The Indo strikes back against cyclists!

MrCreosote

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pedal-power-has-gone-to-the-heads-of-city-cyclists-2334636.html

Gavin

Bleh, dull trolling. She didn't have anything to write about so threw together some tripe to annoy people and get a response. Disappointing that the paper would allow it to be published, not much in the way of standards.

MrCreosote

Not up to the usual journalistic standards of that publication.

A nice round-up of the usual anti-cyclist crap though.

Hermy

After a quick glance at the article I would say that while it is the case that a not insignificant number of cyclists do act in a very reckless manner, nevertheless the very same could be said for all road users and the article is written with such an anti-cycling bias that it serves no purpose other than to increase the negative image that already exist towards cycling.

rp

Hermy wrote: »

... nevertheless the very same could be said for all road users and the article is written with such an anti-cycling bias that it serves no purpose other than to increase the negative image that already exist towards cycling.

The motorist patiently waiting for the pensioners to cross - can we find out who that motorist was and give them a medal?

Hermy

It was me.;)

BostonB

MrCreosote wrote: »

Not up to the usual journalistic standards of that publication.

A nice round-up of the usual anti-cyclist crap though.

can't agree. It's very typical of that dire paper.

Ask yourself are there any stats in it and could you write it without any research off the cuff? As usual the answer is yes.

It's their usual drivel it really is the worst paper.

As usual it's wrong. Cyclists don't pay tax. We all pay tax.

I read the first few lines and couldn't read anymore of it.

feck sake lads

obviously this anti cyclist is a car driver .why doesn't she ride a bike for a year in the city or country roads before she condemns us all to hell;)

themandan6611

A load of tosh - a very lazy article - she must have been on a slow week and needed to put something together to justify her salary .

Morgan

Dónal wrote: »

I read the first few lines and couldn't read anymore of it.

I managed three paragraphs, barely.

SleepDoc

Stupid woman. Every lazy and inaccurate stereotype used. Recounting her limited anecdotal (made up?) evidence to fill the trough that is the SIndo.

endurodave

Christ captain planet would be jealous of us!

manwithaplan

Motorists are accustomed to having obscenities shouted at them through their side windows, having their roofs banged with a fusillade of thumps, and the sides of their cars raked by whirling pedals as cyclists try to force a way past them where there is no cycle lane on a narrow street and the motorist is patiently stopped for a pedestrian crossing or a red light.

The cyclist, having vented his or her spleen, will then career across said pedestrian crossing, giving the pensioner legally in possession of a right of way grounds for legal action should he or she be struck down in terror by a heart attack or stroke -- if only they had a way of identifying the ill-mannered, law-breaking environmentalist.

This is hilarious - it's as if it was dashed out on a laptop immediately on return from an encounter with a cyclist (possibly after a few stiff gins). It must be great to able to see your every daily annoyance immortalised in newsprint. I am a sometime motorist and I am not used to having the sides of my car "raked by whirling pedals". I feel like I'm missing out.

Marvinthefish

...some kind of cycling Freemasonry...

Nobody's taught me the secret handshake yet!

Is there some sort of initiation ceremony?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOur8qXvpnk

monument

Emer O'Kelly in the Sindo wrote:

Motorists are accustomed to cyclists who think that not even other cyclists have any rights, pulling out of the cycle lanes because those in front of them aren't going fast enough to satisfy their own belligerent desires, and ploughing into mainstream traffic in a manner that ensures motorists will have to brake so fast they will leave several kilos of rubber on the road surface. If a motorist infringed the cycle lane in such a manner, there'd be bloody mayhem and foul-mouthed abuse

Motorists are accustomed to having obscenities shouted at them through their side windows, having their roofs banged with a fusillade of thumps, and the sides of their cars raked by whirling pedals as cyclists try to force a way past them where there is no cycle lane on a narrow street and the motorist is patiently stopped for a pedestrian crossing or a red light.

It's outright nonsense, but some brilliant work from the Sindo's point of view.

Mixing and entwining things which are fine to do with ways to do them which are far from fine -- it's great stuff for them. You're building up the idea that the perfectly ok things to do (passing other cyclists or slow traffic) is only done with or following illegal acts (breaking lights, pulling out dangerously, scraping cars).

Lovely usage of words too (ie "mainstream traffic" -- cycling is for loons). And motorists have "obscenities shouted at them" because cyclists are using force to get down narrow streets while the motorists act like angles. Great stuff indeed. Gets away from the idea that cyclists shout at motorists who are nearly or near to hitting or killing them. Motorists infringing on cycle lanes for all sorts of reasons -- legal and illegal -- is common place. Must be a lot of bloody mayhem going on what ever that means. But great writing here again, it does not happen. If it did there would be murder because the cycle lobby is so powerful.

But it's like a different person is writing the second half or poor editing... it gets a lot less snapper. Maybe the writer, a subeditior or editor did not go to as much trouble with it?

Like are Dublin Bikes "Blue Bikes"? Why? And this got me laughing:

They were cycling on the footpath along Strand Road. Try getting away with something like that in Tokyo and see what would happen.

Nothing would happen. Cycling on footpaths is common place in Japan. Crazy, but that's the way it is there.

The article is sadly a bit poor, it could have been a classic work of polemic writing. But it goes up and down and all around. Facts mashed with half-truths and outright nonsense, then some reason in there too and good points about enforcement -- reason and good points are not entertaining. The article is too confused, it goes from great polemic writing to a reasoned point about drivers and general enforcement at the end.

I was nearly going to give it five stars but it loses out for being a bit too all over the place in an non-polemic way.

***

bcirl03

Some truth in the article no matter how it was written or ones opinion.

For those reading the article and afraid to respond to the pro cyclist comments in this thread I recommend a large golfing umbrella forced into the stomach or wheels of any cyclist who is illegally on paths, going through red lights etc etc coming towards you

And btw I'm a cyclist, pedestrian, public transport user and occasional driver.

monument

monument wrote: »

Nothing would happen. Cycling on footpaths is common place in Japan. Crazy, but that's the way it is there.

Made me think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MphtzCOEc

monument

bcirl03 wrote: »

Some truth in the article no matter how it was written or ones opinion.

Yes! There is some truth! That's how polemic writing works. You mix truth and half truth with nonsense and lies. Everything gets stirred up and exaggerated too.

And that goes for intended polemic writing or people who's brains are just wired that way -- and that's not a dig, I'm nearly sure I'm dyslectic, so my brain is wired differently too

bcirl03 wrote: »

For those reading the article and afraid to respond to the pro cyclist comments in this thread I recommend a large golfing umbrella forced into the stomach or wheels of any cyclist who is illegally on paths, going through red lights etc etc coming towards you

And btw I'm a cyclist, pedestrian, public transport user and occasional driver.

First you'll find that the cyclist who post here seem to be more law abiding than most cyclists. We here generally disagree with braking lights and cycling on footpaths.

But recommending violence, even in jest, isn't going to help anybody. And I guess you also recommend that motorists should be attacked with umbrellas or their cars should be damaged? That would be the same kind of thing as what you're recommending and just as wrong.

Dónal wrote: »

Made me think of this.

Me too.

mloc123

On the other hand, of course, cyclists are not contributing a penny in taxes to the upkeep of the roads.

I got as far as this line..

DirkVoodoo

Speaking of pensioners crossing...I was on my way out of town last week after selling/buying some stuff through adverts and on my way past trinity, heading towards grafton street, I had a green light but as is normal people were crossing at the pedestrian lights right outside trinity. It's something we all do so I slowed down and then proceeded with a bit of caution. As I was passing an old pair started to cross and the old lady tried to swipe me, muttering "go on get out of the way!".

I was a bit taken aback, firstly by her swipe but also by the fact she and her husband were blindly following the rest of the people jaywalking when they were neither looking nor had the ability to move quickly should a faster, bigger moving vehicle come their way.

I like how that article is so ridiculously one sided and cliched. Sure, cyclists break laws, like Hermy said this is the same as everyone else. I've had people pull out of parking spaces without indicating, the other day on my way home a pickup (illegally parked on double yellow lines) moved off without indicating and got himself up to speed by driving with half his vehicle on the footpath (about 20 metres of it) before popping down onto the road.

copacetic

MrCreosote wrote: »

Not up to the usual journalistic standards of that publication.

A nice round-up of the usual anti-cyclist crap though.

As noted above it's up to the usual extremely low standards of the Sindo. Poorly/not researched, made up 'facts', wild unsubstantiated claims and idiotic opinion dressed up as journalism.

The only surprise is that they didn't let us know that they could 'exclusively reveal' the tripe you were about to read.

Signal_ rabbit

Obviously the papers ratings are down and are looking for a cheap publicity stunt at the cyclists expense. In fact I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time commenting on it!

DaveyDave

I'd like to meet the cyclists she's on about. If I was darting out of side streets into heavy traffic I'd be badly injured. I'm amazed at how I haven't heard any injuries considering, according to her, most cyclists to this.

That article was a page of complete ****e towards cyclists. She needs to get off her high horse.

When I cycle on the path, I give way to pedestrians for obvious reasons. I slow right down and go around when I can, giving plenty of room. I cycle on the path when there's no cycle path, because motorists are a pain in the arse and ignore cyclists, but she just so happened to have forgotten about the fact that motorists aren't all saints.

I thought you couldn't get done for speeding on a bike anyway?

monument

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

Obviously the papers ratings are down and are looking for a cheap publicity stunt at the cyclists expense. In fact I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time commenting on it!

To be fair to the Sindo their circulation was one of the few which has not recently declined.

The article is just normal polemic nonsense. It's not something special or anyway new.

DirkVoodoo

Irresponsible journalism, let's just hope someone doesn't use this as an excuse to injure someone else on the roads, whether they cycle or not.

How is this woman in a job? She is like the Irish version of that guy from the wire, Scott Templeton, total fabulist!

monument

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

How is this woman in a job?

Because she is doing her job well.

She's a polemic writer, not a journalist or even comment journalist.

She's like Kevin Myers and Ian O'Doherty in the Independent. Or Michael O'Doherty in the Evening Herald.

Their jobs are to write which gets people riled up. How many people clicked the link from here? If it's their honest opinion or not is not what their job is, their job is to hype and mix mash to get a nice little entertaining yarn. The main problem with them is they get some people who half agreed with them believing most of what they say.

CramCycle

Dónal wrote: »

Made me think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MphtzCOEc

I love it, no giving out, no annoyance, just people giving way, must be a great place to live

DaveyDave wrote: »

I thought you couldn't get done for speeding on a bike anyway?

You can, just pretty rare, friend of mine got pulled over at Nutgrove shopping centre for breaking the limit on the hill. Even got a letter from the Gardaí to confirm it as he didn't think anyone would believe him.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

You can, just pretty rare, friend of mine got pulled over at Nutgrove shopping centre for breaking the limit on the hill. Even got a letter from the Gardaí to confirm it as he didn't think anyone would believe him.

No you cannot - there are other offences he could potentially be done for, but speeding is not one of them, and hence whatever the letter said, I presume it did not indicate they would be seeking to prosecute for speeding.

Doctor Bob

I understand the nature of polemic, but it's the unintended consequences that concern me, i.e. some muppet getting onto his car on Monday morning with her words ringing in his ears, and acting on them.

Anyway, this was a surprisingly fun exercise... (there's a prize for anyone who reads all the way to the end!):

This aggressive illegality has been going on for years, the majority of cyclists believing they are doing society a favour if they occasionally condescend to obey the rules of the road

Has EOK asked all cyclists, or is this just idle speculation? I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I am doing society a favour by obeying the RotR; I believe I am behaving in accordance with the law.

THE spokesman for the AA, Conor Faughnan, says that the recent introduction of a 30kph speed limit in the centre of Dublin city hasn't made a blind bit of difference.

Difference to what? Non sequitur.

He's wrong: it has made a huge difference. It has ensured that cyclists now feel entitled to behave with massively increased levels of lawless aggression on the city streets.

Research in a number of areas – of particular relevance in this regard would be an example such a reduced waiting times at pedestrian crossings leading to fewer pedestrians crossing the road against a red man – shows that compliance actually increases when measures such as these are introduced. (The socio-cultural principle here is effectively is Respect begets respect.)

Motorists and pedestrians have been accustomed for years to the experience of having the heart put across them by cyclists with heads firmly down sailing through red lights...

Not true- most who do it have their heads up, but I accept the point that RLJing is all too common.

...and turning right across lanes of traffic and against 'no right turn' signs, without so much as checking to see if there are cars approaching the lights.

I've never seen this one myself, but I've only been cycling for 20 years.

(They can't hear if there are cars approaching because the noise from the iPods blasting in their ears blocks out everything else.)

While I agree that headphones in urban areas are a bad idea, it may be worth pointing out that a car radio + sealed windows = inability to hear a bell.

Motorists are accustomed to cyclists who think that not even other cyclists have any rights, pulling out of the cycle lanes because those in front of them aren't going fast enough to satisfy their own belligerent desires, and ploughing into mainstream traffic in a manner that ensures motorists will have to brake so fast they will leave several kilos of rubber on the road surface.

Cyclists deviate from their alignment for a number of reasons- yes, impatience is one, and isn't right, but avoiding obstacles (parked cars, bins, potholes) is probably the most common reason. Motorists are required by law to drive with due care and attention and, in effect, to 'expect the unexpected'. 'Several kilos of rubber' would suggest the motorist isn't behaving appropriately.

If a motorist infringed the cycle lane in such a manner, there'd be bloody mayhem and foul-mouthed abuse.

There might be, and it would be more understandable, given the relative likely severity of the respective outcomes.

Motorists are accustomed to having obscenities shouted at them through their side windows, having their roofs banged with a fusillade of thumps, and the sides of their cars raked by whirling pedals as cyclists try to force a way past them where there is no cycle lane on a narrow street and the motorist is patiently stopped for a pedestrian crossing or a red light.

Aah, the saintly motorist strikes again. Yes, I've banged on the side of cars occasionally, but only when I feared for my life. Yes, I've raked a car with my pedals, but only as it was in the process of sideswiping me to pull in to the kerb to disgorge a fare and I was in the process of hitting the floor. The behaviour described is not acceptable if the space is tight- no question.

The cyclist, having vented his or her spleen, will then career across said pedestrian crossing, giving the pensioner legally in possession of a right of way grounds for legal action should he or she be struck down in terror by a heart attack or stroke -- if only they had a way of identifying the ill-mannered, law-breaking environmentalist.

The pedestrian (or is it just pensioners? Won't somebody pleeeease think of the children!!) could take legal action even if they didn't have a heart attack or stroke. Red light breaking is red light breaking is red light breaking- and it is not legal.

This aggressive illegality has been going on for years, the majority of cyclists believing that they are doing society a favour if they occasionally condescend to obey the rules of the road.

At the risk of repeating myself-- oh hang on, you're repeating yourself. Saying it twice doesn't make it less stupid.

The rules don't apply, you see, because they're saving the planet.

There is no correlation here that I can divine. (Not to mention the fact that saving the planet is hardly the primary reason many people give for cycling- cheap, reliable, invigorating, enjoyable, stimulating, etc. etc. are all equally relevant, if not more so.)

On the other hand, of course, cyclists are not contributing a penny in taxes to the upkeep of the roads. (More of which later.)

I really hate bringing class into this debate, but (so called) ABC1s are proportionally over-represented in cycling, not the other way around, so cyclists actually pay more than their fair share of tax, and that's before we get to the question of wear-and-tear on the roads (or does stepping lightly on the earth now constitute a sanctimonious, hippyish outlook?). But I suppose this is just the old 'road tax'/motor tax debate. (NB If she brought it up again 'later', I must have missed it.)

And since a cyclist became Minister for the Environment, it has been noticeable that cyclists' aggression and law-breaking has been markedly on the increase.

Has it? There are certainly more cyclists, and possibly an increase in the number of infractions, but has there been an increase in the rate? And again I ask- please show the correlation between the identity of the MftE and more cyclists. There's an FF-er at the helm in Transport (who admittedly does cycle, but possibly only in press photos and on holidays), and his opening two words in the National Cycle Policy Framework are... Oh, I won't spoil the surprise, Emer. A bit of investigation might sharpen your journalistic skills. (Hint: they're not the same two words I'd say to you if I met you.)

It's as though they knew through some kind of cycling Freemasonry that their transgressions against the law will be ignored (well, to be fair to John Gormley, cyclists' transgressions against the law have always been ignored)...

One day spent cycling in Dublin would suggest that transgressions will be ignored- monkey-see, monkey-do, perhaps, but it's nothing to do with JG.

...and that motorists will be increasingly penalised as time goes on to ensure that cyclists become kings of the road, above the law, and outside the realm of any kind of responsibility or civility.

Penalised how? More delay seems the only sensible interpretation. Guess what- the greatest time penalty to motorists is other motorists.

And the centre of Dublin city has become like something out of Metropolis since the introduction of the 30kph speed limit.

Full of robots? Soundtracked by Queen? I don't get this point.

Initial research has shown that the majority of motorists don't keep to it, as it happens.

And yet, where's the enforcement? As for cycling, so for driving- no threat, no compliance. (It's the Irish way, alas.)

I suspect that this may have something to do with the fact that there are very few reminder signs where it operates. And you have to keep your eye closely on the speedometer, which means your attention isn't where it should be: on the traffic and the road.

If you can't drive safely (watching both the road and the speedo) in a city centre, maybe driving isn't for you.

In any case, motorists driving with care at the old limit of 50kph were every bit as safe as at 30kph.

Perhaps (perhaps not...), but the severity of collisions was greater for vulnerable road users.

But the existence of the new limit has encouraged cyclists to believe that they can now do entirely as they please, all of the time.

I covered this- Respect begets respect. But I would agree that the city council needs to do more, not just slap on a new speed limit. More pedestrian green time, shorter overall traffic light sequences, etc. etc.

The result has been a rash of cyclists sailing the wrong way up one-way city streets in the face of heavy traffic, shooting suddenly out of side streets, and forcing their way through and across lanes of heavy traffic.

This has always happened – and is nothing to do with the bus gate – and has always been wrong.

The Wrong Way Corrigans are a daily occurrence on both Dublin's Dawson Street and Nassau Street. On one occasion recently, the offenders were a pair of uniformed Garda cyclists. And they weren't rushing, so it wasn't an emergency, just a case of giving lousy example.

Fully agreed- I saw a Guard cycling through heavy pedestrian traffic on Grafton St last week. A smarter journalist might also ask if repeat salmoning doesn't suggest the need for more contraflow lanes in certain areas...

I (almost literally) ran into an eminent politician a few weeks ago, gaily cycling the wrong way up South Frederick Street. I know he's been on a fitness regime, and I like him a lot, so I won't name him. But it was, to put it mildly, "inappropriate".

Go on, name him. Why does he get special treatment?

And campaigners for the rights of elderly people have complained recently that the introduction of the cycle stands and the 'blue bikes' for hire in Dublin has made their lives a living hell. Dublin City Council, of course, is planning to provide more of them. But what they have meant for elderly people, it appears, is a huge increase in the numbers of cyclists careering along pavements instead of on the roadway.

Fully agreed- cycling on the footpath is wrong. And illegal. And, anecdotally at least, I'd have to say that the DBs have led in significant part to this increase.

My prize example of the illegal and irresponsible use to which the Blue Bikes can be put was on the walkway at Sandymount Strand last week. Note the word "walkway". It indicates that it's supposed to be reserved for pedestrians.

Where does it say 'walkway'? A far better indication that cycling is not permitted is the sign painted on the path at each end saying No Cycling No Rollerblading.

Again, cyclists by the score ignore the signs, scorching along to the danger and terror of elderly people and small children on a regular basis. When gardai at Irishtown were informed of this, a station officer said they weren't aware that cycling wasn't permitted on the Sandymount Strand walkway.

Unacceptable (though part of me suspects they really did know and just thought 'Uh oh, here comes Mary Whitehouse again'...)

Interesting, since I know of a woman whose small child's lip was badly cut and needed stitches when she was knocked down there by a cyclist. The mother called the gardai, who apparently said it was nothing to do with them.

Again, unacceptable.

But last week, a cavalcade of seven helmeted cyclists on the Dublin City Blue Bikes were sailing majestically along the walkway. Two of them were Irish, and obviously operating a commercial guided tour for five Japanese people, (which may well have been illegal in itself) because they were explaining the Joycean associations of the Strand and the history of its Martello tower.

There's a law against Japanese tourists? Against operating commercial cycle tours? Against groups of five? This is a baffling point altogether.

It was pointed out to them, quite acidly (I know, because I was the acid one) that cycling was forbidden, and bless their little hearts, they obeyed. When I was on the way back, they had indeed left the walkway. They were cycling on the footpath along Strand Road. Try getting away with something like that in Tokyo and see what would happen.

As mentioned already, the footpath in Tokyo is where cycling actually takes place. But Yes- we're not in Tokyo here.

There is a way to put manners on cyclists. Simply insist that bikes are registered as cars are, and that they carry identifiable number plates. And introduce cycling tests and licences of proficiency.

Cycle training, cyclist education and enforcement of the existing law would all be a far more efficient use of resources. The prohibitive cost of implementing licensing, not to mention the 'barrier to entry' it represents, are generally seen to be two good reasons not to follow this course. (A barrier to entry is a bad idea because, even though we're not all eco-saviours at heart, cycling is seen to be a key part of reducing emissions. The alternative is a hefty fine. Who pays that, Emer? Oh that's right- we do!)

But then, of course, infringements of the traffic laws would have to be followed up. And on the experience of Irishtown gardai, it would seem that the authorities don't know what's an infringement and what isn't.

I suspect many of them do know, but we live in a country where getting away with it is seen to be a virtue, and there is no culture of enforcement.

Think of the sudden and mysterious disappearance of L plates from cars when it was announced that the regulations requiring a learner driver to have a qualified driver as a passenger at all times were actually going to be enforced.

Really? I hadn't noticed. Not to mention (again)-Cause and effect? This correlation/causation question is getting old.

It's a great little country.

It has its good points alright, but the Sindo most assuredly isn't one of them.

Stick to reading the news, Emer. You were far less bothersome when you had other people's words in your mouth rather than your own.

rp

bcirl03 wrote: »

I recommend a large golfing umbrella forced into the stomach or wheels of any cyclist who is illegally on paths, going through red lights etc etc

I assume you are also recommending similar summary justice for all transgressions of the road traffic act? So how then should would you treat, say, a car going through a red light (something I see every day of the week, and many times more dangerous)? A golfing umbrella would just snap - perhaps a scaffolding pole?

Beasty

bcirl03 wrote: »

For those reading the article and afraid to respond to the pro cyclist comments in this thread I recommend a large golfing umbrella forced into the stomach or wheels of any cyclist who is illegally on paths, going through red lights etc etc coming towards you
.

rp wrote: »

I assume you are also recommending similar summary justice for all transgressions of the road traffic act? So how then should would you treat, say, a car going through a red light (something I see every day of the week, and many times more dangerous)? A golfing umbrella would just snap - perhaps a scaffolding pole?

Anyone else advocating violence, even if dressed up with a smiley, can expect an infraction

Thanks

Beasty

rp

Beasty wrote: »

Anyone else advocating violence, even if dressed up with a smiley, can expect an infraction

f.y.i.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Beasty

rp wrote: »

f.y.i.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

I got your point - if I thought you or bcirl03 had been serious I would have given you straight reds without warning.

Do not question or challenge mod actions in-thread, as that is likely to result in a ban

Hermy

DaveyDave wrote: »

I'd like to meet the cyclists she's on about. If I was darting out of side streets into heavy traffic I'd be badly injured. I'm amazed at how I haven't heard any injuries considering, according to her, most cyclists to this.

I meet some of them at least once a week. If I was a poorer driver I'd have collided with one of them by now.

That article was a page of complete ****e towards cyclists. She needs to get off her high horse.

Agreed.

When I cycle on the path, I give way to pedestrians for obvious reasons. I slow right down and go around when I can, giving plenty of room. I cycle on the path when there's no cycle path, because motorists are a pain in the arse and ignore cyclists, but she just so happened to have forgotten about the fact that motorists aren't all saints.

You shouldn't cycle on the footpath.

I thought you couldn't get done for speeding on a bike anyway?

If you are speeding a Garda may decide that you are not cycling with due care and attention towards other road users.

CramCycle

Beasty wrote: »

No you cannot - there are other offences he could potentially be done for, but speeding is not one of them, and hence whatever the letter said, I presume it did not indicate they would be seeking to prosecute for speeding.

He got a letter just saying the speed he was doing and the Super told the Gardaí that it wasn't worth the hassle.

I was under the impression that speed limits applied to cyclists as well as motor vehicles as well but it was just an assumption, my mistake.

In trying to find out though, I did find out though in England you can be done for "furious cycling", thought that was hilarious.

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

He got a letter just saying the speed he was doing and the Super told the Gardaí that it wasn't worth the hassle.

I was under the impression that speed limits applied to cyclists as well as motor vehicles as well but it was just an assumption, my mistake.

In trying to find out though, I did find out though in England you can be done for "furious cycling", thought that was hilarious.

It's wanton and furious driving! Probably dates from the horse and cart times. Someone who mounted a pavement and killed a pedestrian was prosecuted under this law, as the "reckless driving" type rules were considered too soft for the particular incident.

We've had a few threads on speed limits. IIRC, the distinguishing factor, in both Ireland and the UK, is they apply to "motor vehicles"

DaveyDave

Hermy wrote: »

You shouldn't cycle on the footpath.

I know, but I don't really have a choice if it's unsafe to cycle on the road due to other motorists which is usually the case.

coolbeans

DaveyDave wrote: »

I know, but I don't really have a choice if it's unsafe to cycle on the road due to other motorists which is usually the case.

With respect; that's balls. If you can't cycle safely on the road then I think you need to work on your cycling skills.

Raam

DaveyDave wrote: »

I know, but I don't really have a choice if it's unsafe to cycle on the road due to other motorists which is usually the case.

Is there a particular road you don't like?
I find the N32 from Baskin to Clarehall, in either direction, is one stretch I really dislike. I never go on it anymore.

previous user

and the sides of their cars raked by whirling pedals as cyclists try to force a way past them where there is no cycle lane on a narrow street and the motorist is patiently stopped for a pedestrian crossing or a red light.


This is insane, I've never seen a cyclist scratch the side of a car,
usually cyclists (myself as well) have to hop with one leg on the path to push the bike in the gutter because most motorists move too far to the left.

DaveyDave

coolbeans wrote: »

With respect; that's balls. If you can't cycle safely on the road then I think you need to work on your cycling skills.

Drivers forcing me onto the path has nothing to do with my cycling skill level. Drivers who can't respect other road users is the problem.

Raam wrote: »

Is there a particular road you don't like?
I find the N32 from Baskin to Clarehall, in either direction, is one stretch I really dislike. I never go on it anymore.

I've only forcefully had to cycle on the path once, when I was going down to Lucan Village I was at a red light waiting to turn left and a car tried to go overtake me on the turn forcing me onto the path. The only other time I cycle on the path is the bridge going over the train tracks at Clondalkin, and I've only done that once.

2 Wheels Good

To be fair, she has a point. Things are getting worse here, but I doubt any of the offenders are people who post here, most people here who drive in any of our cities will admit they see some poor/illegal cycling every day. And like every good news story the actions of a small number will tar the rest...

ThisRegard

monument wrote: »

To be fair to the Sindo their circulation was one of the few which has not recently declined.

Probably because they include the thousands of free copies given away in hotels etc in the circulation numbers, it's the only time I go through a copy of the crap. The article is not even as worthy as some posts in After Hours.

Gavin

As an alternative to the independent melodramatic tripe, there is a spiffing article in today's Sunday Times, page 8 I think.

tomasrojo

previous user wrote: »

and the sides of their cars raked by whirling pedals as cyclists try to force a way past them where there is no cycle lane on a narrow street and the motorist is patiently stopped for a pedestrian crossing or a red light.


This is insane, I've never seen a cyclist scratch the side of a car,
usually cyclists (myself as well) have to hop with one leg on the path to push the bike in the gutter because most motorists move too far to the left.

Yes, completely made up. I once damaged the bumper of a car with my pedal, because he pulled out of a side street perpendicular to my trajectory as I was passing, and I didn't quite swerve wide enough to clear the front of his car completely, but other than that, I imagine it would be very hard to get close enough to scratch the car. You'd be pretty much rubbing your knees off the side of the car.

The conflation of environmentalist and cyclist is regettable on two counts. One, I really don't believe most cyclists cycle for environmental reasons and two, it really brings home to me how unfashionable showing concern for the environment has become. 'Environmentalist' seems to have become short-hand for a sanctimonious hypocrite.

CramCycle

pat_hurley@yaho wrote: »

To be fair, she has a point. Things are getting worse here, but .

...it's getting worse from every angle. If anyone here can honestly tell me the number of motor vehicles who are red light jumpers has not increased I would be gravely surprised, the rule of law has almost gone down the toilet when it comes to motor traffic, the only reason some people stop is either due to fear of death or prosecution and even then there are a few who don't seem to care.

I'm not taking the side of anyone who uses the road in case it appears that is what I am saying, all I'm saying IMHO is that the number of people who are willing to break the rules/don't care about the rules has increased.

mikemac

On the other hand, of course, cyclists are not contributing a penny in taxes to the upkeep of the roads. (More of which later.)

This sort of nonsense in a national paper?
And the best paid editors in the country check it?

Everyone pays tax and everyone contributes to the roads

Cabaal

feelingstressed wrote: »

Everyone pays tax and everyone contributes to the roads

After reading that part of her nonsense story I was just going to post just that,.

Nobody in the republic of Ireland pays road tax, instead all taxes go into a pot and the road funds are taken out of that so regardless of if you have a car or not if you buy something in Ireland or work in Ireland you pay for the roads.

How do idiots like this end up working for papers, if she's going to write stuff let it be factual?

Chips Lovell

I kind of agreed with her for about seven paragraphs and then the usual cliched arguments began to be wheeled out.

I seriously doubt the correlation between bad cycling and caring for the environment. Their motivation is far more mundane. They simply think the rules shouldn't apply to them.

xz

I get the distinct feeling, that she got the shock of her life some morning, whilst driving to work, late, in slow moving traffic, applying her lipstick. Trying to keep one eye on the car in front, and the other on the pouting in the mirror, that she ended up smearing her lipstick up her face because a "lawless" cyclist banged on her roof, because she had drifted into his path, because she was not driving with "due care and attention"

And by her own admission, she is acid tongued. Acid ink in her pen too, by the sound of that article.
These "do-gooder" journalists, use the same old cliches, about road tax, not realising that the majority of cyclists also own cars and pay said same taxes.

We should bombard the letters to the editor section, about this article, interesting to see does one get printed