Musings from a cyclist...

Civilian_Target

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly, so why should we have to sit behind a cyclist?

I wish someone would apply this driving too slowly rule in Dublin city centre because I have encountered a lot of slow-moving boxes impeding my swift progress round there during the morning :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't get this motorists vs cyclists thing. Both's just fine. Granted, I am carless at the moment (it's a liability if you live in the centre of a town in France), but why the them vs us thing?

If governments build good cycleways (not cyclelanes, suggesting they are an aside to the road), cyclists will use them. If you build POS cycle lanes, no surprise that bicycles stay on the road. Let me tell you, I appreciate both the nice cyclists facilities and the mature attitude of drivers towards riders here in France.

Maybe we can do something more constructive than bitch at each other, as it's clear we're all here to stay

P.C.

P.C. wrote: »

Two big issues with this whole breaking the lights thing:

1.) I drive down Upper Rathmines Road, and turn right into Lower Rathmines Road, when the lights are green for me. Very often, there will be another car on my right, as it is two lanes going into two lanes. When the lights go green for me, and it is safe to do so, I go, and keep left to give the vehicle next to me enough room to get through the intersection. The problem is that more often than not, a bicycle will come speeding through the lights (from Rathgar Road), and almost into me. Then they get mad at me.
They have just gone through a red light - how can they be mad at me?
The only thing that I can think of is that as they are going straight at what is effectively a T junction, they feel that they are entiteled. NO!
A red light means stop!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rathmines+dublin+ireland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.435463,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=53.321582,-6.266091&spn=0.00292
2,0.009613&z=17

Just across the road from a Garda station too!

Most of the problems mentioned on this thread (with some exceptions) I'd like to see better enforcement of. I cycle everyday and one of the things I fear is someone (another cyclist, I mean) coming crashing into me because they don't have brakes, or they expect me to go through a red light (!). I'm a well-lit red-stopping cyclist, btw.

DirkVoodoo

I am lit up like a feckin' christmas tree most nights.

I don't understand why people don't invest 30 euro into a good set of lights, especially in winter.

P.C.

@ TinyExplosios

While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, I do not agree with a few of your points.

Tax - I feel that there should be a tax on bicycles. Not an anual tax, but what about a one off tax when you buy the bicycle?
Something like VRT on cars.
Would that be something that you would be ok with?

Red lights - Why do I have to worry about a bicycle going through a red light long after it has gone red? I can't see a bicycle if it is on the other side of a bus. The first time I see it could be too late.
And why was I sworn at and shown a rude hand sign when, as a pedestrian, I tried to cross the lights when the green man was showing? The bicycle came straight through the red light, and almost knocked me over.

I will give a bicycle enough space on the road, and even sit behind them on a narrow road (will be fustrated, but keep it to myself).

I used to ride a bicycle to school, I had to get a bicycle to get to work a few years back after my car was stolen, and I was saving for a new one (more than six months), so I know what is like to be on a bicycle on the roads.

kenmc

I agree, I think that you will find very few (if any) of the regulars on the cycling forum who say that it's ok to cycle without lights and break reds. Personally I wish the Gardai would really clamp down on it, because if all cyclists stopped for reds and were well lit up, that would be one less thing for motorists (and I say that as a car owner myself) to throw at us in all the silly little arguments. I look at all the bike ninjas (unlit, darkly-clad cyclists) and see an accident waiting to happen.

I know for a fact that being a cyclist has made me a much more aware driver, I'm much more conscious of my road positioning and whats around me. I'm also a hell of a lot more patient that I used be too.

Really and truly, we're not all bad, so please don't tar us all with the same brush. Unfortunately we (the regulars on the cycling forum) are a tiny minority of the cyclists you see around the country. We cannot answer for the lunatics who don't bother buying lights or bother stopping for red, so don't ask us 'why this?' or 'why that?'. Believe me, they piss us off too.

DirkVoodoo

P.C. wrote: »

Tax - I feel that there should be a tax on bicycles. Not an anual tax, but what about a one off tax when you buy the bicycle?

U mean like VAT?

VRT was aimed at taxing cars as pollution making vehicles. It would be unfair to tax bikes simply because they are vehicles, despite the fact they are not motorised and produce no emissions. I think bikes in this country are actually expensive enough, a one-off tax would reduce the number of cyclists, increase the load on public transport and private cars (heck, I would drive more often!) and make more problems in the end.

Diarmuid

P.C. wrote: »

Tax - I feel that there should be a tax on bicycles. Not an anual tax, but what about a one off tax when you buy the bicycle?

There is. It's call VAT.

Gavin

P.C. wrote: »

@ TinyExplosios

While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, I do not agree with a few of your points.

Tax - I feel that there should be a tax on bicycles. Not an anual tax, but what about a one off tax when you buy the bicycle?
Something like VRT on cars.
Would that be something that you would be ok with?

As pointed out, VAT is paid on bicycles. It's already been demonstrated that roads and cyclelanes, such as they are, are paid from the general taxation pool. Every individual having a car and driving through city centers to get to work/school/etc is just not practical. Why charge extra money for bicycles, when bicycles actively help to reduce congestion in cities?

Red lights - Why do I have to worry about a bicycle going through a red light long after it has gone red? I can't see a bicycle if it is on the other side of a bus. The first time I see it could be too late.

Not sure if you've confused the point here. We all disagree with cyclists jumping red lights. I think Tiny was referring to situations where the light goes green and cyclists tend to accelerate quicker than cars, thus being vulnerable to any cars going through a red or having run an amber.

And why was I sworn at and shown a rude hand sign when, as a pedestrian, I tried to cross the lights when the green man was showing? The bicycle came straight through the red light, and almost knocked me over.

What are you looking for with this question ? Some people are just arseholes regardless of method of transport.

I will give a bicycle enough space on the road, and even sit behind them on a narrow road (will be fustrated, but keep it to myself).

I used to ride a bicycle to school, I had to get a bicycle to get to work a few years back after my car was stolen, and I was saving for a new one (more than six months), so I know what is like to be on a bicycle on the roads.

I cycle because it's quick, reliable and I like cycling!

peasant

personal opinion

I think that taxing bikes is an absolutely stupid notion. Don't be giving the governement ideas ...these days they're likely to tax everything if they feel there's only a hint of public support for it.

There'll be tolls on footpaths next and the hapenny bridge will known as the Euro bridge

Traumadoc

A lot of cyclists do pay motor tax, ( I pay over 3k a year on my porsche 911 and bmw X5 and 530 ) I cycle also as I get to work faster on the bike. I agree that it may be infuriating to be stuck in traffic but if all the cyclists were in cars , your journey would take a lot lot longer.

You often notice how much more traffic there is when it rains as many cyclists like me return to our cars.

kenmc

peasant wrote: »

the hapenny bridge will known as the Euro bridge

Well it is white so definitely would fall within the rules....

DirkVoodoo

Can I also mention that the boards cycling forum do regular "spins" together and going through red lights is frowned upon and something that would not make you a lot of friends on that forum. We don't all have a laugh by holding up cars. We go out, have a nice cycle, look out for each other's safety and try to let cars pass unimpeded (a common practice when there are many of us is for the person at the front, who has a better view of the road ahead, to wave cars on when it is safe to do so). I'm not saying we are all perfect, we all have our rants on here about commuting in cities.

Anyway, if any of ye see us, watch out for the jersey (in my sig!) we are all boardsies after all!

Raam

peasant wrote: »

There'll be tolls on footpaths next and the hapenny bridge will known as the Euro bridge

Quote of the day I think

Raam

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can I also mention that the boards cycling forum do regular "spins" together

Speaking of group rides...
something that bugs me is seeing a group of cyclists swarm a car at traffic lights, passing the car on both sides. A well behaved group should wait behind the cars and stay together until the lights are green.

P.C.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

U mean like VAT?

No. Like VRT on cars.

Diarmuid wrote: »

There is. It's call VAT.

I drive a car, that does not make me stupid.
I mean a tax over the existing taxes that you pay on most items that you buy, like VRT on cars. We could call it BRT.

Verb wrote: »

As pointed out, VAT is paid on bicycles.

Yes, I am aware of this. I am talking of an extra tax, not VAT.

peasant wrote: »

personal opinion

I think that taxing bikes is an absolutely stupid notion. Don't be giving the governement ideas ...these days they're likely to tax everything if they feel there's only a hint of public support for it.

There'll be tolls on footpaths next and the hapenny bridge will known as the Euro bridge

Thank you for giving an opinion, peasant.

The rest just seem to bang on about VAT. I was sugesting an extra tax. If you want to disagree with me, feel free to do so, but don't say 'do you mean VAT?'
Come up with an idea.

PeakOutput

dont know if its been said or not but

there is no way there will be an extra tax on bikes they are trying to encourage people out of their cars not into them

in fact commuter bikes should be vat exempt. i dont know how they would define commuter bike but im sure its doable.

people cycling is a good thing for everybody. as i said in another thread im a motorist and it is definitely motorists that cause the accidents and the trouble with cyclists. there will be exceptions but the rule is car drivers dont give a **** if there is a cyclist in front or in their mirrors they will do what they want to do

DirkVoodoo

What about what I said after that, VRT is another way of penalising the pollution produced, wouldn't work on bikes. Much like you would (hopefully) get a VRT reduction on electric cars (like that Honda that was on top gear).

Like I said, you can't tax bikes just because they are a form of transport. In the end they are "sporting goods" as much as they are forms of transport. Then you would have to tax skateboards, roller blades. I know you might reply with the cycle lane argument, but as has been pointed out cycle lanes are generally not favoured due to their crapness and sure skateboards and roller blades have to use some form of government built tarmac anyway.

kenmc

P.C. wrote: »

No. Like VRT on cars.



I drive a car, that does not make me stupid.
I mean a tax over the existing taxes that you pay on most items that you buy, like VRT on cars. We could call it BRT.



Yes, I am aware of this. I am talking of an extra tax, not VAT.



Thank you for giving an opinion, peasant.

The rest just seem to bang on about VAT. I was sugesting an extra tax. If you want to disagree with me, feel free to do so, but don't say 'do you mean VAT?'
Come up with an idea.

You know I think you might be onto something - BRT. Wouldn't mind it too much if there was actually a centralized register, something that could be looked up to return stolen bikes to their owners. I'd happily pay your BRT, as I suspect many others would too, if it was, as you say, a Registration tax.

Alternatively, you could take a portion of my motor tax which I pay for the car I don't use very often, and call that BRT if you like. Otherwise I'll just get back into the car and cause longer delays for everybody. Your call.

seamus

Myth wrote: »

I cycle everyday and one of the things I fear is someone (another cyclist, I mean) coming crashing into me because they don't have brakes, or they expect me to go through a red light (!).

Indeed. I'm waiting for the day when I stop for a red light and some moron behind starts screaming at me to get out of the way. I did have a schoolkid run into the back of me once. Then he went around me and through the light :rolleyes:

P.C. wrote: »

Why do I have to worry about a bicycle going through a red light long after it has gone red?

Why? Because Irish society has decided that it's OK to cycle through lights and on the path and backwards down one-way streets, and although people sit in their cars and bang on about the "bloody bikes", as soon as any of them get on a bike themselves, they'll go and do exactly the same things they were bitching about the previous day.
I've lost count of the number of times I've told people that I cycle to work and they respond, "Ah yeah that's great, sure you can go through the lights and skip down the path and that".

The vast majority of Irish *people*, not just cyclists, seem believe that cyclists are permitted to ignore lights and cycle on the path, which only serves to increase resentment from drivers who have to watch them.

It's a cultural thing which we need to address, much like our conduct on the roads in general. We have this attitude that anything is OK so long as you don't get in anyone else's way. It's OK to do a u-turn across a traffic island - so long as you don't impede the other traffic. It's OK to pull randomly into the side of the road and stick your hazards on - so long as there's enough room for every to squeeze by.

We've had this problem for years and years and it's not just going to go away. All we can do is get all responsible road users - cyclists, cars, truckers, bikers, everyone, to rally together and actually make a point of pulling everyone else up when they do the wrong thing and encourage our idiot government to go do something.

P.C.

kenmc wrote: »

You know I think you might be onto something - BRT. Wouldn't mind it too much if there was actually a centralized register, something that could be looked up to return stolen bikes to their owners. I'd happily pay your BRT, as I suspect many others would too, if it was, as you say, a Registration tax.

Alternatively, you could take a portion of my motor tax which I pay for the car I don't use very often, and call that BRT if you like. Otherwise I'll just get back into the car and cause longer delays for everybody. Your call.

I like that idea of registering a bicycle. Would just have to find a way to stamp a 'reg' number onto the bike. Should not be too hard to do. This could be used to prove ownership. (and taxation if you want)

Years ago, I lived in a country where you had to tax your bicycle, and you were given a disk a bit bigger than a two euro coin that you had to 'bolt' onto the bike. The disk was a different colour each year, and had a number stamped on it. Unfortunately, these were very easy to steal. :mad:

lightening

I worked as a cycle courier for years. I am a keen motorist, so I have seen both sides of the "battle"

A lot of drivers are morons, their antics are the same ones that annoy other road users, not only cyclists, not indicating, not using their mirrors, overtaking badly... the usual stuff. They don't target cyclists, they affect everyone. They are simply bad drivers.

A lot of cyclists are morons. You should have seen the risks I took, but sometimes the worst are the guys in all the gear on expensive Italian racing bikes. Not using lights, not using cycle paths when there is a perfectly good one there for them, don't try and tell me they are not good enough, they are, I overtook you on them as you cycled smuggly in the middle of the road every day!! Cycling two abreast with traffic behind them, not looking around themselves... The list goes on. They are simply bad cyclists.

BoardsRanger

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I've got to be honest and ask why the decision should rest in your hands, why not in the hands of the cyclists in front that can see what's ahead better?

Dunno if the cyclists up Sally Gap (ooer!) were commuters, but their behaviour sounds a little out of order, and 3 abreast is extracting the urine a bit (though I apologise if it was me!)

Because the motorist is the one completing the action. he SHOULD make the appropriate decision when he can see everything and assess when to make the move. I certainly would never overtake a cyclist on a corner even if they were going single file.

With regards to the 3 idiot up the sally gap, to be fair, they were not regular cyclists. However on MANY occassions i have been stuck behind the bray cycle club members travelling 3 and 4 abreast on minor, straight roads!

kenmc wrote: »

Well surely if that's the case you'd be better off in the dark where you can see the lights of cars and cyclists coming around those blind corners than in the daytime?

Ok with respect to this comment, i have looked up the thread in question and you guys do seem to be equipped with some substantial lights. I am specifically talking about guys who dont have adequate lights, rather ones running off watch batterys! The particular incident that gave me the fright was a guy whos jacket was covering his single light and i came across him on the military road!!:eek:

P.C.

seamus wrote: »

Indeed. I'm waiting for the day when I stop for a red light and some moron behind starts screaming at me to get out of the way. I did have a schoolkid run into the back of me once. Then he went around me and through the light :rolleyes:

Why? Because Irish society has decided that it's OK to cycle through lights and on the path and backwards down one-way streets, and although people sit in their cars and bang on about the "bloody bikes", as soon as any of them get on a bike themselves, they'll go and do exactly the same things they were bitching about the previous day.
I've lost count of the number of times I've told people that I cycle to work and they respond, "Ah yeah that's great, sure you can go through the lights and skip down the path and that".

The vast majority of Irish *people*, not just cyclists, seem believe that cyclists are permitted to ignore lights and cycle on the path, which only serves to increase resentment from drivers who have to watch them.

It's a cultural thing which we need to address, much like our conduct on the roads in general. We have this attitude that anything is OK so long as you don't get in anyone else's way. It's OK to do a u-turn across a traffic island - so long as you don't impede the other traffic. It's OK to pull randomly into the side of the road and stick your hazards on - so long as there's enough room for every to squeeze by.

We've had this problem for years and years and it's not just going to go away. All we can do is get all responsible road users - cyclists, cars, truckers, bikers, everyone, to rally together and actually make a point of pulling everyone else up when they do the wrong thing and encourage our idiot government to go do something.

No dedicated, visiable traffic policing :eek:

I did not grow up in Ireland. Where I grew up, there was a police force, and there were traffic officers.

Traffic officers policed the traffic. They did not solve murders, or deal with drug gangs.
They drove clearly marked cars and motor bikes, and when you saw one, you made sure that you obeyed the traffic laws.

Please forgive the bad spelling.

kenmc

boardsranger wrote:

Ok with respect to this comment, i have looked up the thread in question and you guys do seem to be equipped with some substantial lights. I am specifically talking about guys who dont have adequate lights, rather ones running off watch batterys! The particular incident that gave me the fright was a guy whos jacket was covering his single light and i came across him on the military road!!

Yeah see, part of me thinks of guys like him as 'no loss to society' - if they don't have the brains to realize how dangerous they are, the really shouldn't be diluting the species. Unfortunately the poor driver is the one who's going to end up a nervous wreck and/or in jail if they maim/kill them.

Tau

BoardsRanger wrote: »

Because the motorist is the one completing the action. he SHOULD make the appropriate decision when he can see everything and assess when to make the move. I certainly would never overtake a cyclist on a corner even if they were going single file.

You're probably a good driver then. So its not really you who a cyclist would be worried about when they take the middle of the lane defensively.

On the other hand, if a cyclist takes the middle of the lane going around corners, its not going to inconvenience you in any way, because you wouldn't be overtaking them there anyway.

The only person who would be inconvenienced by a cyclist taking the middle of the lane when there isn't space to overtake is a BAD driver, and I have very little sympathy for them...

TinyExplosions

peasant wrote: »

There'll be tolls on footpaths next and the hapenny bridge will known as the Euro bridge

Does that mean Euro rules apply.... (sorry, in joke for the cycling members!)

TinyExplosions

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can I also mention that the boards cycling forum do regular "spins" together and going through red lights is frowned upon and something that would not make you a lot of friends on that forum. We don't all have a laugh by holding up cars. We go out, have a nice cycle, look out for each other's safety and try to let cars pass unimpeded (a common practice when there are many of us is for the person at the front, who has a better view of the road ahead, to wave cars on when it is safe to do so). I'm not saying we are all perfect, we all have our rants on here about commuting in cities.

Anyway, if any of ye see us, watch out for the jersey (in my sig!) we are all boardsies after all!

You're making us sound a bit camp there Dirk, you mean we go out and train hard and fast, and look great or something..

kenmc

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Does that mean Euro rules apply.... (sorry, in joke for the cycling members!)

you should read the whole thread before replying from half way down
...&...

TinyExplosions

BoardsRanger wrote: »

Because the motorist is the one completing the action. he SHOULD make the appropriate decision when he can see everything and assess when to make the move. I certainly would never overtake a cyclist on a corner even if they were going single file.

With regards to the 3 idiot up the sally gap, to be fair, they were not regular cyclists. However on MANY occassions i have been stuck behind the bray cycle club members travelling 3 and 4 abreast on minor, straight roads!

You seem like one of the drivers we can co-exist with, if only there were more of you!

BoardsRanger wrote: »

Ok with respect to this comment, i have looked up the thread in question and you guys do seem to be equipped with some substantial lights. I am specifically talking about guys who dont have adequate lights, rather ones running off watch batterys! The particular incident that gave me the fright was a guy whos jacket was covering his single light and i came across him on the military road!!:eek:

Been said above, but he's an idiot, we are well equipped (too well in some peoples eyes!)

TinyExplosions

kenmc wrote: »

you should read the whole thread before replying from half way down
...&...

Yeah yeah yeah... fine!