Cyclist going wrong way down a one way street

colm_c

On saturday morning, as I turned the corner onto a one way street just beside my house, a cyclist came around the corner going the opposite way, I had to take some evasive action (swerved and stopped) to avoid flattening the cyclist coming the wrong way down this fairly narrow one way street, cars parked on both sides.

I gave her a beep as she went bye and she didn't even look. :mad:

Thankfully I didn't hit her or anything else, but just a theory question here, what would be situation here if I did, or indeed if my swerving to not hitting her resulted in me crashing/clipping my car and/or other cars nearby?

Padraig Mor

Don't you know cyclists own the road? I hope she reported you for the Gardai for nearly knocking her down on her road. No doubt you were doing an irresponsible 31 km/h too!

Cabaal

For every cyclist I see doing something wrong or stupid I see as few 100 motorists doing something extremely dangerous or illegal

Sadly the 1 tonne+ peice of metal the motorist is in control of is far more dangerous to people

Max Headroom

Sadly its that time of year again..saw herds of them out yesterday in their funny tight lycra gear, some of them clearly dont look in the mirror before they go out and proof also that cycling DOES'NT help to lose weight...:eek:.....What gets my goat about these "serious cyclists" is they never use the cycle lanes provided, choosing to cycle abreast and hold up the traffic...

Hagar

colm_c wrote: »

I had to take some evasive action (

You didn't have to...

John_Mc

Cabaal wrote: »

For every cyclist I see doing something wrong or stupid I see as few 100 motorists doing something extremely dangerous or illegal

Sadly the 1 tonne+ peice of metal the motorist is in control of is far more dangerous to people

Is that some attempt at a joke or something?

It's rare to see a cyclist pay any attention to the rules of the road. Obeying traffic lights? Forget it :rolleyes:

Max Headroom

Max Headroom wrote: »

Sadly its that time of year again..saw herds of them out yesterday in their funny tight lycra gear, some of them clearly dont look in the mirror before they go out and proof also that cycling DOES'NT help to lose weight...:eek:.....What gets my goat about these "serious cyclists" is they never use the cycle lanes provided, choosing to cycle abreast and hold up the traffic...

Most cycle lanes are very poorly designed and maintained, and especially over the last few weeks of gritting all the crap gets put onto the side of the road. The requirement for cyclists to use the cycle lanes provided is also due to be repealed by the Minister for Transport sometime soon.

Cycling abreast is perfectly legal, although anyone I know who goes cycling is usually considerate and pulls in to allow people to go by (if it is safe to do so). The point about small country roads, going two abreast and it being unsafe to overtake has been argued on this forum and other forums repeatedly so there's no point to rehash the arguments.

What's needed, as ever, is for everyone just to be considerate on the roads since they're shared between so many types of transport.

As for the point about 'bike salmon' as mentioned in the first post, they really get my goat too, especially since (in Dublin anyways) they go along the cycle lane heading straight for you. There are some cycle lanes along one way streets that I think are contra-flow but they're few and far between.

AugustusMinimus

Dónal wrote: »

Most cycle lanes are very poorly designed and maintained, and especially over the last few weeks of gritting all the crap gets put onto the side of the road. The requirement for cyclists to use the cycle lanes provided is also due to be repealed by the Minister for Transport sometime soon.

Cycling abreast is perfectly legal, although anyone I know who goes cycling is usually considerate and pulls in to allow people to go by (if it is safe to do so). The point about small country roads, going two abreast and it being unsafe to overtake has been argued on this forum and other forums repeatedly so there's no point to rehash the arguments.

I witness two cyclists, cycling abrest holding up about 50 cars on the Carrigrohane Straight in Cork a few weeks ago. Worse than that, they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

markpb

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Worse than that, they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

So they should break the law?

AugustusMinimus

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I witness two cyclists, cycling abrest holding up about 50 cars on the Carrigrohane Straight in Cork a few weeks ago. Worse than that, they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

Except that cycling on a footpad is illegal. Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal, however, as mentioned before often times I've been out cycling (and I've cycled a good bit around the country at this stage) people go single file IF it is safe to do so.

I've been held up numerous times by cars driving too slow in Dublin or being stopped in traffic blocking the way. My point before - everyone needs to be considerate.

AugustusMinimus

markpb wrote: »

So they should break the law?

Well, they should have cycled in single format.

The path is the problem of Cork Co Co. That path should be divided in half, with half being a cycle lane. As it is, the cycle lane only extends for half the straight.

Cabaal

John_Mc wrote: »

Is that some attempt at a joke or something?

It's rare to see a cyclist pay any attention to the rules of the road. Obeying traffic lights? Forget it :rolleyes:

Nope not trying to be funny, its experience,

Your generalising by saying its rare, I can do the very same by saying its rare to see a motorist use their indicators, obey the speed limit and not overtake in a dangerous way.

See it every day on my way to work...and I'm driving

Cabaal

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I witness two cyclists, cycling abrest holding up about 50 cars on the Carrigrohane Straight in Cork a few weeks ago. Worse than that, they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

- Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal
- Cycling on the footpath is illegal

The only thing the cyclist could have done is changed to single file to allow traffic to pass.

Doesnt' matter if nobody was on the footpath had the cyclist been on it a Gardai could have stopped them for what they were doing.

You can't complain about cyclists breaking red lights and then at the same time suggest they break the law...makes no sense

Jip

FFS, from now on when I see a motorist do something against the rules of the road I'm going to start a thread about it. You won't see any other topics on page 1 of the motors forum and it will be so bad that I'll probably be banned for spamming.

Unfortunately threads like this bring out the uneducated trolls big time, as evident by the first lot of posts already with their sweeping generalisations and ill informed opinions such as

It's rare to see a cyclist pay any attention to the rules of the road. Obeying traffic lights? Forget it

and

What gets my goat about these "serious cyclists" is they never use the cycle lanes provided, choosing to cycle abreast and hold up the traffic...

and

Worse than that, they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic that I have to share the roads, both as a motorist and cyclist, with the people quoted above.

John_Mc

Cabaal wrote: »

Nope not trying to be funny, its experience,

Your generalising by saying its rare, I can do the very same by saying its rare to see a motorist use their indicators, obey the speed limit and not overtake in a dangerous way.

See it every day on my way to work...and I'm driving

I wont try to defend motorists, it would be a waste of time because I'm the first to admit that there are some truly terrible drivers out there.

That being said, traffic lights should never be broken. Especially when you're on a bike and the only safety equipment you have is a helmet.

I am generalising, but just watch out for cyclists next time you're at a junction. 90% of the time they completely ignore them. Its extremely frustrating because if I were to hit you, it wouldnt matter if you were in the wrong - I'd have to deal with the experience for the rest of my life

Max Headroom

I think its down to motorists that theres not more cyclist fatalities....i've lost count of the number of times i could have killed/injured a cyclist...:rolleyes:

BrianD3

I got into a shouting match with a cyclist one day in similar scenario as that in the original post - turned into a one way street and nearly collided with a cyclist travelling the wrong way down it. Cyclist didn't seem to think he did anything wrong and starts roaring at me for "not looking where I'm ****ing going"

AugustusMinimus

Cabaal wrote: »

- Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal
- Cycling on the footpath is illegal

The only thing the cyclist could have done is changed to single file to allow traffic to pass.

Doesnt' matter if nobody was on the footpath had the cyclist been on it a Gardai could have stopped them for what they were doing.

You can't complain about cyclists breaking red lights and then at the same time suggest they break the law...makes no sense

Never said they should have used the path. Cork Co Co should divide it up for a cycle lane though.

Max Headroom

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Never said they should have used the path. Cork Co Co should divide it up for a cycle lane though.

Waste of money..they wont use it....:p

Jip

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

they could easily have been using a path beside them considering there wasn't a pedestrian to be seen for miles.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Never said they should have used the path. Cork Co Co should divide it up for a cycle lane though.

Yes you did. If you had meant the there should have been a cycle lane in place you would have said that but you were wrong in your initial assumption and got caught out.

Max Headroom

Jip wrote: »

Yes you did. If you had meant the there should have been a cycle lane in place you would have said that but you were wrong in your initial assumption and got caught out.

YEAH so there...ya big fibber....Hey Jip..take a chill pill...:P

Cabaal

John_Mc wrote: »

I am generalising, but just watch out for cyclists next time you're at a junction. 90% of the time they completely ignore them

I wouldn't say that, I used to cycle to work for about 5 years.
During that time you'd certainly meet some idiots who would cycle through red lights and almost get hit in the process. (but not all of them)

These same idiots would often cycle very slowly weaving about and I'd have to overtake them, then I'd stop at the red lights and the idiots would overtake me and I'd have to overtake them again....

Repeat.... :rolleyes:

pete4130

As both a cyclist and a driver I can see how it is easy to single out cyclists on the roads.

I feel that someone who doesn't cycle in the city on a regular basis can come close to understanding what it is like to be a cyclist on the roads which is obvious by statements about riding 2 a breast, the ignorance of the poor state of the cycle lanes, promoting cycling on footpaths. I won't even get into cycle lanes ON footpaths as most pedestrians decide to walk in these anyway. If I wasn't a driver also I wouldn't be able to see both sides of the argument.

I'm also confident that for every driver giving out about cyclists breaking lights, on footpaths etc.. would do the exact same, whether it be right or wrong. If you were to sit at a traffic light with no traffic on a bike for 1-2 mins I would be surprised. I'd also be surprised if you did the same as a pedestrian and seeing as jaywalking is an offense in this country I don't see any disparity between cyclists breaking lights and pedestrians not waiting for the green man.

Someone mentioned the amount of times they had to avoid cyclists. I'm also very confident that you have to slow down and/or avoid pedestrians nipping across the road at traffic lights/junctions more often than you have to avoid a cyclist.

In Dublin, I think the last few deaths of cyclists on the road over the past few years have been due to inexperienced cyclists on the inside of large vehicles turning left and being crushed (Harolds Cross bridge at the canal in Dublin is the last one I remember hearing about).

Mr. Presentable

Dónal wrote: »

Except that cycling on a footpad is illegal. Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal, however, as mentioned before often times I've been out cycling (and I've cycled a good bit around the country at this stage) people go single file IF it is safe to do so.

I've been held up numerous times by cars driving too slow in Dublin or being stopped in traffic blocking the way. My point before - everyone needs to be considerate.

Hehehe. "Footpad"

Lads, the cyclist was wrong, careless and dangerous. That motorists have steel cars and also break the rules doesn't change this. I encountered (also a girl) one coming towards me on a single lane one-way street, in the dark with no light, last week. Oblivious and nonchalant best describes her demeanor.

seamus

colm_c wrote: »

Thankfully I didn't hit her or anything else, but just a theory question here, what would be situation here if I did, or indeed if my swerving to not hitting her resulted in me crashing/clipping my car and/or other cars nearby?

There would be a few factors involved, but yes she would likely have a significant amount of liability on her part. However, you would also have to consider your conduct in the matter - since you didn't see her coming down the road that you were turning into, then you either didn't look or couldn't look (blocked by buildings?). It's an easy mistake to make, especially when you're accustomed to the roads, and aren't expecting anything to be coming down that way.

So in court it could easily be argued that you failed to properly observe the traffic conditions before turning into the road, cyclist or no cyclist. If that had been a jogger or an ambulance, it would be entirely your fault for failing to anticipate someone or something coming down the road.

Now, I am playing devil's advocate to a certain degree - the cyclist is entirely in the wrong in this instance my eyes, but the law isn't quite so black-and-white in these things. No matter what kind of road you're turning into, you should never assume that any direction is clear of traffic (vehicular or otherwise) until you look that way.

Redjeep!

Cyclists should obey the rules as should drivers. Nobody is above it and if there's a problem then the Gards should clampdown on it. As a cyclist, I'd actually welcome it.

There's bad cyclists and bad drivers, don't tar everybody with the same brush.

In the meantime, aggressive posturing suggesting how the OP should have ran the cyclist down is really not going to help.

biko

Maybe it was an English cyclist, they allow it over there.

Max Headroom

pete4130 wrote: »

how Someone mentioned the amount of times they had to avoid cyclists. I'm also very confident that you have to slow down and/or avoid pedestrians nipping across the road at traffic lights/junctions more often than you have to avoid a cyclist.

Not so much....think you're mixing up pedestrians with joggers.....:D

I've never had a pedestrian run along in front of me and then suddenly dart across me without looking...not yet anyhow..:)

Max Headroom

Redjeep! wrote: »

Cyclists should obey the rules as should drivers. Nobody is above it and if there's a problem then the Gards should clampdown on it. As a cyclist, I'd actually welcome it.

There's bad cyclists and bad drivers, don't tar everybody with the same brush.

In the meantime, aggressive posturing suggesting how the OP should have ran the cyclist down is really not going to help.

:D:D

Lumen

Stupid cyclists are stupid, but mostly just self-harm and antagonise.

Stupid drivers are stupid, and are more often deadly.

There are more stupid cyclists than stupid drivers, but they cause less actual carnage, and neither group is exactly covered in glory. People deserve to be judged on their individual behaviour not some arbitrary categorisation by internet ranters.

The differences in behaviour are complete inevitable since society is structured around the idea that hurting other people is more serious than hurting yourself or being an irritating arse. The laws will always "favour" cyclists, and cyclists will always tend to act like they can do whatever they like.

There is some merit in better enforcement of ROTR for cyclists, at least in the form of some personally delivered Garda bollocking about lack of lights at night, RLJing and salmoning, if only to reduce the amount of aggro it causes, but presumably the Gardai would do this anyway if they thought it was a good use of their time. They don't. Discuss.

colm_c

colm_c wrote: »

what would be situation here if I did, or indeed if my swerving to not hitting her resulted in me crashing/clipping my car and/or other cars nearby?

You'd be liable.

rubadub

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Don't you know cyclists own the road?

John_Mc wrote: »

It's rare to see a cyclist pay any attention to the rules of the road. Obeying traffic lights? Forget it :rolleyes:

They pale in comparison compared to pedestrians, but you probably won't moan about them since you probably are one (shock, horror, people can use more than one way of getting around), so no bitter little US & THEM argument to play out.

stolen from another post...

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

DirkVoodoo

What do you want to hear OP? It was illegal and hopefully if a Garda had been around they would have been issued with a summons. Thankfully you're good observation helped to avoid any accidents.

I'm not sure why you posted, I mean you're right, it's illegal and stupid, but what did you expect this thread to turn into?

Rubadub hit the nail on the head, I see everyone breaking the law and am guilty of doing so myself. Are some people here so god damn sanctimonious that they are lining up with stones in hand (JohnMc for example)? I'd love to bitch and moan about all the stupidity I see on the roads but I'd be blue in the face doing so and it would achieve nothing.

This is not a cycling problem, it's an enforcement problem. This "cyclists own the road" crap is childish and getting pretty old.

short circuit

I think I need to start breaking some rules .. like become a ninja cyclist .. throw away the lights, start cycling down the wrong way on one ways streets .. hog the centre of the lane and break red lights. Based on this thread, this will ensure that all motorists will notice me and provide me safe passage.

I've had 3 accidents with cars and I assure everyone that I wasn't breaking any ROTR during any of these .. and each time the drivers just hit back with ... "I just didn't see you".
1. Driving with frosty side windows and turning onto traffic without looking
2. Over taking me and turning left across me
3. Turning right across traffic coming from the opposite side when it wasn't green for traffic coming the opposite side.

At least if I break this ROTR, everyone will notice me ...

This post does not help this discussion what so ever ... but I am pissed off at having to defend my actions all the time for some "always do it right" drivers.

Hagar

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

This is not a cycling problem, it's an enforcement problem.

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if cyclists complied with the law, would there?

Jip

Hagar wrote: »

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if cyclists complied with the law, would there?

Hagar wrote: »

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if motorists complied with the law, would there?

Hagar wrote: »

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if pedestrians complied with the law, would there?

.

Hagar

Very good, :rolleyes: but the poster is justifying refusal to comply on lack of enforcement. A truly bizarre stance imho.

seamus

short circuit wrote: »

I've had 3 accidents with cars and I assure everyone that I wasn't breaking any ROTR during any of these .. and each time the drivers just hit back with ... "I just didn't see you".

This is considered a big problem in the UK, the people who do this are known as smidsy's
http://www.smidsy.co.uk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=masAsJeyIVQ

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if cyclists complied with the law, would there?

And there would be no need for any laws if everyone was nice to eachother.

It is a problem with enforcement, because a lack of enforcement of particular laws for minor offences* leads to an increase in those offences and a general public perception that if it's not being enforced, then it's not a big deal. Most drivers, if placed on a bicycle, would break the lights without any qualms. Because they think there's nothing wrong with it, because everybody's doing it and nobody seems to care.

If you ran a very real risk of being pulled and fined for breaking red lights, then you'll find the incidence plummet.

I said it in another thread, the Gardai should be standing 10-15m after any set of lights, pulling in all road users who break the lights. Rotate them around the place - stick them in 4 random junction in Dublin city centre every morning, for example - and make them quite hidden until you've broken the lights. If someone can't pay an on-the-spot fine, you impound their vehicle (be it a car or a bicycle) until they come up with the cash.

A few months of that, and amid the wails of people complaining about the poor motorist being picked on, you'll quickly see compliance at lights by everyone shoot up.

---

*When I say "minor offences" I mean offences where you do not see any negative consequences for yourself and anyone else when you commit it. Jaywalking and speeding are other minor offences - most of the time, nothing bad will happen when you commit these offences and there is no victim. So most people don't consider these offences inherently wrong and only avoid doing them so as not to be caught.
You can't say the same for (e.g.) stealing or murder where there is instantly a negative consequence for someone as soon as the offence is committed.

If there was no such thing as speed cameras and the Gardai rarely pulled anyone for speeding, there would be little or no compliance with speed limits.

DirkVoodoo

Hagar wrote: »

I disagree, there would be no need for enforcement of the law if cyclists complied with the law, would there?

No offence, but that's total codswollop. Are you telling me that if there was no penalty points system and no speed cameras that everyone would obey the speed limit.

The fact is that people rarely comply with laws because they know it is right, but because it is enforced. Or did the change in drink driving between my generation and my parent's generation happen because people suddenly developed a conscience about it? It was no more illegal back then as it was now. Or L drivers? Has the law not always been that you must be accompanied by a licensed driver? Why didn't people comply with this law? Eh, oh right, it was never enforced.

EDIT: I'm not justifying anything. I don't break red lights, I have a pretty comprehensive set of powerful lights, I indicate, I don't cycle down one way streets and follow the same routes as cars through town, I don't cycle on footpaths. I just can't be held accountable for every bad cyclist out there, I can only control my own behaviour, which I do.

DirkVoodoo

Actually Hagar, I could go on and on about compliance versus enforcement, here's one taken from the popular 30km/hr thread:

Linky

i drove through it at 55 kph ( keeping with everyone else )


gardi never said anything to me ( noted on monedo and the black camry usually on the quays )


its a silly Diversion from a bigger issue imho... chances are they're planning on making all the kids in hospitals for example foot a bill and this will steal that lime light.


I hate politics, i hate Stupid laws... i got no for warning and ive Always a pc/radio or similar going.

And it's not limited to traffic law, I could mention TV licenses, welfare fraud, etc. Bizarre? Hardly.

Hagar

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

No offence, but that's total codswollop. Are you telling me that if there was no penalty points system and no speed cameras that everyone would obey the speed limit.

The fact is that people rarely comply with laws because they know it is right, but because it is enforced.

No offence taken.

I think the vast majority of people comply with the law because they see the sense of the law not out of fear. I moderate my speed in built up areas, near schools etc not because I'm afraid of points, I'm afraid I might kill or injure someone if I go too fast. On the other hand I might do 10kph over the limit on a straight stretch of road because I think the limit is too low. But never would I just decide I'm going to go the wrong way down a one-way street or drive on the foot-path or through pedestrian areas, even if there was nobody around to punish me. That would be just madness wouldn't it? Cyclists do this day-in day-out with no regard for anyone but themselves. Regardless of being held to account by the law, it seems beyond them to hold themselves to account on any level.

DirkVoodoo

Hagar wrote: »

No offence taken.

I think the vast majority of people comply with the law because they see the sense of the law not out of fear. I moderate my speed in built up areas, near schools etc not because I'm afraid of points, I'm afraid I might kill or injure someone if I go too fast. On the other hand I might do 10kph over the limit on a straight stretch of road because I think the limit is too low. But never would I just decide I'm going to go the wrong way down a one-way street or drive on the foot-path or through pedestrian areas, even if there was nobody around to punish me. That would be just madness wouldn't it? Cyclists do this day-in day-out with no regard for anyone but themselves. Regardless of being held to account by the law, it seems beyond them to hold themselves to account on any level.

I see where you're coming from and I would be the same as you when driving. I still think that it is not a "cyclist" attitude though, after all plenty of people both drive and cycle and I can't see them sailing through junctions in the same fashion when they get behind the wheel of a car.

The roads where I live are all 50 km/hr as it's obviously a residential area. People rarely seem to do 50 km/hr though (we have one of those LED signs, I regularly see the numbers go red and start flashing, indicating they are well over 50), I was even overtaken while driving at 50 km/hr and it's a common sight to see a car doing 50 km/hr with a train of bumper hugging cars behind them urging them to go faster. The only time everyone does 50 km/hr is when there is a speed trap, and this seems to carry on for a day or two after the speed trap is long gone.

I salute you for your responsible driving, but we have both given examples of ourselves (cycling and driving) trying to obey the laws, unfortunately this does not stop cyclists and motorists behaving like idiots. I think the proportion of people who obey laws out of a sense of morality are in the minority and the fact is that if cyclists were policed in the same way as motorists, you would see a lot more compliance with the laws.

seamus

Hagar wrote: »

I think the vast majority of people comply with the law because they see the sense of the law not out of fear.

But you're talking about risk level here. Without any disrespect or offence intended (I know you won't take any), you're more experienced lifewise than the majority of the population, so you're much more aware of the potential danger than younger drivers would be in general.
In reality, most of us drive within the limits of what we deem acceptable risk, and allow our own perception of risk to override the law. When you're younger, "acceptable risk" is something which older people would call "suicidal behaviour", mainly because they've been young themselves and are more aware of the risks.
The law however does remind us of risks we may not necessarily have considered - you know that if you drive home ossified, you'll wrap your car around a tree, but most of us would probably have few scruples driving home after four pints if there was no law there to indicate to us just how dangerous it is.

But never would I just decide I'm going to go the wrong way down a one-way street or drive on the foot-path or through pedestrian areas, even if there was nobody around to punish me. That would be just madness wouldn't it? Cyclists do this day-in day-out with no regard for anyone but themselves. Regardless of being held to account by the law, it seems beyond them to hold themselves to account on any level.

Now consider that in terms of acceptable risk. Many cyclists go the wrong way down one-way streets and cycle on pedestrianised streets because they don't consider it exceptionally risky. And they're right. Overall, you cannot compare cycling down a one-way street with driving down the same street because the risks are entirely different.
That doesn't mean that it should be ignored, but at the same time it shouldn't be overstated.

Until laws are enforced, people will go with what they deem to be an acceptable risk and will operate on their own "common sense", regardless of what the actual law is. As Dirk says, this is not a cyclist thing, it's a "people" thing.

BluePlanet

Hagar wrote: »

I think the vast majority of people comply with the law because they see the sense of the law not out of fear. I moderate my speed in built up areas, near schools etc not because I'm afraid of points, I'm afraid I might kill or injure someone if I go too fast. On the other hand I might do 10kph over the limit on a straight stretch of road because I think the limit is too low. But never would I just decide I'm going to go the wrong way down a one-way street or drive on the foot-path or through pedestrian areas, even if there was nobody around to punish me. That would be just madness wouldn't it?

You've almost answered your own questions there in your response.
A cyclist isn't going to injure or kill someone, so providing they can avoid an on-coming car, going up the wrong way isn't so dangerous from their pov.
Besides, one-way roads are designed for motoring traffic, not cycling nor pedestrian traffic.

concussion

BluePlanet wrote: »

Besides, one-way roads are designed for motoring traffic, not cycling nor pedestrian traffic.

Bikes are traffic...pedestrians are not.

rubadub

BluePlanet wrote: »

isn't so dangerous from their pov.

And the point of view of many gardai, hence why they do not enforce the law. Most people are most likely to break the law on foot, then on bikes then in cars, only a pedantic idiot cannot see why this is the case.

concussion wrote: »

Bikes are traffic...pedestrians are not.

I often hear it described as pedestrian traffic.

http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=define%3Atraffic&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

Definitions of traffic on the Web:

•the aggregation of things (pedestrians or vehicles) coming and going in a particular locality during a specified period of time

Let he who has never jaywalked cast the first stone.

concussion

Fair enough, if you want to be pedantic, but in terms of legislation cyclists are required to follow the same rules as mechanically propelled vehicles, with the exceptions such things as lighting and speed limits. Pedestrians are not. Cyclists must cycle the correct way on one way streets just like any other road traffic.

jackhammer

BluePlanet wrote: »

A cyclist isn't going to injure or kill someone

Really! A cyclist ploughed into me on a pedestrian street a couple of years ago and broke two of my ribs.

Max Headroom

jackhammer wrote: »

Really! A cyclist ploughed into me on a pedestrian street a couple of years ago and broke two of my ribs.

Bummer...bbq sauce everywhere......:D