorcycles.

    By the looks of it there probably is anecdotal evidence that speeding is involved in many of the cases. The assumption this was due to powerful motorbikes isn't too far fetched.

    Del2005 wrote: »
    As they are disproportanly killed on all EU roads, and it's easier for goverments to try and ban them then implment proper safety procedures for them.

    Disproportionately compared to what countries?

    Del2005 wrote: »
    Also our RTA reporting is so bad no assumptions can be made from it. 65% of fatal motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, but since the report forms that our Gardai use don't record all the factors they are pretty much useless.
    brim4brim wrote: »
    Crap roads and bad signs leading motor cyclists into dangerous situations I imagine could be one cause of it.

    I think it's very easy to conclude that driver behaviour accounts for a high percentage of the 65% single vehicle fatal motorcycle accidents. And we haven't very good driver generally so it's not really a stretch.

    If bad roads are a factor, you can still conclude that the driver was at least partly at fault. You're meant to travel at a speed that you can react to change in conditions etc.

    The stat from the RSA that "males in the 25 to 34 year age bracket are over-represented in motorcycle fatalities (34%) and injuries (27%)" also points driver behaviour as a large factor.

    And no, before somebody says it, I'm not saying all drivers are bad drivers.

    ninja900 wrote: »
    Del2005 replied well to that already, so I'll just say this - why are the RSA making assumptions?
    IF they gave a damn about really improving motorcycle safety, a little research would get real answers here. But they just want a stick to beat motorcyclists with. Real answers would require action - where is the basic training they promised years ago? Where are the local authorities being taken to task for leaving road surfaces in a dangerous condition? Just blaming the victim (even when it was their own fault, it's still a failure of the system) is a cop-out and achieves nothing, it is an abdication of responsibility by the RSA, a body I had high hopes for when it was set up. It's just been assimilated, same as all the rest were.

    Let me get this straight, you have just said if a driver is at fault we should blame the system? :confused:


  • Options
    #119
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    ninja900 wrote: »
    I like it too. Unfotunately I am not getting the impression that you yourself want to engage here.

    Unless you want the thread locked, it's better to stick to the ball and not the man.


  • Options
    #120
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    monument wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, you have just said if a driver is at fault we blame the system? :confused:

    Yes. Otherwise why have a driving test at all, or indeed licences?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Yes. Otherwise why have a driving test at all, or indeed licences?

    You do know that by your logic, if a driver is found at fault for a crash where people have been killed s/he should go free, because it's really the fault of the system?


Advertisement