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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Musings from a cyclist...

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Most considerate cyclists will go to single file when it is safe if they notice a build up of traffic behind them, but mostly we ride side by side in order to make it harder to be overtaken on twisty, windy roads where it would be a dangerous to overtake.

    No, most cyclists abiding by the rules of the road should know that you're never allowed cycle two a breast. I'm not a cyclist but for god sake, my mam told me that when I was about 6 years old and yet I know this and you don't (or choose to ignore)?

    Who are you to dictate peoples progression on the road because you feel that it's unsafe for me to pass you out?
    It's obviously safer for the car but this is one of the reasons most people choose to drive a car and not cycle a bike.. because they're safer. That's what you, personally, have to live with because you've chosen to cycle your bike and we've chosen to drive.

    EDIT: BoardsRanger hit this on the head on Page 3, my bad!

    So I don't see why you would think you should be allowed to make it difficult AND dangerous for a car to overtake you while specifically disobeying the rules of the road because it makes you feel 'unsafe' when cars go by you. Note: ROTR indicate you should be cycliing on the left side of your lane, leaving room for overtaking etc.
    And lets not talk about the other 99% of cyclists who just cycle two a breast to have a natter with their spandex clad buddy.

    craichoe wrote: »
    Exactly the type of attitude that gets cyclists killed, you should treat a cyclist just like a motorbike or a car and overtake when it is safe to do so not because a cyclist can move in a bit and arra shure you might fit.

    Sooo... by the cyclist ignoring the rules of the road and going out of his way to make it dangerous for the car to overtake, we avoid this? Is this general cyclist logic? The car shouldn't overtake when it's not safe, but the cyclist should not specifically make it unsafe by ignoring the rules we all should abide by.

    There are speed limits on roads for a reason. If the road is designed for traffic to be eligible to overtake (ie. dotted white line) and the cyclist is slowing down traffic by not adhering to the speed limit then the cyclist should not try and deter the car from overtaking. The cyclist should speed up, get a motorbike/car or get off the roads.

    I agree with most of everything else you said bar the bit I quoted, TinyExplosions. But I couldn't help but reply to that because (other than it being a pet hate of mine) you posted with good intentions on how we can all live happily together if we all just 'get along' but that quote is just the opposite.

    I don't have any problems with cyclists and I know that if you were to aim at us all the grievances you've had with motorists then we'd be here all day, but seeing as you specifically hold these opinions I had to post. :)


  • Options
    #93
    JackFrosty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 191 ✭✭JackFrosty


    Has anyone been to london lately?

    The police there have cops on cycles equiped with blue light and siren, whose job is to target cyclists who run red lights etc!

    I saw a program on telly recently but cant remeber what program it was,
    Did anyone else see it?

    London also has serious traffic police to deal with the motorist!

    We have the traffic core here to keep us motorists in line! (havent met one wid a sense of humour yet)

    Will we ever see a guard on a cycle policing other cyclists!
    I know we have guards on cycles but they just seem to cycle round keeping fit!


  • Options
    #94
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    P.C. wrote: »
    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.

    Here's an idea. No extra tax.

    In fact travelling by bicycle should be encouraged by lowering VAT on bikes. There are a lot less externalities on bike usage vs car usage.

    EDIT Before someone asks, here is the European Environment Agency's report on the externalities of transport.


  • Options
    #95
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    Vertakill wrote: »
    No, most cyclists abiding by the rules of the road should know that you're never allowed cycle two a breast. I'm not a cyclist but for god sake, my mam told me that when I was about 6 years old and yet I know this and you don't (or choose to ignore)?
    Go look up the law. Cyclists are normally allowed to cycle 2 abreast and 3 abreast when a pair of cyclists is overtaking a single cyclist. Your mum is wrong and because of that, so are you.
    Vertakill wrote: »
    Who are you to dictate peoples progression on the road because you feel that it's unsafe for me to pass you out?
    I am the one who is going to get squeezed into the ditch, or worse, when you discover half way through the manouver that there's a tractor pulling out of a gate, or a horse being ridden down the road or an oncoming car or a child playing by the tree. Thats who. It's called looking out for number 1. Just pretend that the cyclist is a tractor when you're going to overtake him/her. Then decide if it was a tractor would you still make the same manouver. If the answer is no, then don't do it for cyclists either. The same Road Traffic Act states that
    A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
    Vertakill wrote: »
    It's obviously safer for the car but this is one of the reasons most people choose to drive a car and not cycle a bike.. because they're safer. That's what you, personally, have to live with because you've chosen to cycle your bike and we've chosen to drive.
    Really? Care to give statistics on cyclist deaths vs motorist deaths recently please? Thanks.
    It's people like you that cyclists are REALLY afraid of.


  • Options
    #96
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Note: ROTR indicate you should be cycliing on the left side of your lane, leaving room for overtaking etc.
    This is true, but let motorists practice what they preach:

    The rules of the road prohibit parking where it interferes with the normal flow of traffic or poses a hazard. Parked cars interfere with the normal flow of cycling and increase risk as they force cyclists out into the path of following cars.

    Also: driving cars two-abreast (not overtaking) on single carriageway roads is not permitted at any time. Only cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast on single carriageways and then only when not overtaking parked cars.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    cabrwab
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭cabrwab


    Is it just me or has this thread really not moved beyond the whole we're better then you (from both sides! :D)

    Cyclists shouldn't be taxed any extra, but then again why should the motorist be the whipping boy because we have a public service who couldn't manage a sweet shop.
    Couldn't organise public transport system, but could spend €40million on a website, couldn't sort out a proper track for people who want to cycle, i can only think of 1 proper cycle road in dublin.

    People need to get to work, sometimes public transport is not the option, tried to get the 44 bus from stepaside, runs when it suits! So the car is nearly the only other option get to the otherside of the city (on time!!)

    I have see a turn to the public transport lately, more people waiting at bus stops.
    Cyclists deaths happen sometimes because the cyclists hasn't paid attention while a truck who is indicating left has ran them over while they make the turn because they can't be seen as they try fly down the inside.

    Yeah cyclists should be scared of drivers, they should act on the side of caution because as ive said already a car will have more blind spots then a bike, and in one second they could be completly lost to the driver and we have an accident and then its the motorist who has to live with the guilt of what they have done there insurance will be hit, they may end up in prison or have a criminal record. Because somebody thought it would be good to ignore/indicate. (car crashes happen the same way PEOPLE not paying full attention)

    I have seen a child getting "mowed" down by a cyclist once and neither came off well but once again the cyclist who had the extra momentum was flung through the air with his bike and then skidded alone the ground.

    We need to work together not argue with each other who should pay tax who doesn't iam greener then you bull. The roads need to be made safer, and to do this is heavy traffic, all road users need to work together, stop blaming one another.

    Traffic lights are there for everyone to obey, not when it suits are you think its a good idea, this goes to both motorists and cyclists, and proper inforcement is needed.


    Won't somebody think of the children!!


  • Options
    #98
    kenmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,276 ✭✭✭kenmc


    cabrwab wrote: »
    People need to get to work, sometimes public transport is not the option, tried to get the 44 bus from stepaside, runs when it suits! So the car is nearly the only other option get to the otherside of the city (on time!!)
    I'd be very surprised if you were not faster by bike than car if you're commuting at 'normal' work times. I'm not trying to be smart or snyde - it's a serious suggestion.
    I had colleagues who cycled from Lucan,Blanch and Castleknock to Leopardstown, and on the odd occasion when they needed to take the car they were ALWAYS longer. And the bike is consistent timewise too - it always takes me 16-17 mins dundrum to city centre and 20-21 back. AND I stop at red lights. ALL of them.


  • Options
    #99
    cabrwab
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭cabrwab


    Probably yeah, but im not that brave!
    But most of the time i need a van, so bike is most def out of the question!
    I smell bad enough already so mixing the bike in there, spells disaster! :D


  • Options
    #100
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    Vertakill wrote: »
    No, most cyclists abiding by the rules of the road should know that you're never allowed cycle two a breast. I'm not a cyclist but for god sake, my mam told me that when I was about 6 years old and yet I know this and you don't (or choose to ignore)?

    Kenmc nailed this one, but I'll copy the relevant bit from the statute book:
    1. A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.
    2. Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic

    Now, to me that seems that we are perfectly entitled to cycle two abreast at any time, other than over taking traffic. So you see, I do know the rules of the road.

    Vertakill wrote: »
    Who are you to dictate peoples progression on the road because you feel that it's unsafe for me to pass you out?

    Um, this is something I just can't get my head around. As stated before, what give you the right as a motorist to dictate my progression? Maybe I've not explained myself clearly, but I come at it from the point of view that on narrow twisty roads, if I'm in front of a car on my bike, I can see the road ahead and see if it's clear. Personally, if the road is clear, I'll pull in to the left and indicate for a car to overtake. If I can see that it's not clear, or can't see (blind corners etc), I'm more likely to take a primary position on the road to stop a potentially dangerous overtaking maneuver from the car
    Vertakill wrote: »
    There are speed limits on roads for a reason. If the road is designed for traffic to be eligible to overtake (ie. dotted white line) and the cyclist is slowing down traffic by not adhering to the speed limit then the cyclist should not try and deter the car from overtaking. The cyclist should speed up, get a motorbike/car or get off the roads.

    In that case, when we're going downhill (lets say on Stocking Lane for example), there is a dotted white line for most of the descent. Also, for a large proportion of that road I am going faster than motor traffic. By your logic, people in cars should pull over and allow me to overtake, or "The motorist should speed up, get a motorbike/bike or get off the roads." to use your words (ish).

    I know it's a specific example, but I think it's valid...
    Vertakill wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with cyclists and I know that if you were to aim at us all the grievances you've had with motorists then we'd be here all day, but seeing as you specifically hold these opinions I had to post. :)

    And I'm glad to see a decent debate ensuing because of this thread!


  • Options
    #101
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    the cyclist is slowing down traffic by not adhering to the speed limit

    You adhere to a speed limit by not exceeding it, cyclists almost always do this and fair play if they can manage to exceed it! There seems to be a view among some that speed limits are some sort of recommended speed for a road, when they are not. Which is not to say that slower traffic should not have the good manners to use the road in a way which does not unduly delay other traffic, whatever their legal "rights".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Karma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭Karma


    think we all need to go find the pedestrian fourm...
    anyone give me a lift :)


  • Options
    #103
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Unlike some of the other cyclists, my experience is that more cyclists break lights than motorists. It's pretty frustrating as a law abiding cyclist, since I'm convinced that its one of the factors behind some of the road rage incidents I've been on the receiving end of. Resentment just builds up and then its taken out on some poor unfortunate who may not have been doing anything wrong at all.
    galwaytt wrote: »
    ..can someone please explain the complete disregard by cyclists, for their own personal safety, by not having lights ? Are they so completely isolated from reality, that they think that just by having lights on motor vehicles, that cyclists are somehow transformed into luminous beings, obvious to all ? (fwiw, pedestrians are even worse....).

    It has me baffled too. The only explanation I can think of is that these people honestly have no idea how invisbile they are without lights. There also appears to be a constituency of cyclists that think just because they have a high-viz vest they don't need lights. They're bright colours, that's all. They don't make you glow in the dark.


  • Options
    #104
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Karma wrote: »
    think we all need to go find the pedestrian fourm...
    anyone give me a lift :)


    Crossbar do ya ? :D

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



Advertisement