Cyclists on a Backroad

kylith

VinLieger wrote: »

Who said they fantasize about hitting cyclists?

This guy, for a start.

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I console myself with the thought that the tight shorts and bike-seats make the feckers impotent. They will die out. All it needs is a bit of patience. In the meantime I fantasise about clipping their back wheel and watching them careen off across the ditch in a flurry of carbon fiber, colourful tight lycra and twigs.

Ms. Pingui

UnawareCaesar wrote: »

I wasn't attacking you over it, until you became extremely ignorant about being given advice.

Nobody said you never check your blind spots but, you mentioned a situation where you didn't check your blind spot, it was pointed out to you that you should have checked it in that situation, irregardless of whether the cyclist was in the wrong in that situation or not because its good practice for the safety of yourself and others on the roads.

But I did check my blind spot. I can't magically see around corners though!
The road I'm talking about has a massive bend going down a hill to a stop sign. There was no chance of seeing him unless I got out of the car and walked back around the bend to make sure nobody was going to swoop in around me from the right.

Ms. Pingui

Deedsie wrote: »

You need to learn to identify the difference between an attack and a genuine attempt to highlight the importance of one aspect of road safety. 31 drivers have already died so far this year... 3 cyclists...

That's 34 more fatalities than there should be. People need to learn patience and consideration for all other road users. This thread highlights the major faults our road users have. Lack of education, the NRA need to up their education campaigns... Penalty points/on the spot fines for road users who endanger anyone else on the roads.

I think cyclists who break the rules of the road should be penalised by on the spot fines. It won't worry me though as I am a competent, patient road user with no driving penalty points and no fear of an on the spot fine when I cycle.

Fair enough, but it does come accross as an attack when I've repeatedly told them that I do check my blind spot and they keep insisting that I don't and that I'm dangerous.

Ms. Pingui

dub_skav wrote: »

But you have said that you do not believe that you need to check your blind spot when making a left turn, only when pulling out from the kerb.

That is what people are taking you up on, you should check your blind spot when making any maneuver, be it changing lanes, turning a corner or even pulling off.
the fact that it may or may not have helped in your particular example is not what people are taking exception to, more the fact that you believe that you did not have to check your blind spot as you were not pulling off

Edit: Beaten to it

I do look, don't think you are actually required to do it though.

Edit: Look at the turning left from minor to major road section at the end of the page. It just says to check mirrors but no menton of checking blind spots.

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/junctions.html

Ray Palmer

Swanner wrote: »

That comment right there is exactly why the majortiy of cyclists get zero respect from me on here. The cycling forum is littered with this crap. And you wonder why the general population dislike you so much :rolleyes:

Did you miss the entire bit about the fact that every road user breaks the rules?????I pass more cars breaking many rules of the road but even in my description you bypass all that and see red about a cyclist. You are the one with the issue.

See the attached image. Green is the lights green red is the way I am going against the light marked with black circles. Want to explain who is in danger here? Why would this enrage somebody?

UnawareCaesar

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

But I did check my blind spot. I can't magically see around corners though!
The road I'm talking about has a massive bend going down a hill to a stop sign. There was no chance of seeing him unless I got out of the car and walked back around the bend to make sure nobody was going to swoop in around me from the right.

I wasn't talking about that particular situation though, I wasn't there and don't know if checking your blind spot would have helped you see him. I was only pointing out you said you didn't in the original post and you've been arguing the fact that you don't think its a requirement to check it.

Whether its written down in law or not you have to be aware that cyclists are entitled to pass on the inside of your car as has been previously stated by another poster and could be in your blind spot when you make your mirror checks etc so you should always check it.

You've said you do check it but that's not the way its come across in your last few posts obviously because I wasn't the only one to pick up on it.

The Bishop Basher

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Did you miss the entire bit about the fact that every road user breaks the rules?????I pass more cars breaking many rules of the road but even in my description you bypass all that and see red about a cyclist. You are the one with the issue.

We all know drivers break the rules. That's not in dispute. Drivers are well aware of this and don't defend them the way cyclists do. I often see cyclists advocate rule breaking on here as you have done yourself. That's the difference.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

See the attached image. Green is the lights green red is the way I am going against the light marked with black circles. Want to explain who is in danger here? Why would this enrage somebody?

The ROTR are just that. I haven't read anywhere in them that they're subject to Ray Palmer's interpretation of when it's safe to abide by them and when it's not. Maybe you can post the link.

Icyseanfitz

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I console myself with the thought that the tight shorts and bike-seats make the feckers impotent. They will die out. All it needs is a bit of patience. In the meantime I fantasise about clipping their back wheel and watching them careen off across the ditch in a flurry of carbon fiber, colourful tight lycra and twigs.

for the guy asking who fantasizes about hitting cyclists, here you go,

and if i where to take a leaf from yer books id just go ahead and say all drivers fantasize about hitting cyclists but then im not an idiot so i wont

Darkglasses

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

for the guy asking who fantasizes about hitting cyclists, here you go,

and if i where to take a leaf from yer books id just go ahead and say all drivers fantasize about hitting cyclists but then im not an idiot so i wont

Or that the motoring forum is packed with people fantasizing about killing cyclists!

Icyseanfitz

an for ye people saying us cyclists never admit that other cyclists break rules, as an avid cyclist "they do", as do motorists and pedestrians, theres idiots everywhere people

Ms. Pingui

UnawareCaesar wrote: »

I wasn't talking about that particular situation though, I wasn't there and don't know if checking your blind spot would have helped you see him. I was only pointing out you said you didn't in the original post and you've been arguing the fact that you don't think its a requirement to check it.

Whether its written down in law or not you have to be aware that cyclists are entitled to pass on the inside of your car as has been previously stated by another poster and could be in your blind spot when you make your mirror checks etc so you should always check it.

You've said you do check it but that's not the way its come across in your last few posts obviously because I wasn't the only one to pick up on it.

Ok, fair enough! I am very careful observation wise. The last thing I want is to have any sort of accdent with my daughter in the back of the car.

In certain situations it is not a requirement to check blind spots, but it is good practise to be on the safe side.

Can we put this ehind us and be friends now??? please???

Malari

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Did you miss the entire bit about the fact that every road user breaks the rules?????I pass more cars breaking many rules of the road but even in my description you bypass all that and see red about a cyclist. You are the one with the issue.

See the attached image. Green is the lights green red is the way I am going against the light marked with black circles. Want to explain who is in danger here? Why would this enrage somebody?

I can see why it would enrage drivers who need to stay behind the lights. However, I think drivers can also be enraged when cyclists do wait till the lights go green and then move off, but are still in the way of the cars, who have to wait for an opportunity to overtake, or miss the lights because a cyclist is slower to move off than a car (in some cases). You can't win with some people.

The thing is, you are not supposed to cycle through a red light. You can get off and walk your bike through the light. If you half-cycle half-walk through, with only one foot on the pedal, like a scooter, how is that viewed? :pac: It's one thing flying through a junction or a busy crossing where you don't have visibility and it's another creeping through a pedestrian crossing when nothing is around you for hundred of metres either way, I think.

galwaycyclist

Malari wrote: »

The thing is, you are not supposed to cycle through a red light. You can get off and walk your bike through the light. If you half-cycle half-walk through, with only one foot on the pedal, like a scooter, how is that viewed? :pac: It's one thing flying through a junction or a busy crossing where you don't have visibility and it's another creeping through a pedestrian crossing when nothing is around you for hundred of metres either way, I think.

Uh no - you can be prosecuted for walking a bike through a red light.

NamelessPhil

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no - you can be prosecuted for walking a bike through a red light.

Evidence?

There was one case from the 1950s that was before the principal Road Act of 1961 came into force.

Ray Palmer

Swanner wrote: »

We all know drivers break the rules. That's not in dispute. Drivers are well aware of this and don't defend them the way cyclists do. I often see cyclists advocate rule breaking on here as you have done yourself. That's the difference.

Want to show where I advocated others break the rules? I often hear drivers advocating breaking the rules and complaining about speed limits they break. I don't agree there is a difference and think you are unfairly targeting cyclists and are hypocritical.

Swanner wrote: »

The ROTR are just that. I haven't read anywhere in them that they're subject to Ray Palmer's interpretation of when it's safe to abide by them and when it's not. Maybe you can post the link.

So safety is not an issue it is all about the rules? We should all follow all rules? You think going into a rage over rules of the road when there is no danger is reasonable? You do get how hypocritical it is for drivers to complain about cyclist breaking rules that put nobody in danger while they break rules that actual do put people in danger?

Even if we take that drivers don't defend other drivers but break the rules themselves do you see the problem where they are critical of others that do too?

Are you claiming you obey all the rules?

UnawareCaesar

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

Ok, fair enough! I am very careful observation wise. The last thing I want is to have any sort of accdent with my daughter in the back of the car.

In certain situations it is not a requirement to check blind spots, but it is good practise to be on the safe side.

Can we put this ehind us and be friends now??? please???

Gladly

evilmonkee

Personally, I feel that I am less sympathetic of cyclists due to the large number of them breaking the rules of the road on a daily basis.

Cyclists going through lights, not using the cycle lane, not indicating etc.
You can argue that motorists break rules too, they annoy me also.

On a daly basis the majority of cyclists I see break rules. This does not stop me from driving safely around them but it does stop me from supporting their cause to make roads safer and provide more amenities for them.

If I saw cyclists obeying the rules then would fully support more bike lanes, points for indangering cyclists (or anyone).

Some cyclists do obey the rules but in Dublin they seem to be the minority. Unfortunately, the good minority often carries the burden of the bad majority.

Ray Palmer

evilmonkee wrote: »

Personally, I feel that I am less sympathetic of cyclists due to the large number of them breaking the rules of the road on a daily basis.

Cyclists going through lights, not using the cycle lane, not indicating etc.
You can argue that motorists break rules too, they annoy me also.

In bold not a rule of the road. So should we believe you know the majority of cyclists break the rules of the road?

Are you claiming you obey all the rules?

Deedsie

evilmonkee wrote: »

Personally, I feel that I am less sympathetic of cyclists due to the large number of them breaking the rules of the road on a daily basis.

Cyclists going through lights, not using the cycle lane, not indicating etc.
You can argue that motorists break rules too, they annoy me also.

On a daly basis the majority of cyclists I see break rules. This does not stop me from driving safely around them but it does stop me from supporting their cause to make roads safer and provide more amenities for them.

If I saw cyclists obeying the rules then would fully support more bike lanes, points for indangering cyclists (or anyone).

Some cyclists do obey the rules but in Dublin they seem to be the minority. Unfortunately, the good minority often carries the burden of the bad majority.

No requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes, (or linear car parks as they are mostly used for) cyclists breaking lights are stupid. They should be fined on the spot if caught by Gardaí.

El Inho

Ray Palmer wrote: »

In bold not a rule of the road. So should we believe you know the majority of cyclists break the rules of the road?

Are you claiming you obey all the rules?

If that's really your mentality you just but the cyclists arguments back about 5 pages.

Just because it's not law doesn't mean it's not good etiquette. And that's the problem with cyclists.

/thread

Deedsie

El Spearo wrote: »

If that's really your mentality you just but the cyclists arguments back about 5 pages.

Just because it's not law doesn't mean it's not good etiquette. And that's the problem with cyclists.

/thread

How can I cycle through a lane with a car in it? With storm drains and cats eyes? Debris from the road, rubbish thrown out by motorists windows etc etc... I'd have ten flats a day on my way to work.

Cycle lanes in Ireland are NOT fit for purpose!!!

/thread

seamus

El Spearo wrote: »

Just because it's not law doesn't mean it's not good etiquette. And that's the problem with cyclists. road users

/thread

FYP.

On cycle lanes, the vast majority are an unusable mess. Off road cycle lanes are even worse, I'm not willing to put my safety at risk because of some imaginary etiquette that cyclists should stay off the roads.

Ray Palmer

El Spearo wrote: »

If that's really your mentality you just but the cyclists arguments back about 5 pages.

Just because it's not law doesn't mean it's not good etiquette. And that's the problem with cyclists.

/thread

I'd love to know what mentality it is I have by pointing out a claim of a rule is actually wrong.

Cycle lanes are not always usable, safe or even easy to get to. Are you claiming cyclists problems are all down to etiquette? You should look at the etiquette of motorists, driving in a cycle lane, parking in them etc... These are both rude and illegal acts.

I would say every motorist breaks the rules and as for etiquette I do not see them perform it to each other. Your post just has a air of superiority that I have never seen an indication of on the roads.

kylith

Deedsie wrote: »

How can I cycle through a lane with a car in it? With storm drains and cats eyes? Debris from the road, rubbish thrown out by motorists windows etc etc... I'd have ten flats a day on my way to work.

Cycle lanes in Ireland are NOT fit for purpose!!!

/thread

seamus wrote: »

FYP.

On cycle lanes, the vast majority are an unusable mess. Off road cycle lanes are even worse, I'm not willing to put my safety at risk because of some imaginary etiquette that cyclists should stay off the roads.

Absolutely agree. Many of Dublin's cycle lanes are too narrow, obstructed, potholed, on footpaths (thus used by pedestrians), flooded, full of debris and glass, or are just plain dangerous (such as the ones that run between or over cars' turning lanes).
http://www.flickr.com/groups/908348@N25/

Malari

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no - you can be prosecuted for walking a bike through a red light.

You can dismount, get on the footpath, walk around and then get back on the bike at the other side. You would not be prosecuted for that.

galwaycyclist

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Evidence?

There was one case from the 1950s that was before the principal Road Act of 1961 came into force.

S.I. No. 294/1964:ROAD TRAFFIC GENERAL BYE-LAWS, 1964.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html

Pedestrians crossing roadway
36.—
(2) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a pointsman, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or pointsman) to proceed, and shall yield the right of way to any traffic turning in front of the pedestrian.

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

Rules for Pedestrians
46.
(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

Unless you are working off a separate pedestrian signal then traffic lights also apply to pedestrians crossing roads.

Knasher

galwaycyclist wrote: »

S.I. No. 294/1964:ROAD TRAFFIC GENERAL BYE-LAWS, 1964.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

Unless you are working off a separate pedestrian signal then traffic lights also apply to pedestrians crossing roads.

I believe they aren't talking about crossing a road. They are talking about crossing a pedestrian crossing by dismounting from a bicycle and walking it (or in Milari's post creeping through while still on the bike). Obeying the rules as they apply to pedestrians rather than cyclists. I don't think they were talking about crossing any other lane of traffic.

hatrickpatrick

opti0nal wrote: »

This is only true if you ignore the fact that many drivers that don't stop for amber traffic lights as required by law.

That doesn't endanger pedestrians, the green man isn't up until the lights have been red for several seconds. So any cyclist who waves trough crossing pedestrians at a green man had ample time to slow down and stop.

07Lapierre

Over 500 posts and what have we learnt? Numpty's can walk, cycle and drive cars. :rolleyes:

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't endanger pedestrians, the green man isn't up until the lights have been red for several seconds. So any cyclist who waves trough crossing pedestrians at a green man had ample time to slow down and stop.

I don't know where you live but in urban traffic it certainly is a risk when 3-4 cars do it which is daily occurrence on certain lights. They start as amber gamblers and then are just breaking the lights.

I have seen cars hit and near miss people doing this pretty regularly just by Connelly and Busarus by the Luas so incredibly stupid on all fronts.

Try by Trinity college, Tara Street, George's Street. There is a fair list of risking locations due to everybody breaking the rules.