Breaking the rules!

osnola ibax

Hi guys, I've been reading through the threads here on the cycling forum and I believe the majority of cyclists here abhor disobeying the rules of the road. But, is all rule breaking out, or are there some little white rule breaking that is permissable, that fellow cyclists might turn a blind eye to.

For example the fastest possible route to my workplace requires me to to, wait for it, cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Is this a major no no. It will require me to hop on to footpaths on occassion, but only for a fleeting moment, you wouldn't even notice.

I also need to employ similar tactics on the return leg after work albeit on a much shorter street.

Finally, the last stretch home is .5 mile uphill on a narrow road. The footpath does not see heavy pedestrian usage, and using it is a lot safer than staying on the narrow road. I believe a minority of motorists are not too considerate to the cycling fraternity (early assertion based on little cycling experience).

Basically what I'm asking is, are some of these things ok, provided it doesn't interfere too much with other road / path users, despite being against the law. Are some of you more experienced guys partial to a bit of rule breaking where it may make life more convenient and common sense is applied?

DualFrontDiscs

No to rule breaking. As cyclists we have rights on the road. We also have responsibilities. To my mind, abusing the responsibilities, denigrates the rights.

Just the other day I saw a person on a bike (POB) feux a motorist out of it for edging out a T-Junction as the POB bombed along the inside. The POB then cruised through a red light on left. Grrhhhhhh.

If the one way street is faster, then walk it. It's a luxury we have.

DFD.

DePurpereWolf

Are you from Cork?

Anyway, I've had a discussion with some of my co-workers about going the other way on a one way street and I was absolutely against it, totally, just drive around the block, I say.

Until I went home and found out that I also use a one-way street the wrong way.
I do this because I think it is less dangerous, I think we cyclists base or decisions mostly on common sense rather than following some bureaucrat cityplanner.

DualFrontDiscs

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think we cyclists base or decisions mostly on common sense rather than following some bureaucrat cityplanner.

We're not different to traffic, we are traffic! As soon as all parties wake up to that, the better it will be for all of us.

DFD.

DePurpereWolf

I will ride absolutely by the rules if they make sense and not endanger me.

Cityplanners do not understand that there are three species, car, bike, pedestrian. For them we are still the basterd child they would rather forget about.

The one-way I drive over is large enough for any vehicle so no-one even has to go out of the way. The other option is to wait to go right on a dual-carriage way. I'd rather break a rule than break my neck.

TirNaNog.

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

We're not different to traffic, we are traffic! As soon as all parties wake up to that, the better it will be for all of us.

DFD.

as soon as gobs**tes in cars stop blocking cycle lanes then I will obey rules of the road on my bike,When I drive my car I obey them,when on my bike,I break every rule in the book I cycle through red lights when safe to do so,I cycle on footpaths when I dont feel like risking my life on narrow roads,and the only hand signs I give is the finger to asshole taxi drivers and other irritating motorists.

Captain Havoc

I remember one time I was on my up to meet for a club spin on beginners night. I was decked out in all the gear. I was stopped in traffic then this POB on a BSO behind me get up on the path and starts shouting excuse me at peds, a few were looking at me like I should intervene in some way or maybe they thought I looked like the type that would barge through or possibly "one of you cyclists just barged through, ye're all the same". Any road, I got up to the meeting point and there she was. I didn't say anything but thank heavens for small miracles I haven't seen her since.
Moral of the story, if you flick over to R&R you'll see plenty about cyclists being like Hitler or worse and it's cycling like this that makes people angry. Poor cycling reflects negatively on the rest of us because some people don't differentiate between cyclists, they just typecast. I'm not saying I've never broken the law on my bike, I have but I always have consideration for fellow road users.

DualFrontDiscs

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I will ride absolutely by the rules if they make sense and not endanger me.

Cityplanners do not understand that there are three species, car, bike, pedestrian. For them we are still the basterd child they would rather forget about.

The one-way I drive over is large enough for any vehicle so no-one even has to go out of the way. The other option is to wait to go right on a dual-carriage way. I'd rather break a rule than break my neck.

Then walk it. Cycling the wrong way on a one way street is wrong, simple as. Lobby for a contra cycle path if you like. I'm sure the one way system is a pain for mopeds, motorbikes, electric cars, small cars, not too-wide cars, etc. Feux it, if it's late at night, why not let articulated trucks make the run too?

DFD.

I always start my posts here by saying that I cycle a cheap ass mountain bike, and I'm not exactly the most serious cyclist int the world (I use the bike because it gets me places faster, and every now and then, just to go out on for a cycle to pass some time).


I'm in Drogheda, where cycle lanes are non-existant, so I'd say i easily spend 90% of my cycling time on paths. The only time I'm ever on the road is if the road is empty or someone's on the path, in which case I usually hop back up onto the path again as soon as i get the opportunity.


Much like DePurpereWolf above, I rely heavily on common sense when I'm on a bike. I often cycle down wrong way streets (again, usually on path when possible). I'm well aware that if I'm involved in a collision with any vehicle, I'm going to be the one hurt most, so I definitely do prioritise common sense as I don't want to end up under a car or van.

In saying that though, the situations i'd encounter daily would be significantly different to people in majorly busy places (Dublin). I imagine if I were in Dublin I'd stick solely to the roads, as the paths there are just too jammed with people. In Drogheda more often than not the paths are practically empty or only have one or two people on them, so I can move about without any issue at all really.

DualFrontDiscs

Deleted User wrote: »

<snip>I use the bike because it gets me places faster, </snip>so I'd say i easily spend 90% of my cycling time on paths.

You'd be even faster on a moped. Would that be acceptable to you?

DFD.

Chips Lovell

I cycle around 7,000km a year and I've never once encountered a situation where I found it safer to cycle on the footpath or down the wrong way of a one way street or break a red light. I've never been in an accident either. However I've been involved in multiple road rage incidents in which motorists have verbally abused me, swerved at me and in one case almost hit me with a car. The majority of cyclists (in Dublin at least) pay no heed to the rules of the road and I'm quite convinced that their behaviour contributes in part to motorists now and then losing the plot.

Bottom line, if you want to be treated with respect, then start respecting the law.

monument

el tonto wrote: »

... The majority of cyclists (in Dublin at least) pay no heed to the rules of the road and I'm quite convinced that their behaviour contributes in part to motorists now and then losing the plot.

Bottom line, if you want to be treated with respect, then start respecting the law.

Like cycling in cycle tracks? Right?

ED E

If its safer to break the law than obey I'll break it straight away. (I'll pop onto the path to avoid HGVs, Boy racers and drivers that appear to be drunk). Its often safer to use an empty path than merge with fast traffic from standing. That said, if I meet anyone on the path, I give the a wide birth/stop.

Saw a woman today in the center of town today. Red light, goes straight through and pulls up in the middle of the junction in front of the island on the opposite side, waits for the left filtering traffic to stop, then moves off behind them, again through a red. Its this kind of idiot that gives us a bad name.

DualFrontDiscs

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

You'd be even faster on a moped. Would that be acceptable to you?

DFD.

A moped wouldn't aid in exercise, I'd have to stop at red lights/in traffic, etc. and it'd cost a hell of a lot more money than a mountain bike.



Or are you saying that because I cycle on paths, then if i had a moped I'd ride it on paths too? Because that's ridiculous logic altogether.

DualFrontDiscs

Deleted User wrote: »

Or are you saying that because I cycle on paths, then if i had a moped I'd ride it on paths too? Because that's ridiculous logic altogether.

Cyclists are part of traffic, not distinct from it. Suggesting that being 'lean and green' recuses you from the rules of the road is the ridiculous bit.

DFD.

DePurpereWolf

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Then walk it. Cycling the wrong way on a one way street is wrong, simple as. Lobby for a contra cycle path if you like. I'm sure the one way system is a pain for mopeds, motorbikes, electric cars, small cars, not too-wide cars, etc. Feux it, if it's late at night, why not let articulated trucks make the run too?

DFD.

You do that, and I do it my way. If it really bothers you, you can call the police on me.

The one-way I go over is broad and quiet, I'm not a bother to anyone (except you apparently).
The one-way my colleague was driving on is very tight and busy. She would need to go on the already small footpath to dodge the cars, this creates dangerous circumstances.

The rules of the road are second to common sense. I see enough roads in rural areas that have 100 km/h speed limits but are hazardous when going at it at 60.

gzoladz

I stick to the traffic rules, with two exceptions:

1. When following the rules puts me in danger (i.e. due to poor planning of the bicycle lanes).

2. The pedestrian bridge that links the south and north of the city, opposite chq. The reason for this is that pedestrians walk on the bicycle path all the time in that area. Hence, the bridge and the path become exactly the same thing.

bcmf

I got a telling off from a member of An Garda Siochana a little while back for stopping at the lights but stopping too far forward.I had stopped just beyond the white line at Sutton cross.
I was, I have to admit, a bit astounded.
I offered to move back but he said it was ok.

Lumen

If you have an accident going the wrong way up a one way street, good luck convincing anyone it wasn't your fault.

Where there are peds around it tends to be dangerous because people don't look both ways. I see near misses on Baggot St all the time. It makes me quite cross, lazy feckers.

cyclopath2001

bcmf wrote: »

I got a telling off from a member of An Garda Siochana a little while back for stopping at the lights but stopping too far forward.I had stopped just beyond the white line at Sutton cross.I was, I have to admit, a bit astounded.

Unless there's an advance stop line for cyclists, he was correct to the letter of the law. But, since most traffic lights react only to cars/trucks in the space just before the stop line (and don't 'see' cyclists), it makes sense to be forward of the stop line so that the cars can occupy that detection zone and activate the signal change so everyone gets away a bit quicker.

DualFrontDiscs

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

You do that, and I do it my way. If it really bothers you, you can call the police on me.

Apologies for the delay posting, I've been away. Not that I'd be *rsed, but I imagine 'the police' wouldn't be too bothered. The fact is, they don't really consider you to be a legitimate road user, more of a nuisance. In fact, the way you act (one way, wrong way) does nothing but re-enforce that belief.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The one-way I go over is broad and quiet, I'm not a bother to anyone (except you apparently).

I've lost significant sleep over this . If it's so broad and quiet, would it be okay for a moped, motorbike......etc. You see where I am going, I've made this point before. You're either a road user, or you're not. If you are a road user, you have rights and you have obligations. Etc. However empowered you feel as a cyclist, you're not special.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The one-way my colleague was driving on is very tight and busy. She would need to go on the already small footpath to dodge the cars, this creates dangerous circumstances.

If it's not safe to cycle, it's not safe to cycle, fair enough. Suggesting that it makes sense to ride on the footpath or ride the wrong way down one way streets, is bogus.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The rules of the road are second to common sense. I see enough roads in rural areas that have 100 km/h speed limits but are hazardous when going at it at 60.

It's a limit, not a target.

DFD.

doctor evil

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The rules of the road are second to common sense.

You are over estimating people's common sense!

doctor evil

jerseyeire wrote: »

there she was. I didn't say anything but thank heavens for small miracles I haven't seen her since.

You are a lot nicer than I am!

quietobserver

people just need to mind their own business!! thats where this world has gone wrong

petethedrummer

quietobserver wrote: »

people just need to mind their own business!! thats where this world has gone wrong

Don't tell me to mind my own business.

quietobserver

society pete society

DePurpereWolf

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Apologies for the delay posting, I've been away. Not that I'd be *rsed, but I imagine 'the police' wouldn't be too bothered. The fact is, they don't really consider you to be a legitimate road user, more of a nuisance. In fact, the way you act (one way, wrong way) does nothing but re-enforce that belief.

I've lost significant sleep over this . If it's so broad and quiet, would it be okay for a moped, motorbike......

Yes, it would, if they drive 15 kmh and do not obstruct or endanger the cars coming the other side.
Do you know what the purpose of a one-way street is? It's only to get a smoother flow of 'car' traffic. It does nothing for the safety of a cyclist.

etc. You see where I am going, I've made this point before. You're either a road user, or you're not. If you are a road user, you have rights and you have obligations. Etc. However empowered you feel as a cyclist, you're not special.

Yes we are, we are very very vulnerable as a cyclist compared to a car. Different rules apply to cyclists. Saying that a car is equal to a cyclist is just stupid. A car weighs 1500kg and can go 150km/h. A cycle ways 10kg and can go 40. A car has an outer hard shell, a cycle does not.

Traffic is not only cars. Traffic has different levels. If a city does not provide adequate roads for the cyclists, they will have to make there own.

Chips Lovell

EDIT: Nevermind.

DePurpereWolf

doctor evil wrote: »

You are over estimating people's common sense!

It doesn't even have to be common sense.
Cyclists don't drive into cars due to evolutionary reasons.
The ones that do drive into cars didn't get a chance to mate, so the offspring of cyclists not driving into cars had an evolutionary advantage.

eightyfish

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Cyclists don't drive into cars due to evolutionary reasons. The ones that do drive into cars didn't get a chance to mate, so the offspring of cyclists not driving into cars had an evolutionary advantage.

No, it's jsut that the cyclists who avoid crashing into cars were more intelligently designed!

daymobrew

TirNaNog. wrote: »

the only hand signs I give is the finger to asshole taxi drivers and other irritating motorists.

Report bad driving to TrafficWatch. Giving the finger only provokes and continues the behaviour.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

The one-way I go over is broad and quiet, I'm not a bother to anyone (except you apparently).

Unfortunately it bothers pedestrians and motorists too and they will be less tolerant of cyclists when they interact with them.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Different rules apply to cyclists.

Only in limited circumstances. In most case the same "rules" (laws) apply to both cars and cyclists.

NewDubliner

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

If a city does not provide adequate roads for the cyclists, they will have to make there own.

It does, the problem is that motorists use more than their fair share of the limited space that's available..

daymobrew

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

If a city does not provide adequate roads for the cyclists, they will have to make there [sic] own.

I've been cycling for 30 years.

I don't need cycling facilities, though they are nice to have (when implemented correctly), instead you need to adjust your road position for your safety. Adjusting your road position includes moving out from the kerb, moving toward the kerb, stopping and moving off the road - it all depends on the situation.

The authorities are not going to protect you/us from dangerous driving - only you can do so.

BTW, feel free to get your tarmac making machine to make your own facilities.

tomasrojo

I'm on the side of not breaking the rules, but there are four exceptions I can think of:

1) Red lights that won't change because they are triggered by cars passing over induction loops and there are no cars waiting. These should be treated as a Stop sign by cyclists, I think.

2) The tram bridge at Heuston station in Dublin. I can't see the problem with cyclists using this, so long as they cross the tracks at 90 degrees and get out of the way when trams are approaching.

3) Same with the tiny bit of exclusive tramway on the bottom of Steeven's hill, same area of Dublin. I don't see the point of walking the 100m to get to the bit that is a joint cycleway/road. The only reason the stretch is marked "Trams Only" is to prevent cars from using the hill as a short cut and blocking it up, I think.

4) Cycle lanes. I'm not placing myself on the left side of left-turning traffic when I want to go straight ahead.