Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

I can't think of any lights I go through on a regular basis where the stop line is close enough to the junction that an HGV could take me out at the stop line, but if that's the case just stop before the stop line.

It is not necessary to break red lights for safety reasons.

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At the risk of getting pulled into Devil's advocacy I can see cases where it might be necessary. Bicycles do not have reverse gears. Suppose a HGV or Bus pulls up beside or behind you at a set of lights and it is unclear if the driver can see you, or even knows you are there? (Given that HGVs also have a blind spot in front of the cab.)

In that case the most obvious, fastest, route out of the danger area is to move forward, which may involve passing the near traffic signal and crossing the white line.

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

This makes sense. If a HGV or bus pulls alongside and you can no longer see the driver, then I say you need to get back into their view or out of their way. This applies especially where the light sequence is long and your presence may be forgotten. Certainly I'd go out over the white line in those circumstances, but I wouldn't cross the junction.
The HGV doesn't need to be turning left to do damage either. Forgetting you're there and hugging the kerb is all it takes.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

I agree completely. But the problem is when people rigidly follow the law (and this is statistically more likely to be women), they also appear to assume that sticking to the law will keep them safe. So if a cycle lane goes up the left-hand side of a truck, they will follow it and stop at the line, with the belief that if it was unsafe, the cycle lane wouldn't be there. When they set off, they assume that the HGV driver is aware of them and can see them, and they're safe because they're following the law.

Same deal for stopping at a white line and having a large vehicle pull up behind you. Theoretically the driver should remember that you were there (or shouldn't pull up so close as to make you disappear), but if the light cycle is longer than 30 seconds, he could very easily forget about you, and just pull off without checking where you are.

I have always made a point of moving forward waaay past the white line in the above instance. Although I'm naturally going to accelerate quicker than a HGV, if I'm not paying attention to the lights when he pulls off, the extra distance means he can see me and I have time to get up on the pedals.

But no, there's never any need to proceed through a junction, and I don't think any report has ever said so.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

The HGV doesn't need to be turning left to do damage either. Forgetting you're there and hugging the kerb is all it takes.

HGVs cannot move sideways like crabs.

If there is one to your right, and it's not actually turning left, there is absolutely no way it can hit you unless you cycle forward under its wheels.

It may seem like the HGV is moving left in your frame of reference, as you cycle along, but it isn't moving left on the road.

Rule #1 of safe road use is: always have an escape plan. Often the best escape plan is to come to a complete stop.

Decuc500

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

seamus

Decuc500 wrote: »

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

manwithaplan

Decuc500 wrote: »

I'd like to vote 'No' but I still have the scars from being clattered by a cyclist last week when I was walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man.

Go on - vote 'No'. I'll get hit by a car to even things out.

(Seriously - sorry to hear that and hope you're OK)

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

Please tell me you're joking.

Decuc500

seamus wrote: »

Did you not look before you crossed? The cyclist is wrong, of course, but I'm confused as to how you managed to get in his way in the first place?

Of course I looked both ways before crossing. I was about to step onto the footpath on the far side of the crossing when he came around the corner and hit me. There wasn't a thing I could do to avoid it. I'm not cyclist bashing here btw, just saying what happened!

Antomus Prime

First of all the answers in your poll are absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!

I dont think that every cyclist breaks the law, however from what I see on a daily basis is that a much higher percentage of cyclist dont stop at red lights, or dont signal when changing lanes or turning corners. Again this is just what I see, I'm not implying that all cyclist behave this way. It would be very naive to say that motorists dont break the law on a regular basis... If nothing more I would think that due to the higher risk factor of cycling a bike on a busy road, cyclist should take even more care to cycle safe and signal when appropriate, and obey the lights.

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

I may be completely wrong on this

You're absolutely right about that.

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

You're absolutely right about that.

Oh really???

Read the first paragraph.....

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

Oh really???

Read the first paragraph.....

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

I have two cars and eight bikes. Get off my roads.

CramCycle

AK-Photography wrote: »

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!

I'll get the HSE to cough up the money that they would have wasted on me if I wasn't a cyclist, should be far more than the amount of motor tax I would have paid :pac:

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

I have two cars and eight bikes. Get off my roads.

That post makes no sense!!! Not only are you side stepping the fact that you were mistaken when you said that I was wrong, but how does having 2 cars and 8 bike make the roads yours??? We all know taxi drivers own the roads :pac:.

Anyway it's simply my opinion that cyclist should have to pay some sort of tax or annual fee in order to use the roads... And in relation to the topic of the thread, I see a lot more cyclist than motorists run red lights and so on and so forth

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking.

Well, kind of.

It's actually a perfect demonstration of why running a red is not a good idea. I bet that cyclist probably thought that there was no big deal in running reds so long as you looked around while you did it.

I was also partially curious about the incident itself. I'm continually amazed (though no longer surprised) about the amount of pedestrians who fearlessly step into the road at pedestrian crossings when cyclists are coming through (and have a green light!). Even when I have the green man, I wouldn't dream of crossing without checking both directions (even on a one-way road).

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!

We worked out here before that for every €1 in tax paid by a motorist, the taxpayers have to add another €1.50 to the pot to subsidise transport costs.

It costs the country money for you to drive your car. Cough up, please.

droidus

And despite what the CI website says, motor tax is not ringfenced. Transport is paid for out of the general tax pot, to which motorists contribute.

So why should we subsidise your motoring habit?

Pay up you scrounger (rabble rabble)

Antomus Prime

seamus wrote: »

It costs the country money for you to drive your car. Cough up, please.

This isnt debate about motorist not wanting to pay tax.... I have no problem paying taxes

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

This isnt debate about motorist not wanting to pay tax....

This isn't a debate about cyclists paying tax either. You're trying to make it one.

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

This isn't a debate about cyclists paying tax either. You're trying to make it one.

I'm actually not, Look at post #106, second paragraph..... other people her just keep reverting back to that. I've given my opinion on the topic of the thread

HivemindXX

AK-Photography wrote: »

Anyway it's simply my opinion that cyclist should have to pay some sort of tax or annual fee in order to use the roads...

Roads are paid for out of the general tax pool, in to which I pay far more than the average amount of tax. It's simply my opinion that I should have more rights to use the road than people who pay less tax than me. I will of course give way to people who pay more than me on production of their P60.

Don't get me started on children and old people. Do you realise pensioners pay hardly any tax at all and still get to use the roads? Children pay no tax whatsoever yet they still can use pedestrian crossings, forcing ME, a taxpayer, to stop.

Outrageous. Someone call Joe Duffy for me, I'm too incensed to work the phone.

Antomus Prime

This is getting off topic, I made my comments on the topic of the thread also on another topic mentioned mid thread. All this general tax pool, pensioners tax, blah blah is pointless talk. IMO

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

HGVs cannot move sideways like crabs.

This I know, but a HGV isn't always lined up perfectly parallel to the roadside either. And the roadside isn't always perfectly straight. Moving off alongside a HGV/Bus and expecting the gap you're in to remain consistent seems a bit optimistic to me.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

This I know, but a HGV isn't always lined up perfectly parallel to the roadside either. And the roadside isn't always perfectly straight. Moving off alongside a HGV/Bus and expecting the gap you're in to remain consistent seems a bit optimistic to me.

Which is why I suggested staying put. :pac:

doozerie

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

Easy solution here, you can have all the cycle lanes back, and those traffic lights too. You'll find that many cyclists never even asked for them. They are a bit like junk mail, you go about your usual business and suddenly notice there's a help of these rubbish things just piling up supposedly addressed to you but you never requested them and you certainly don't want them.

CramCycle

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

But they aren't useful and they were never wanted or needed in most cases, it was clearly someone who doesn't cycle wasting the tax money that I have paid into, year in and year out for 15 years. Oddly enough in relation to the title of this thread, the poor state of these "mandatory" lanes are what force alot of cyclists to break the law (poor quality, illegal signage, nio signage etc. etc.)

Dermot Illogical

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years

Indeed, where would motorists park without them?
:rolleyes:

Magic Beans

If we avoid the extreme examples of stupidity the average cyclist is no better nor worse at keeping or breaking the law than is the average motorist. So no I don't think cyclists are public enemy no. 1 but I do think that many cyclists are their own worst enemy. Simply because they refuse to acknowledge their fragility and try to enforce notions of "rights" when dealing with cars. Car drivers don't attempt to exercise the same "rights" when dealing with trucks. Why? Because they know that the big metal box will hurt them. Many cyclists need to realise this and be more realistic on the roads.

Antomus Prime

Magic Beans wrote: »

If we avoid the extreme examples of stupidity the average cyclist is no better nor worse at keeping or breaking the law than is the average motorist. So no I don't think cyclists are public enemy no. 1 but I do think that many cyclists are their own worst enemy. Simply because they refuse to acknowledge their fragility and try to enforce notions of "rights" when dealing with cars. Car drivers don't attempt to exercise the same "rights" when dealing with trucks. Why? Because they know that the big metal box will hurt them. Many cyclists need to realise this and be more realistic on the roads.

Totally agree with this, i never agreed that cyclists are public enemy number 1, but as i said i do see alot more careless cyclists than i don motorists, now that doesnt mean at all that there aren't s**t load of both.

CramCycle

^^^^ CONFUSED

What do you mean by "notion of rights"? Do we not actually have any?

And when did the presence of a larger vehicle on the road negate the legal entitlement of a driver of a smaller vehicle to be there?