Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

doozerie

monument wrote: »

I guess I'm saying I care when there's nothing really to back up the idea that cyclists are the worst law breakers.

Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. On the one hand, it's annoying to be branded as a big group of law breakers, but there could be a wider point... If cyclists continue to be seen as outcasts it's (A) easier for some drivers to not care about us and (B) it's harder for others to become cyclists. Image does matter.

I think that the idea that cyclists are the worst law breakers exists in the heads of those people too lazy to think for themselves (e.g. those who like people like Joe Duffy and his angry callers to do their thinking for them), or those whose self-interest it serves (e.g. those who use it as justification for their own obnoxious behaviour on the roads). There are many who like to believe that motorist are the worst law breakers and their motivations for choosing to believe that are probably largely the same. The topic of who are the worst law breakers is a debate/argument that can soak up a lot of energy which would be better spent on discussing why people in/on any form of transport should feel it acceptable to treat the roads like their own playground.

I share your annoyance at the general dim view of cyclists by the way. But while I used to put forward strong arguments against people who said in my presence that *all* cyclists are just red-light jumping arses, I find I can't make the same arguments now because there are indeed many many people acting the bollix on bikes these days. Every day I see people on bikes pretty much ignoring the rules of the road and all other road users, be they motorists, other cyclists, or pedestrians crossing on a green light. If we want to improve the image of cycling then we need to insist on something been done about such obnoxious behaviour because it seems to me that it is getting more prevalent rather than less, certainly on my commuting route.

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

There are no like-minded people in this forum.

I strongly disagree...

doozerie

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I care, because while I agree with the general point that one transgression is not more or less wrong than another, and I think that the us-and-them factionalism is deeply unhelpful, I also think that we shouldn't ignore the fact that the seriousness of the likely impact on others of some transgressions is worse that that of other transgressions, and that that seriousness does broadly relate to the vehicle involved. The law already recognizes that fact. Breaking a red light is a transgression regardless of vehicle, but the likely impact on others of that transgression is far greater when the vehicle involved is an articulated lorry or even a car than when it's a pedal cycle.

Certainly the implications of being hit by a truck versus a bicycle are potentially very different, but as you say the penalties imposed by law already reflect that. The topic of this thread seems to mainly be about applying (what I consider to be) a meaningless ranking system though where some user group is nominated as being representative of the "worst offenders" end of the scale (or more specifically this thread is about putting cyclists somewhere on the scale other than the top, which means some other group presumably takes the top slot in their place). I don't think its a constructive angle on the whole debate about road safety.

At the very least, this kind of discussion risks going down the well-worn path of arguments along the lines of "as a cyclist I pose less risk than a car so I see nothing wrong with breaking a light. Cars kill, I simply hug!". Which is clearly a nonsense argument (for one thing, I suspect such people wouldn't submit to the tables been turned and having to stand still while a cyclist aimed their bike at them, and with good reason), but before you know it you'll have motorists ringing up Joe Duffy arguing with equal conviction that their breaking a red light is at least not as risky as an articulated lorry breaking a red light thereby making it acceptable. And once Joe is on the case we'll never hear the end of it!

manwithaplan

Is it wrong that I couldn't give a flying ****? Can't I have a non-political commute? I never even realised I was public enemy number 1.

Sometimes I think I'm not self-satisfied enough. Maybe I would be happier if everyone else would just see the error of their ways.

Bunnyhopper

doozerie wrote: »

[…]The topic of this thread seems to mainly be about applying (what I consider to be) a meaningless ranking system […]. I don't think its a constructive angle on the whole debate about road safety.

I think I broadly agree with you. My point was more that we should take care not to allow rejecting that particular meaningless ranking scale to flatten other more meaningful ranking scales, e.g., the huge variations in how bad the various outcomes for different vehicles are likely to be.

I just think that is relevant and constructive here because it shows up some of the mote-and-beam hypocrisy about vilifying cyclists.

manwithaplan wrote: »

Can't I have a non-political commute? I never even realised I was public enemy number 1.

I hope so, but the white van man behind you who's listening to Joe Duffy and reading Ian O'Doherty might feel otherwise

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

At the very least, this kind of discussion risks going down the well-worn path of arguments along the lines of "as a cyclist I pose less risk than a car so I see nothing wrong with breaking a light. Cars kill, I simply hug!". Which is clearly a nonsense argument (for one thing, I suspect such people wouldn't submit to the tables been turned and having to stand still while a cyclist aimed their bike at them, and with good reason), but before you know it you'll have motorists ringing up Joe Duffy arguing with equal conviction that their breaking a red light is at least not as risky as an articulated lorry breaking a red light thereby making it acceptable. And once Joe is on the case we'll never hear the end of it!

Aside from the accident outcome, the accident risk is lower for an attentive cyclist breaking a red light than for an attentive driver because visibility on a bike is so much better. Modern cars have massive blindspots, driving is akin to peering out of a postbox compared to cycling.

I stop for reds because it's less stressful and more considerate/respectful, not because it's necessary for safety. As a pedestrian I don't enjoy having to dodge or be dodged by cyclists when crossing on green, so I treat others as I would like to be treated.

Daniel S

liam7831 wrote: »

PAY SOME ROAD TAX

I think a lot of people have missed the joke lol

Bunnyhopper

mtb_kng wrote: »

I think a lot of people have missed the joke lol

I thought it was just a joke but then I saw that more than half of liam7831's posts are related to cars and driving so I began to wonder...

Bens

Being a keen cyclist myself as well as a driver I tend to notice faults on both sides.

Yesterday I was driving along looking at the cyclist in my mirror overtaking me as the driver in front was slowing down to turn left. The driver in front was indicating left.
Cyclist keeps going, speeds up, catches up with the car and tries to pass it even though the car started to slow and turn before cyclist was even level with me.
Driver sees cyclist and jams on the brakes. Cyclist gets a fright and and slips, falling off the bike. Cyclist starts roaring and shouting and trying to blame the driver.

It was clearly the cyclists fault. But two other cyclists who were about 5 cars back at the time of the accident then join in. I thought they were going to kill the driver.

Lesson : It doesnt matter whose fault it is. We all have the brains to prevent ourselves getting killed, even if we dont think the person who kills us is in the wrong and we are always right. Use the fcuking head. No point being dead, but being happy because it was up to the driver to watch out for you.

As Lumen has pointed out. Better saving your own life yourself, than hoping a driver doesnt make a mistake and kill you.

Dermot Illogical

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I thought it was just a joke but then I saw that more than half of liam7831's posts are related to cars and driving so I began to wonder...

Me too.

mickmcl09

I don't really think it matters who's the worst.
From a cyclists perspective, it's so irritating waiting at the lights on the bike while (I wouldn't call them fellow cyclists) some twat comes on and breaks the red or cycles on when pedestrian green light is on. They ruin our rep on the road.
May get slated for this as the serious Lycra cyclist is guilty of breaking rules as well, but most of these cycling rule breakers are commuters or at the very least, clad in a pair of jeans and travelling at no more than around 16-20kph. Hence we all get tainted the same by the motor possie.
Image will never be changed IMO unless we get €10/litre for fuel and put everyone on bikes.

kincsem

monument wrote: »

What on earth are you basing that on? Seriously.

Observation. Seriously.

Lumen

kincsem wrote: »

Observation. Seriously.

Perhaps you're excluding speeding. That's not really illegal.

kincsem

Going through red lights is ok too. Driving on footpaths?

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

Aside from the accident outcome, the accident risk is lower for an attentive cyclist breaking a red light than for an attentive driver because visibility on a bike is so much better. Modern cars have massive blindspots, driving is akin to peering out of a postbox compared to cycling.

I agree that an attentive cyclist is more likely to see, and hear, dangers than an attentive driver. However, attentiveness seems to be in very short supply amongst the idiots on bikes that I see on my commute. They seem to be a mix of people who simply don't care and people who might actually care but whose bike control wouldn't allow them to pass between a barn opening without clobbering the door frame at both sides (so a pedestrian who steps out in front of them doesn't have a chance).

Lumen wrote:

I stop for reds because it's less stressful and more considerate/respectful, not because it's necessary for safety. As a pedestrian I don't enjoy having to dodge or be dodged by cyclists when crossing on green, so I treat others as I would like to be treated.

I completely agree, my motivation too for obeying the rules of the road is the fact that I don't want to emulate the kind of obnoxious behaviour that I've seen others subjected to (whether in the car or on the bike). That makes me quite "the ghay" or so I'm told - apparently empathy is not a desirable trait in males, or something.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

I think that the idea that cyclists are the worst law breakers exists in the heads of those people too lazy to think for themselves (e.g. those who like people like Joe Duffy and his angry callers to do their thinking for them)...

I wish that was the case, but I think it has the spread of an urban myth at this stage, far beyond Joe Duffy listenership.

doozerie wrote: »

...I find I can't make the same arguments now because there are indeed many many people acting the bollix on bikes these days.

The argument isn't that cyclists as a group don't break laws (they do), the argument is that cyclists are hardly different than others.

doozerie wrote: »

Every day I see people on bikes pretty much ignoring the rules of the road and all other road users, be they motorists, other cyclists, or pedestrians crossing on a green light.

Every day I see people in cars, on bikes, and walking pretty much ignoring the rules of the road and all other road users, be they motorists, other cyclists, or pedestrians crossing on a green light.

kincsem wrote: »

Observation. Seriously.

No ped crossing around where you are to observe? Do you also observe cars speeding? What about tailgating on the M50, M1 etc, do you observe these much?

Here's some stuff to help your observations:

Study: More than 90% of drivers break speed limits

More than half of motorists admit to speeding regularly

53.8% of motorists surveyed admitted to using a handheld mobile phones

40.7% of those surveyed said they text while driving (same as last link)

What new city-centre speed limit? 97% of motorists ignore traffic law

Jaywalking is as bad but nobody bothers to do surveys about it...

Piercemeear

I was under the impression that there were no laws pertaining to peds and jaywalking in this country. Am I wrong that it is not actually illegal to cross wherever you like as a pedestrian?

Out of the three groups you mention, I am most frustrated by cyclists' bad behaviour because I am one, I think. I feel like I'm in a much maligned group, in part because of unfair assumptions and confused facts, but also in large part because we act like eejits in Dublin city. I'm a pedestrian too but, as above, I think jaywalking is legal here. Open to correction.

monument

Piercemeear wrote: »

I was under the impression that there were no laws pertaining to peds and jaywalking in this country. Am I wrong that it is not actually illegal to cross wherever you like as a pedestrian?

There is at or within 15m of a ped crossing.

Piercemeear

monument wrote: »

There is at or within 15m of a ped crossing.

That's really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. If the crossing is there you must use it.

I also have this kind of bias that pedestrians are the purest unit of transport in the city. They are the city, everything else is just clutter. I couldn't hold it against them if they walked all over the place.

galwaycyclist

Piercemeear wrote: »

That's really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. If the crossing is there you must use it.

Hmm makes sense to whom? There is good reason to believe that Irish traffic engineers often use pedestrian crossings to manage and control pedestrians for the benefit of motorised traffic. In that case, is there any moral obligation on pedestrians to use them? (lets leave aside the legalities)

We need to sit back from the behaviour/rule breaking being castigated and think about what is going on underneath. What is going on underneath is that we have a traffic system managed from the perspective of facilitating motorised traffic to the exclusion of all other considerations. Even much of the "cycling" and "pedestrian" infrastructure appears to have this as the underlying purpose.

So if "rules" are being applied to manage people for someone elses benefit at the expense of their own convenience, and occasionally, safety. Is it then realistic to expect the targets of these "rules" to comply?

(It is clearly also possible to use much of the same "rules" in support of a fairly managed system but is that what is actually happening here?)

John_Rambo

Piercemeear wrote: »

I couldn't hold it against them if they walked all over the place.

Seems to be the way in Dublin. Pedestrians OWN the roads! Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights. Cars simply slow down for them (well, I do) and let them cross. It's just the culture... You get the odd driver/cyclist throwing a wobbler, but usually it runs pretty smoothly, people, cars and bikes weaving about their way. I don't think the other Irish cities are the same, cars seem to rule in Cork and Galway anyway.

Piercemeear

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm makes sense to whom?

Makes sense to the road/junction designers. Makes sense as a jaywalking law in a city where pedestrian crossings are inadequate and the lack of a formal city-block structure make planning them even more difficult.

seamus

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights. Cars simply slow down for them (well, I do) and let them cross.

I guess it depends on just what kind of foreigners. I imagine Italians are more amazed that drivers slow down at all, rather than the fact that peds don't use the crossings. If you crossed outside of a zebra crossing in Rome, they'd run you down and keep going.

We have an interesting dynamic in this country. In places like the states, it's kind of accepted that the roads are where cars and other vehicles belong. Pedestrians usually respect this, and cross where it's safe.

Here in Ireland, we are different people depending on what mode of transport we're using, and in all cases, we feel that we have a right to be wherever we want to be.

As motorists, we drive through amber lights, park on footpaths and sneak down bus lanes. But we also go crazy about peds stepping off the kerb & crossing through traffic, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling the wrong way, and taxis pulling in wherever they like.

When we get out of the car and go for a walk, we walk on the road & cycle lanes, cross wherever the hell we like, expect taxis to pull in anywhere to accomodate us and at the same time complain about cyclists breaking red lights, cars running amber lights and parking on footpaths.

When we hop on our bikes, we bitch about peds crossing in front of us, cars breaking amber lights, parking in the cycle lane and using the bus lanes, taxis pulling in anywhere, but we'll happily ride through red lights, take illegal turns and cycle the wrong way where it suits us.

For some reason we expect a higher standard from everyone else than we apply to ourselves. This is partially why I don't break reds on the bike; so I can't be accused of hypocrasy. I find urban cycling a much more pleasant experience if you just obey the rules and let everyone else have their little rant and rave and bitch.

Yes, I could be accused of being a smug cyclist, but that's because I'm always in the right

Dermot Illogical

seamus wrote: »

I guess it depends on just what kind of foreigners. I imagine Italians are more amazed that drivers slow down at all, rather than the fact that peds don't use the crossings. If you crossed outside of a zebra crossing in Rome, they'd run you down and keep going.

Outside? Doesn't make any difference where you cross. An Italian driver will not stop at a pedestrian crossing (or anywhere for that matter) unless you give him/her no choice but to stop. You need to take your life in your hands and step out...

You've absolutely nailed it regarding Irish behaviour. That post should be kept ready to copy/paste into all future threads on this issue.

HivemindXX

John_Rambo wrote: »

Seems to be the way in Dublin. Pedestrians OWN the roads! Ever visit it with foreigners? They are amazed at the way people jaywalk with no regard to the lights.

Try visiting with Greeks/Italians/French, at least ones from the capitals. In Athens, Rome and Paris I've been perturbed to see how cars don't really stop unless there is actually someone in the way. So, when the ped light goes green for you if you wait for cars to stop before you cross you could be waiting a long time, they'll stop without complaint when you actually step out on to the road.

It seems that (sample size of 1) motorists in those cities ignore the rules but actually pay attention to what's going on around them. Kind of like a lot of cyclists seem to act in Dublin.

In Rome you can step out in front of traffic, they might go mental, but they'll see you and stop. In Dublin it seems that a lot of drivers just see traffic lights, if their light goes green they'll step on the accelerator and go back to texting without actually looking to see if there's anyone in the road.

Certainly it seems to work, although I don't know the pedestrian fatality numbers in those locations, the problem is when person A expects one thing to happen (traffic will stop if I step out) and person B expects another thing (green light means go, can go back to texting on my phone).

We seem to have a somewhat unfair situation where certain motorists want cyclists to obey every rule of the road but they choose to ignore any and all of them when it suits themselves.

For example(s)
+ Cyclists need to get off the footpath, but I can drive up on there to park when I need to run in to Spar 'for a second'.
+ Cyclists should never pass on the inside, but I can swoop in to the cycle lane or up on to the footpath to undertake someone who is turning right.
+ Cyclists should stop at red lights, but I can follow the standard, speed up on amber and the first three seconds of red don't count rule or feign confusion as to what filter arrows mean.

The main thing about the whole farcical issue that puzzles me is why more motorists don't go through red lights. As a group they clearly don't give a toss about the rules of the road per se, so why not? Presumably it's fear of being caught. Which means the anti-cyclist mentality is purely driven by jealousy.

seamus

HivemindXX wrote: »

Try visiting with Greeks/Italians/French, at least ones from the capitals. In Athens, Rome and Paris I've been perturbed to see how cars don't really stop unless there is actually someone in the way.
....
It seems that (sample size of 1) motorists in those cities ignore the rules but actually pay attention to what's going on around them. Kind of like a lot of cyclists seem to act in Dublin.

But to be fair, you've picked 3 countries with notably bad road safety records. Greece in particular is almost off the scale. Though to be fair, Italy is only worse than us since our recent huge drop in road deaths, the reason(s) for which is subject to lots of debate.

I think it does say something when the safest country in the EU - the UK - would have a similar enough attitude to us in terms of just crossing wherever and whenever. Perhaps there's a pseudo "shared space" thing going on where motorists expect at any time that a ped may step out in front of them, whereas in the likes of Italy they're only watching for peds at ped. crossings.

Presumably it's fear of being caught. Which means the anti-cyclist mentality is purely driven by jealousy.

I would say fear of being caught is probably half of it. I've recalled here the conversation I had with a young driver at a set of lights who couldn't understand why I'd stopped because, "you can't get points on your licence for it".
The other half would simply be the lemming effect. Drivers tend to stop at reds and speed up for ambers, for the same reason that cyclists tend to go through reds and cycle on the path; Because everyone else does it.

HivemindXX

seamus wrote: »

I think it does say something when the safest country in the EU - the UK - would have a similar enough attitude to us in terms of just crossing wherever and whenever. Perhaps there's a pseudo "shared space" thing going on where motorists expect at any time that a ped may step out in front of them, whereas in the likes of Italy they're only watching for peds at ped. crossings.

Based on my experience in Belfast the UK has a far better attitude towards the rules of the road than us. I've been in cars where the driver actually slowed down instead of speeding up when the next light goes amber. Pedestrians tend to wait for the green light before stepping in to the road. I didn't really notice cyclists one way or the other though.

mcmoustache

I have to agree with doozerie for the most part here although I can't argue with monument's stats. I cycle everywhere or I walk but I don't drive. My perception here is based solely on my experience as a cyclist living in the (Dublin) city centre.

For me the majority of cyclists give the rest of us a bad name. Again, this is about perception - it's hard to tell if a car is speeding when you're on a bike. On the other hand, it's really obvious when a cyclist thinks that red lights don't apply to them. From my experience, almost everyone on a BSO breaks lights. I rarely pull up to a red light to find a cyclist stopped there unless it's a busy cross-road but I always see cyclists passing me while I'm stopped. In fact, I once overtook the same gobshíte over 5 times while traveling from Gardiner St to Leeson St.

I also see salmon cyclists quite often. I don't mind them on roads so much but no-one wants to do the side-walk-shuffle at a combined speed of 40kph in a narrow cycle lane. As another person mentioned, dangerous undertaking is fairly common too.

These examples are anecdotal and I believe monument when he says that there is a comparable level of law-breaking in car drivers. The difference is that it's much more visible with cyclists. I see far more cyclists RLJing than cars (not counting the first second of a red). Also, due to the superior maneuverability of bikes, I see more of them doing silly things like undertaking before left turns, going the wrong way on one-way streets and cycling on footpaths. You can't do any of those things in a car so I see more bikes doing them.

tl;dr - Transgressions by motorists aren't so clearly visible whereas those of cyclists are very obvious. This leads to a perception that cyclists are a menace on the roads.

Goose81

monument wrote: »

Who here really thinks cyclists break the law more than others?

Anybody answering 'yes', how brainwashed are you?

You really think cyclists break more lights than pedestrians? Or do you honestly think it's only a tiny percent of motorists who speed, park on footpaths, block ped crossings, tailgate, don't indicate, have no care around cyclists or pedestrians, hold their phones when driving, block advance stop lines and cycle lanes?

Many motorists and cyclists do many of the same wrong things like not yielding for pedestrians at side roads or not slowing down when people cross away from traffic lights.

Don't get me wrong here, as both a cyclist and a pedestrian (often with a baby), I get pissed off with poor cyclling which endangers and it is a problem, but anybody who thinks cyclists are somehow byfar the worst lawbreakers needs to think again.

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

ThisRegard

Seriously, you claim you've cycled 'racers' for years but don't see the issue on why you shouldn't cycle too close to the edge of the road, in fact you see this as a problem ? Something doesn't add up with your claim.