Irish Times - Rag

AltAccount

Deleted User wrote: »

Most cyclists will tell you that taking up the entire lane at any junction, whilst in theory good practice, = horns beeped, shouts of "get off the f**king road" and quite possibly deliberate 'near misses' from angry motorists. Not worth it.

I'm not sure what others think, but this isn't my experience at all.

dogsears

Deleted User wrote: »

Most cyclists will tell you that taking up the entire lane at any junction, whilst in theory good practice, = horns beeped, shouts of "get off the f**king road" and quite possibly deliberate 'near misses' from angry motorists. Not worth it.

Don't accept that. I don't think there is anything like the prevalence of outrageous driver behaviour your portraying. And I can live with a few beeps etc. rather than break the lights and feed the commonly held motorists' stereotype of cyclists.

CramCycle

MrCreosote wrote: »

Seems to me he's suggesting he's already at the lights when a left-turning lorry pulls up alongside. What to do then? Cycle back 20m just so the lorry can safely complete the turn or get a headstart/break the light like any normal person would?

If your at the front of the queue place yourself in the dominant position.

Qualitymark

Does thread creep endanger cyclists, or are we allowed to dodge up on to the pavement to avoid it?

Dermot Illogical

So...is the Irish Times a rag or not?

High Nellie

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

So...is the Irish Times a rag or not?

Certainly not.

It's a great irish institution - like Seán Kelly - and we shouldn't question it (with tongue planted firmly in cheek)

MrCreosote

Lumen wrote: »

It is not possible to get run over by a left-turning vehicle if you are stopped behind the stop line, like any normal person would be.

In an ideal world, with a perfectly designed intersection, and a perfect lorry driver. I've seen plenty of lorries mount kerbs and completely mess up the turn especially if it's not one they're used to.

I agree that taking the dominant position is the right thing to do, it's just a pity that a cyclist can't legally increase their safety by getting a head start on the lights.

It's definitely not possible to be run over by a left turning vehicle if it's behind you.

Lumen

MrCreosote wrote: »

In an ideal world, with a perfectly designed intersection, and a perfect lorry driver. I've seen plenty of lorries mount kerbs and completely mess up the turn especially if it's not one they're used to.

They mount the kerb at the apex. Which is nowhere near the stop line on any junction I've ever seen in Ireland.

MrCreosote

They mount the kerb at the apex, as well as 5m back from it.

Basically what you're doing is putting your life completely in the hands of a lorry driver who probably hasn't even seen you, and might or might not be skilled enough to successfully navigate the corner.

buffalo

MrCreosote wrote: »

They mount the kerb at the apex, as well as 5m back from it.

Basically what you're doing is putting your life completely in the hands of a lorry driver who probably hasn't even seen you, and might or might not be skilled enough to successfully navigate the corner.

So the situation is that you're stopped at a red light, and a lorry approaches from behind, and you're worried he won't see you? Would you not look around and make sure he does - make eye contact, give a wave... ?

Dermot Illogical

buffalo wrote: »

So the situation is that you're stopped at a red light, and a lorry approaches from behind, and you're worried he won't see you? Would you not look around and make sure he does - make eye contact, give a wave... ?

You're already in front. It's only going to be a problem if he decides it's safer to break the light because he's only turning left.

bambergbike

There is a particular turn in town where I frequently think that cycling around the corner on red would be a victimless crime. The approach is an on-kerb cycle track and mandatory use requirements haven't completely been repealed here yet, so it isn't possible to approach the junction in the primary position. I always wait for green anyway, purely to protect my credibility as someone who likes to demand that the police enforce the law where it applies to drivers of other vehicles. I never feel personally endangered; I know I will always get round the corner and be off before the lorries get moving.

I waited for green yesterday, too, and as I waited a lorry approached. I had twenty elderly cyclists behind me - fit 75+ year olds, but not capable of managing a fast standing start in a massed peleton and getting away before the lorry. I began to wonder if I had been wise to wait. The light only turned amber as I approached the junction, so I could have got everybody around safely in the red phase.

I think I would still wait for green in the same situation again, but I would position myself more carefully to prevent the lorries from starting to move off on green before the group has made it through junction. Cue furious beeping, I suppose...

rp

bambergbike wrote: »

The approach is an on-kerb cycle track and mandatory use requirements haven't completely been repealed here yet,

Are they talking about repealing mandatory use, at last? I know the Berlin police have publicly stated mandatory use is bad. Also, IIRC, you do not have to use the cycle path if to do so would endanger yourself, and that sounds like just such a situation.

buffalo

rp wrote: »

Are they talking about repealing mandatory use, at last? I know the Berlin police have publicly stated mandatory use is bad. Also, IIRC, you do not have to use the cycle path if to do so would endanger yourself, and that sounds like just such a situation.

It was already repealed, from 1st October 2012.

Dermot Illogical

buffalo wrote: »

It was already repealed, from 1st October 2012.

In Berlin too?

buffalo

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

In Berlin too?

bah! I read bambergbike's post, no mention of Berlin, and the first line of rp's post. I'm beginning to think I need to start wearing my glasses at the computer.

edit: For instance, I read "James Gandolfini, the character actor who gained major fame in the Sopranos," as "gained major fame in the Simpsons", this morning, despite my brain knowing it was not true.

rp

buffalo wrote: »

edit: For instance, I read "James Gandolfini, the character actor who gained major fame in the Sopranos," as "gained major fame in the Simpsons", this morning, despite my brain knowing it was not true.

You mean this guy?

Doctor Bob

enas wrote: »

It's funny but not cycling on a cycle lane is still felt by many a motorist as exactly the same. And it didn't help that the law was against cyclists in this instance too until fairly recently.

Still, I don't justify breaking the law at your convenience. But I do claim indeed that the law should be changed to exempt cyclists from one-way restrictions. Mentioning other countries is merely a way to add weight to my argument, to show that it's something perfectly reasonable and that I'm not an old ranter who's lost it. And while, again, I don't condone rule breaking, I do understand those cyclists who are not patient enough to wait until the law is thus changed. Now tell me, you never cycled outside cycle lanes until the repeal of the law did you?

Has this been answered yet?

Prior to the repeal of 'mandatory use', a number of justifications were put forward in this forum for non-compliance with the law, chief among them being that it was often not safe to use cycle tracks/lanes. I strongly suspected then that some of these justifications were based less on safety than on a preference for minimally impeded progress and/or a simple desire for speed, though safety was undoubtedly a relevant consideration too.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should have complied fully with 'mandatory use', and a preference for minimally impeded progress is not unreasonable, but I am suggesting that the logic that obtained in that discussion is the same one being rejected in this discussion by its erstwhile proponents, which seems a little perverse.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

It is not possible to get run over by a left-turning vehicle if you are stopped behind the stop line, like any normal person would be.

Sorry - but I cannot let this pass. Cyclist stops at junction on left of road (which is where cyclists tend to be). Lorry pulls up alongside with intention of turning left.

Lights go green, cyclist moves to go straight on, lorry turns over cyclist.

THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS DIE.

Check the statistics. This is the most common way for cyclists to be killed in urban environments. So in a cycling forum lets make sure we don't mislead people and tell them they are perfectly safe in this situation. They are not. If a lorry pulls up alongside you and is turning left, wherever you are in relation to the 'stop line' - take evasive action. If that means breaking a red light I won't blame you.

Note cyclists who are killed in these 'accidents' are usually obeying the law.

manwithaplan

Deleted User wrote: »

THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS DIE.

My Granddad was a cyclist and he died of old age.

Kav0777

manwithaplan wrote: »

My Granddad was a cyclist and he died of old age.

Marco Pantani died of a drug overdose in a hotel room....

enas

Lumen wrote: »

It is not possible to get run over by a left-turning vehicle if you are stopped behind the stop line, like any normal person would be.

Just an illustrating video. So the cyclist isn't stopped (the light is green), but she passed the line much before the lorry. And then this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ujuJXNq3w

What do you suggest the cyclist could have done to prevent that?

Dermot Illogical

enas wrote: »

Just an illustrating video.

But it's illustrating something other than what's being discussed.

Dermot Illogical

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Prior to the repeal of 'mandatory use', a number of justifications were put forward in this forum for non-compliance with the law, chief among them being that it was often not safe to use cycle tracks/lanes. I strongly suspected then that some of these justifications were based less on safety than on a preference for minimally impeded progress and/or a simple desire for speed, though safety was undoubtedly a relevant consideration too.

There were a number of other factors. Surface and condition of the cycling lanes was generally shocking and made them unusable in some cases, unless you're the sort that really likes buckles and punctures. My main reason for not using the ones I ignored (I did, and do, use some frequently) was that they deposited me on a different road to the one I began on, with loss of priority as I waited to get back on. Often multiple times over short distances. It's an inconvenience more than anything else.
The only ones I find unsafe, and then only at speed, are those on footpaths. Every driveway is a hazard.

TinyExplosions

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry - but I cannot let this pass. Cyclist stops at junction on left of road (which is where cyclists tend to be). Lorry pulls up alongside with intention of turning left.

Lights go green, cyclist moves to go straight on, lorry turns over cyclist.

THIS IS HOW CYCLISTS DIE.

Check the statistics. This is the most common way for cyclists to be killed in urban environments. So in a cycling forum lets make sure we don't mislead people and tell them they are perfectly safe in this situation. They are not. If a lorry pulls up alongside you and is turning left, wherever you are in relation to the 'stop line' - take evasive action. If that means breaking a red light I won't blame you.

Note cyclists who are killed in these 'accidents' are usually obeying the law.

Ok, now can you show me the number of cyclists killed in the scenario you outline above, ie where the cyclist is stopped at a set of lights, a truck pulls up behind them, and subsequently runs them over making a left turn.... bet you can't...

Most of the left turning accidents are where the cyclist has come up the left of the truck while it was waiting, or have nothing to do with traffic lights at all.

Lets make sure we don't mislead people and tell them that statistics back up fear mongering when they clearly don't

enas

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

But it's illustrating something other than what's being discussed.

I know. It is illustrating however how left-turning lorries can hit cyclists, even when they start from behind the cyclist (as it would happen in the configuration we're discussing about), which is the broader theme of the discussion.

The main difference between those two situations is that for most confident cyclists, when the light turns green, the cyclist will accelerate much faster than the lorry behind him, so the situation won't arise. But more "regular" cyclists might fear that as soon as the light turns green, the situation could evolve into the situation shown on the video. Therefore, they might be tempted to gain a head start even if that involves passing on red, just to make sure the lorry that sits behind them won't catch them up. To sum up, the head start could help the less confident cyclist compensate for his poorer acceleration.

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

What do you suggest the cyclist could have done to prevent that?

Nothing, but that hasn't got anything at all to do with being stopped at lights now does it? It's a totally different scenario

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

I know. It is illustrating however how left-turning lorries can hit cyclists, even when they start from behind the cyclist (as it would happen in the configuration we're discussing about), which is the broader theme of the discussion.

Nope, it's not the broader theme at all. It's a very specific theme that is you are in danger if a truck comes up behind you at a red light.

The video illustrates idiotic driving, there's a lot of examples of that online, none of which have to do with being stopped at lights

enas

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

It's an inconvenience more than anything else.

The point being that you happily chose to ignore a law (before 1 October 2012) because you felt it was either unsafe or inconvenient to do so. No one will blame you for that. But then, we could all keep that in mind, and in turn sympathise with someone who says he prefers to cycle a street the wrong way for his own safety or convenience (as his perceives it). Not saying we should all condone it, but the proper reaction to that is a tad more subtle than simply answering "stick to the law or don't cycle".

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

The point being that you happily chose to ignore a law (before 1 October 2012) because you felt it was either unsafe or inconvenient to do so. No one will blame you for that. But then, we could all keep that in mind, and in turn sympathise with someone who says he prefers to cycle a street the wrong way for his own safety or convenience (as his perceives it). Not saying we should all condone it, but the proper reaction to that is a tad more subtle than simply answering "stick to the law or don't cycle".

I think you've missed the point a little -in general, we aren't giving out about a poster breaking the law. We are pointing out that it is perfectly safe to use the correct route, and taking issue with the idea that rule breaking is ok if it's for your safety when it's got nothing whatsoever to do with safety.

If the poster had said that it's more convenient for him to use a one way street incorrectly, then there'd have not been such a big discussion!

Once more, it's the justification that's lead to the safety discussion, not the act itself.