Wish I had a helmet cam for this...

monument

The other day I was cycling along the "premium" cycle route and had a funny encounter with a taxi driver.

Was crossing over Pearse Street, from Grand Canal Square to Grand Canal Quay when it first happened. Watched the lights and they went amber and then red before the taxi driver went sailing past both the stop line and advance stop box and drove up to the Toucan crossing.

He had his window down so I said "you broke the light". He said he didn't and that there was another line at / just before the Toucan crossing. I just repeated "you broke the light", smiled and cycled off as my light had changed.

So, I continued alone the cycle route thinking no more of it.

On the two-way cycle track along the canal I was stopped at the lights at Mount Street when a taxi pulled along side and the driver started ranting about me telling people how to drive. It took me half a second to cop it was the same driver and he had followed me around.

He was getting very angry and using abusive language. I tried to avoid engaging further with him. He said he didn't need to be told how to drive as he had been driving 20-30 years. Then he started to follow me, passing his red light and the advance stop box.

He apparently did not need to be told how to drive, yet he was looking at me and moving forward oblivious to the red light until I said he was breaking another red light! He stopped before turning off when his lights turned green and I looked a bit crazy cycling down the road in a fit of laughter.

So, was it just a case of not wanting to be told he was in the wrong? By a cyclist?

Anybody using the canal route weekly notice if motorists are still breaking as many lights as they were at first?

Beasty

monument wrote: »

So, was it just a case of not wanting to be told he was in the wrong?

Almost certainly, although I suspect he would have reacted the same to anyone suggesting this, be it cyclist, pedestrian or other motorist

stas

There was another thread here not so long ago when someone pointed out that a motorist making remarks about some chap's cycling was definitely in the wrong, had no right to do so and so on. Stating that only Gardaí on duty can enforce RotR, even if just verbally.

It works both ways, I guess.

petethedrummer

I'm afraid you were in the wrong Monument.

This is how traffic lights work.
Green = Go
Amber = Speed up
Red + 3 seconds = Stop

Mr Benevolent

To be fair though, the % of cyclists breaking the lights is much higher than the % of cars doing the same.

DirkVoodoo

Confab wrote: »

To be fair though, the % of cyclists breaking the lights is much higher than the % of cars doing the same.

Is that some kind of justification for it?

Well mr.taxi-driver, you broke the light but because so many cyclists do it, it's ok?

Of course it's not ok for cyclists to break lights (although I've been stuck on sensor operated ones late at night with not a car in sight to help me out) but the car carries the risk of causing a lot more damage. And there are accident statistics to prove that, unlike your observed % which is entirely subjective.

Beasty

Confab wrote: »

To be fair though, the % of cyclists breaking the lights is much higher than the % of cars doing the same.

Electric Bicyclists - them's the worst

I'm sure I saw one coming down the N32 this morning breaking every red light in sight;)

clod71

Confab wrote: »

To be fair though, the % of cyclists breaking the lights is much higher than the % of cars doing the same.

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...
Lights, like one way streets were probably designed to regulate mostly motor traffic.
I don't think it would be fair to compare a cyclist breaking a light to a motorist doing the same thing. In fact, the consequences are totally different.

Beasty

clod71 wrote: »

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...
Lights, like one way streets were probably designed to regulate mostly motor traffic.
I don't think it would be fair to compare a cyclist breaking a light to a motorist doing the same thing. In fact, the consequences are totally different.

Not necessarily - A cyclist may hit a pedestrian, or cause an accident by causing a car to swerve for example. Adopting the attitude that we are somehow above the law really winds a lot of non cyclists (and cyclists) up

clod71

Beasty wrote: »

Not necessarily - A cyclist may hit a pedestrian, or cause an accident by causing a car to swerve for example. Adopting the attitude that we are somehow above the law really winds a lot of non cyclists (and cyclists) up

I understand your point Beasty and I agree but only to a certain extent.

I am not saying that you don't have to look for pedestrians crossing or be totally unaware of what is going around around you (especially pedestrians!!!). In fact, a cyclist is much more aware (a lot more) of what is happening on the road than a motorist and as cyclists we all know that...

I am just saying that sometimes the same rules that apply to cars do not necessarily apply to bicycles or horses if you prefer.

Seve OB

Driving into work this morning I almost his a cyclist who had broken sailed through a red light. Well I had actually seen him, so there was never any real problem, but he was going fast and if i hadn't spotted him, it could have been fatal.
Anyway, his reaction was to give me a sarcastic thumbs up, as if I had done something wrong!

Seve OB

clod71 wrote: »

In fact, a cyclist is much more aware (a lot more) of what is happening on the road than a motorist and as cyclists we all know that...

I don't think so. When I am on the bike, I pretty much haven't got a clue what is going on behind me, or even in front of me when I have the head down! Of all the bikes I have ever seen, maybe 1 out of about ten thousand or so might have a rear view mirror of some kind!

clod71 wrote: »

I am just saying that sometimes the same rules that apply to cars do not necessarily apply to bicycles or horses if you prefer.

Of course they do. that is why they are called "the rules of the road" and not "the rules of the road for cars" accompanied by "the ruls of the road for cyclists"

Mr Benevolent

clod71 wrote: »

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...
Lights, like one way streets were probably designed to regulate mostly motor traffic.

It can do plenty of harm to a pedestrian crossing the road or to yourself when a car gets in your way. Personally I always stop, it's the rules of the road and I'm a road user. Besides, with the electric bike starting off is the easiest bit.

I don't think so. When I am on the bike, I pretty much haven't got a clue what is going on behind me, or even in front of me when I have the head down! Of all the bikes I have ever seen, maybe 1 out of about ten thousand or so might have a rear view mirror of some kind!

Yeah, not being able to see behind is really starting to annoy me. Time for a mirror on the handlebar methinks. Also a length of foam the width of the handlebars on the rear carrier to remind drivers of how wide the bike is.

I am just saying that sometimes the same rules that apply to cars do not necessarily apply to bicycles or horses if you prefer.

Show me where it says that in the Rules of the Road.

swimming in a sea

I always try to keep to rules on bike although its hard! I was cycling from harolds cross bridge all the way to rathfarham, it was one of those days when i hit every red light:mad:, now i cycle a hybrid so i'm not that quick but quicker than most others on similar bikes. there was this woman who broke the light at harolds cross bridge, i pass her, she breaks the light at the crossbar pub in harold cross, i pass her, she breaks the light at Terenure i pass her again. We meet up again at that cross roads just past the dodder river going to rathfarham, she had to stop this time as heavy traffic but she still went early. I powered up the hill and finally left her behind.

She must have been laughing her arse off at me, no wonder some people hate cyclists. I'm a driver myself and drove for 7 years for my job and always tried to give cyclists some leaway, but she was some liberty taker.

ThisRegard

clod71 wrote: »

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...

It would do a lot of harm to me if one ended with a skull cracked all over the road as a result of me driving over said head.

clod71

I didn't want to create any khaos, but apparently I did.
I'll try to explain better what I mean even if probably it would result in more khaos...

If you're coming with your bike (@stevieob - with your head down???) and you are approaching a STOP and NOT a red light, what do you do? You slow down and possibly you stop if you don't want to die, correct? Yes
Now, the same thing apply when you approach a red light with a bicycle. If you are not suicidal or stupid you will put your hands on your brakes and slow down, then you will stop. (see above)
Same thing.

At the STOP you look right, then left and if there's nobody you GO
At the Light you have to wait for the Green and then you GO.

I am simply saying that if there is NOBODY I have no problem in breaking that Light. You can certainly say that I am breaking the Law and that is fine with me, but you will never convince me that what I am doing is illogic or stupid or even dangerous.
That's all I'm saying - I am not suggesting reckless riding.

Re the "being more aware" when cycling rather than when driving a car, I don't know where you ride your bike @stevieob, but where I live the road are quite bad and full of potholes, stones, gravel, etc...
That means that I have to be fully aware of what is going on because I have to change my direction all the time and for this reason I also have to be fully aware of the cars especially behind me.

Finally, I would like to remind you @stevieob that a GREEN light doesn't give you any right to GO. It is just an indication that you can GO and for that reason I would suggest you to keep your head up and look when you're going when you ride your bicycle. I am also a pedestrian and I want to live much longer...

Mr Benevolent

I am also a pedestrian and I want to live much longer...

Then stop being hypocritical and stop at red lights regardless. Let's say you break a red light but don't notice a pedestrian stepping of the kerb. BAM. Seriously injured pedestrian, injured cyclist. Yes, I know you said you look around but everyone makes mistakes. Stop at red lights. Stop at stop signs. Keep your lights on at all times. Bikes are quiet and small, pedestrians don't look for them. Neither do cars for that matter.

I have actually seen car drivers look oddly at me for stopping at a red light. That's how poorly we obey the rules of the road, on average.

clod71

I am not a hypocrite @confab

I would like to know how many cyclists and pedestrians have been killed by cars and trucks on irish roads and how many taxi drivers and pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.

You are comparing apples with pears.
cyclists and motorists cannot be put on the same level.
One thing is moving a 10Kg frame and one thing is moving a ton motorized car.

Mr Benevolent

clod71 wrote: »

You are comparing apples with pears.
cyclists and motorists cannot be put on the same level.
One thing is moving a 10Kg frame and one thing is moving a ton motorized car.

How many people have been hit by a bike travelling on it's own? The rider increases the weight of the bike by a factor of 8-10. Now you have an 70-100kg object hitting you at 25kph. That's enough to break lots of bones.

clod71

Confab wrote: »

How many people have been hit by a bike travelling on it's own? The rider increases the weight of the bike by a factor of 8-10. Now you have an 70-100kg object hitting you at 25kph. That's enough to break lots of bones.

I would imagine you would be one of those in favour of fining pedestrians breaking the red light too... because you put a pedestrian as well as a cyclist on the same level of a car, don't you?

stas

I'm sure some of the bad attitude and the lack of respect coming from drivers towards the cyclists is caused by cyclists themselves, insisting on their right to share the road, but consciously ignoring the rules of that road. Never mind the dangers imposed by a "I'm smarter than everyone else on this road" attitude.

I know sometimes there are situations when cyclists get stuck on a triggered set of lights and there's choice of crossing on foot or breaking red light (much the same thing if there's no pedestrian crossing), but continuously ignoring every red light and sometimes without even looking around - I don't understand this.

monument

Beasty wrote: »

Almost certainly, although I suspect he would have reacted the same to anyone suggesting this, be it cyclist, pedestrian or other motorist

I suppose it was the apparent following me to release some of his anger was notable part... and the claiming he was a good driver while breaking the very rule he claimed he did not break was the funny part!

clod71 wrote: »

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...
Lights, like one way streets were probably designed to regulate mostly motor traffic.
I don't think it would be fair to compare a cyclist breaking a light to a motorist doing the same thing. In fact, the consequences are totally different.

Just because lights are mainly there because of motor traffic does not mean bicycles breaking lights does not do any harm. Equally, just because a cyclist breaking a light is different than a motorist breaking a light does not mean the former is harmless.

Cyclists who systematically break lights are just as selfish as motorists who do the same. Putting aside risk or perceived risk for a second and the general results are the same: You're intimidating people on foot and at the least annoying motorists and other cyclists.

Do you like intimidating people and annoying others?

stevieob wrote: »

Of course they do. that is why they are called "the rules of the road" and not "the rules of the road for cars" accompanied by "the ruls of the road for cyclists"

I strongly agree that cyclists should obey lights, but it's worth pointing out that there's no set rules of the road for all road users and there's lots of ways cyclists differ from motorists and people on foot.

The cyclist - motorists differences include: What roads and section of roads they can travel on, where they can park, and where they have to stop at lights.

stas wrote: »

I'm sure some of the bad attitude and the lack of respect coming from drivers towards the cyclists is caused by cyclists themselves, insisting on their right to share the road, but consciously ignoring the rules of that road. Never mind the dangers imposed by a "I'm smarter than everyone else on this road" attitude.

If we're playing the massive unfair stereotypes game: How dare a taxi driver say he knows how to drive, by the way they drive it is clear no taxi driver knows how to drive!!!

stas wrote: »

...but continuously ignoring every red light and sometimes without even looking around - I don't understand this.

I'm sure a mix of the reasons why motorists and pedestrians continuously break different laws -- a mix of selfishness / feeling they are doing no harm / feeling aggrieved etc.

clod71 wrote: »

I am not a hypocrite @confab

I would like to know how many cyclists and pedestrians have been killed by cars and trucks on irish roads and how many taxi drivers and pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.

You are comparing apples with pears.
cyclists and motorists cannot be put on the same level.
One thing is moving a 10Kg frame and one thing is moving a ton motorized car.

Lot's of people live in fear of crossing the road because of cyclists. That's not death but people should have the right to cross the road without fearing a cyclist or motorist knocking them down.

Bandara

clod71 wrote: »

A cyclist breaking a light doesn't do any harm...
Lights, like one way streets were probably designed to regulate mostly motor traffic.
I don't think it would be fair to compare a cyclist breaking a light to a motorist doing the same thing. In fact, the consequences are totally different.

I'd have to disagree, considering that if I hadn't managed to catch the handlebars of the bike just as it was about to hit me, after it went about 8 seconds late thru the junction at fleet st/trinity while looking down and texting, they'd have smashed in me. As it was my knee got a bad bang and they fell sideways onto the ground.

clod71

Guys, I agree with most of the comments made and again I feel that my thoughts on the matter has been mostly misunderstood.

I am NOT, under any circumstances, saying that a cyclist should ride head down through a red light... That not only would be dangerous if not fatal in some cases for the pedestrians crossing as well as for the cyclist himself (or herself), but MOST of ALL it would be the most stupid proposition ever made.
So, I am not inviting anybody to cross a road head down with a red light.

Previously I described the approach to a red light the same way we approach a STOP. Like we slow down and eventually stop to a STOP, we do the same with the approach to a traffic light.
Yes, I am inviting you all to slow and eventually STOP! (repetita iuvant).
Now, once we stop the only difference between the two things is that in one case if there's NOBODY coming (no pedestrians, no cars, no horses) we can go while in the second case we must wait for the green light to come on and then go...

I am only suggesting that in some cases breaking the red light with a bicycle (if the light is approached as described above) will cause no harm, the very same way as the STOP does not cause any harm if approached consciously

I feel it's totally wrong to put on the same level cyclists and motorists. The second ones cause the death of thousands of pedestrians and cyclists every year and NOT necessarily because they are all bad people, but because they move around in a metal box that weighs a ton! And it is for this reasons that I think cycling and motor traffic should be regulated and treated differently.

The Law is the Law I agree, but common sense sometimes beats a silly law. Yes, there are also stupid laws... That is why sometimes we change them.

Have a safe cycle everyone

clod71

Hammertime wrote: »

I'd have to disagree, considering that if I hadn't managed to catch the handlebars of the bike just as it was about to hit me, after it went about 8 seconds late thru the junction at fleet st/trinity while looking down and texting, they'd have smashed in me. As it was my knee got a bad bang and they fell sideways onto the ground.

Did I ever suggest to ride head down while texting?
Hope the knee get better soon

clod71

monument wrote: »

Just because lights are mainly there because of motor traffic does not mean bicycles breaking lights does not do any harm. Equally, just because a cyclist breaking a light is different than a motorist breaking a light does not mean the former is harmless.

Cyclists who systematically break lights are just as selfish as motorists who do the same. Putting aside risk or perceived risk for a second and the general results are the same: You're intimidating people on foot and at the least annoying motorists and other cyclists.

Do you like intimidating people and annoying others?

I don't like intimidating people monument.
I commute two/three times a week and sometimes I am the one to feel intimidated by careless drivers who have no respect for anything.
It's a set of rules and an entire road system thought for cars and trucks and I feel small and frail out there... Like an easy target.
Let's not forget that.

Chips Lovell

The vast majority of people who break traffic law think they're doing no harm. It takes a rare breed of idiot or psycho who'd do something they believe to be dangerous.

Despite the fact that this applies to virtually all road users, there is a constituency of cyclists who think that just because they are on bikes, they are somehow exceptional and the law shouldn't apply to them. Of course this sense of superiority is what drives all other road users nuts and gives the rest of us a bad name.

Saying that a bike is less lethal than others on the road and therefore excuses light breaking, is a bit of a red herring. Yes, you're far less likely to kill or injure someone, but do you really think it's OK for someone to have your death on their conscience because you felt the law shouldn't apply to you?

on_the_nickel

I'm in no way supporting or condoning the actions of the taxi driver, he's obviously got some issues, but maybe look at it from his position.

He's driving along, minding his own business, doing a day's work, on a nice day with the window open and slightly overshoots the junction. But he's stopped, it's safe, everything's ok. Sun shining. Then this cyclist offers some unsolicited advice on his driving through the window and then heads off with a smug smile on his face.

This guy completely over reacted, of course, but us cyclists (and I don't want to lump cyclists into a group, but most other road users do, lets face it) don't help ourselves do we?

OP, next time you make a slight error in your days work, let's hope that when some stranger lets you know his thoughts, you react better than this guy, eh?

monument

on_the_nickel wrote: »

He's driving along, minding his own business, doing a day's work, on a nice day with the window open and slightly overshoots the junction. But he's stopped, it's safe, everything's ok. Sun shining. Then this cyclist offers some unsolicited advice on his driving through the window and then heads off with a smug smile on his face.

Around 20-30 meters passed a red light is not slightly overshooting it!

Once somebody breaks the law they are no longer minding their "own business".

The smile only came as I passed the back of the taxi and made eye contact with somebody who was about to cross the road before the taxi driver made his move.

on_the_nickel wrote: »

This guy completely over reacted, of course, but us cyclists (and I don't want to lump cyclists into a group, but most other road users do, lets face it) don't help ourselves do we?

You can't not lump cyclists into a group and ask the question with a straight face. I'm sorry, but if "us cyclists" includes those who break light all the time, I don't belong to your group.

EDIT: As said in my last post: If we're playing the massive unfair stereotypes game: How dare a taxi driver say he knows how to drive, by the way they drive it is clear no taxi driver knows how to drive!!!

on_the_nickel wrote: »

OP, next time you make a slight error in your days work, let's hope that when some stranger lets you know his thoughts, you react better than this guy, eh?

Breaking a red light, which was well red and by so far, is not a "slight error".

I strongly welcome people pointing out major errors in my days work. Even more so if there was any safety issue with my errors.

RacoonQueen

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I always try to keep to rules on bike although its hard! I was cycling from harolds cross bridge all the way to rathfarham, it was one of those days when i hit every red light:mad:, now i cycle a hybrid so i'm not that quick but quicker than most others on similar bikes. there was this woman who broke the light at harolds cross bridge, i pass her, she breaks the light at the crossbar pub in harold cross, i pass her, she breaks the light at Terenure i pass her again. We meet up again at that cross roads just past the dodder river going to rathfarham, she had to stop this time as heavy traffic but she still went early. I powered up the hill and finally left her behind.

That crap does my head in. Or they've seen you pass them and at the next lights they stop but they push so far ahead of where they should be stopped that you're behind them, and they cycle so slow you nearly fall off your bike waiting for a break in traffic to pass them. :mad: In fairness, I've noticed a lot of motorists are very good in this instance and have had cars slow behind me allowing me the space and time to overtake. Are people that ignorant that they don't realise the same person has overtaken them 5 times that they feel the need to get in their way again or are they that switched off as they plod along that they don't realise?

I've taken to telling other cyclists that the light is red when they plough through them or that it's illegal to cycle on footpaths when they cycle past me on the path while I wait in traffic. Last week I passed someone told her she'd broken the rules of the road 4 times in the last 5 minutes and she'd get herself or someone else killed. She stopped at the next red light. She really got me, cheeky bitch ploughed through pedestrian lights and rang her bell at the people who were crossing the road legally. WTF?

And the amount of times I've nearly been taken out by some eejit jumping their bike off the footpath without checking if anything/one is coming behind them. :mad:

on_the_nickel

monument wrote: »

You can't not lump cyclists into a group and ask the question with a straight face. I'm sorry, but if "us cyclists" includes those who break light all the time, I don't belong to your group.

Woah, now RLJs are my group?

Thanks for clarifying the extent to which he was over the line, that does put a different view on things.

I was simply offering an alternate view - have another read of your reply. To me, it comes across as ever-so-slightly smug and condescending. Now if I was in the "taxi-driver" group, I might just be seeing red right now....

monument

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Woah, now RLJs are my group?

From your last post, it would seem that way: You lumped all cyclists together while saying you did not want to lump all cyclists to together.

on_the_nickel wrote: »

I was simply offering an alternate view - have another read of your reply. To me, it comes across as ever-so-slightly smug and condescending.

But that's the problem you were not simply offering an alternate view.

You included a massive stereotype, you implied I was interfering with somebody who was "minding his own business" when their actions were not of somebody who was just minding their own business; and you implied I was overreacting (ie your comment about 'slightly overshoots' when you don't seem to know the junction in question).

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Now if I was in the "taxi-driver" group, I might just be seeing red right now....

In the event that you think I was seriously using a stereotype comment about taxi drivers: Read my post again: Note the 'massive unfair stereotype' part, and the three exclamation marks followed by a smiley face.

Mycroft H

Idiotic lorry driver but if there was ever an example to take central position, this is it.

Seve OB

monument wrote: »

Around 20-30 meters passed a red light is not slightly overshooting it!

You are dead right there. 20-30 meters would easily have him on the other side of the junction and through al the lights!

monument wrote: »

You can't not lump cyclists into a group and ask the question with a straight face. I'm sorry, but if "us cyclists" includes those who break light all the time, I don't belong to your group.

EDIT: As said in my last post: If we're playing the massive unfair stereotypes game: How dare a taxi driver say he knows how to drive, by the way they drive it is clear no taxi driver knows how to drive!!!

So is it not ok to lump all cyclists in the same group, but it is ok to class all taxi drivers as unable to drive.

A bit hippocritical I thinnk!

monument

stevieob wrote: »

So is it not ok to lump all cyclists in the same group, but it is ok to class all taxi drivers as unable to drive.

A bit hippocritical I thinnk!

Expect I wasn't being anyway seriously. As I said in my last post:

In the event that you think I was seriously using a stereotype comment about taxi drivers: Read my post again: Note the 'massive unfair stereotype' part, and the three exclamation marks followed by a smiley face.

clod71

I am a man of substance rather than a man that goes by the rules. For me what it's more important is to have respect of other road users and have safety in mind all the time and NOT the respect of the rules in absolute terms.
In this case, if a taxi driver passes the line without creating danger for me or others I wouldn't usually go knocking on his window just to tell him that he's off the line 30cm...
So in that respect I tend to agree with nickel's point of view.
But again... That's just me.

ThisRegard

stevieob wrote: »

but it is ok to class all taxi drivers as unable to drive.

A bit hippocritical I thinnk!

I dunno, the ones that service the airport seem to have been struck by some mass disease that prevents them doing so.

buffalo

clod71 wrote: »

I am a man of substance rather than a man that goes by the rules. For me what it's more important is to have respect of other road users and have safety in mind all the time and NOT the respect of the rules in absolute terms.
In this case, if a taxi driver passes the line without creating danger for me or others I wouldn't usually go knocking on his window just to tell him that he's off the line 30cm...

What about when he goes past the line, and is sitting in the ASB? Not doing any harm.

Until a cyclist comes up, and is forced to either sit in behind (defeating the purpose of transport cycling, i.e. beating traffic), stop beside the taxi (unsafe position, liable to left hooks), or get in front of the taxi (sticking out, possibly blocking a pedestrian crossing, or getting close to cross-traffic in the junction). Even though sitting in behind isn't a bad option, sometimes I've gone past that point when I realised somebody has left me no space to take a safe position at a junction.

What might be harmless at first glance is a potential hazard. If everyone stuck to the rules, sure we'd all be grand.

rp

buffalo wrote: »

Even though sitting in behind isn't a bad option

It's a bad option, believe me: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/exhaust-ing-ride-for-cyclists (on the plus side from the cyclists p.o.v., exposure to hazardous fumes are highest inside vehicles)

buffalo wrote: »

What might be harmless at first glance is a potential hazard. If everyone stuck to the rules, sure we'd all be grand.

Problems occur at the point when my flexible interpretation of the rules overlaps with yours. Boom.

megafan

clod71 wrote: »

I am only suggesting that in some cases breaking the red light with a bicycle (if the light is approached as described above) will cause no harm,

If you apply this logic in other areas of the law why have Laws??:rolleyes: The law is the law & that attitude is whats wrong!!:mad:

clod71

megafan wrote: »

If you apply this logic in other areas of the law why have Laws??:rolleyes: The law is the law & that attitude is whats wrong!!:mad:

OP:
I suppose if we had to go with your view of things black americans would still be slaves, women would not have any right to vote and Dublin would still be one of the major cities of the British Empire...

There's no need to put in angry faces.

buffalo

clod71 wrote: »

OP:
I suppose if we had to go with your view of things black americans would still be slaves, women would not have any right to vote and Dublin would still be one of the major cities of the British Empire...

There's no need to put in angry faces.

Can we call Godwin's Law on comparing slavery to stopping at the white line? Are you saying if it was a black line you'd stop?

clod71

buffalo wrote: »

Can we call Godwin's Law on comparing slavery to stopping at the white line? Are you saying if it was a black line you'd stop?

ok then, enough for me on RLJ and taxi drivers.
See you in different threads

Chips Lovell

The Rosa Parks of our time.

SerialComplaint

monument wrote: »

The other day I was cycling along the "premium" cycle route and had a funny encounter with a taxi driver.

Helmetcam would be good all right. Or whipping out your phone and either film him, or just pretend and tell him you're filming him. For extra fun, just mention the Taxi Regulator and watch him explode.

buffalo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Helmetcam would be good all right. Or whipping out your phone and either film him, or just pretend and tell him you're filming him. For extra fun, just mention the Taxi Regulator and watch him explode.

Taxis were deregulated a while ago now.

AFAIK, the NTA only deal with unprofessionalism (over-charging, unclean vehicle, etc.). I believe in this case he's broken the ROTR and should be reported to the Gardaí, if one wanted to be officious.

SerialComplaint

buffalo wrote: »

Taxis were deregulated a while ago now.

AFAIK, the NTA only deal with unprofessionalism (over-charging, unclean vehicle, etc.). I believe in this case he's broken the ROTR and should be reported to the Gardaí, if one wanted to be officious.

The Regulator does deal with complaints about behaviour, though you're probably right about this being one for the Gardai

manwithaplan

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The Rosa Parks of our time.

As long as she doesn't do it on a double yellow

buffalo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The Regulator does deal with complaints about behaviour, though you're probably right about this being one for the Gardai

Aye, but I think that's more about the 'politeness' of the driver rather than behaviour on the road. All I know is I was rebuffed when I tried to complain about a driver who bullied past me on the inside, and I wasn't arsed taking it to the Gardaí based on previous experiences.

monument

clod71 wrote: »

I am a man of substance rather than a man that goes by the rules. For me what it's more important is to have respect of other road users and have safety in mind all the time and NOT the respect of the rules in absolute terms.
In this case, if a taxi driver passes the line without creating danger for me or others I wouldn't usually go knocking on his window just to tell him that he's off the line 30cm...
So in that respect I tend to agree with nickel's point of view.
But again... That's just me.

But then again:

[1] I think you're getting cm mixed with meters.

[2] Nobody knocked on a window.

[3] He created unneeded risk - just because nothing happened does not mean there was not increased risk.

[4] People expect others to go by the rules and if you don't, you're not respecting people. That's not always black and white but more than a few meters past a red light and advanced stop line amd thinking you're still in the right is a sick joke. But, hey, you like breaking lights!

[5] nickel said in his last post: "Thanks for clarifying the extent to which he was over the line, that does put a different view on things" ...you agree with that or something else?