Dooring cyclists

Qualitymark

I was cycling through Terenure today when I noticed a car door open a crack - moved out just in case, and when I was past, looked back to see the driver cautiously opening the door.

I went back and thanked him for his care, caution, kindness and good sense. Took a good two minutes before he was convinced he was being thanked and praised, then he blushed and grinned with pleasure.

Nice to see a driver who knows how to open a door with care for other road users.

glic71rods46t0

Qualitymark wrote: »

I was cycling through Terenure today when I noticed a car door open a crack - moved out just in case, and when I was past, looked back to see the driver cautiously opening the door.

I went back and thanked him for his care, caution, kindness and good sense. Took a good two minutes before he was convinced he was being thanked and praised, then he blushed and grinned with pleasure.

Nice to see a driver who knows how to open a door with care for other road users.

I saw a cyclist actually stop at a red light today. It was nice to see a cyclist having regard for other road users. I thought about going over to him and thanking him for his consideration but then I realised what a knob I would be to start thanking a random stranger for doing the right thing.:D

Dilbert75

The difference being that if a cyclist goes through a red light they're the one who's most likely to get squashed. When a motorist is considerate they're protecting the safety of a more vulnerable road user.

Good on the OP for being willing to stick their neck out and recognise good behaviour.

designbydan

Dilbert75 wrote: »

The difference being that if a cyclist goes through a red light they're the one who's most likely to get squashed. When a motorist is considerate they're protecting the safety of a more vulnerable road user.

Good on the OP for being willing to stick their neck out and recognise good behaviour.

I'd disagree with your first sentence. jumping a red light is far worse than just a cyclist getting hurt, they could cause other traffic to swerve or crash themselves or into others, or worse into pedestrians.
I ride a motorbike btw so I generally curse at the habits of both cyclists and motorists, (as I'm sure they prob do me for different reasons ie:filtering)

There's nothing wrong with thanking a guy for doing the right thing/something nice, but what's the point in going into the motors section on boards and passive aggressively complaining about other motorists that don't look at what they're doing.



*Goes onto the cycling section to tell them about they guy he thanked today for actually looking behind him before swerving across three lanes

**Does the same thing on the motors thread lol

Big Nasty

A fairly good percentage of cyclists are bloody dangerous on the road and scare the fook outta me tbh.

Ok, they break traffic laws a lot of the time by going through red lights but to be fair most drivers break the speed limit at some stage every day. I know I do anyhow.

Going through red lights p1sses me off no end but it's the weaving in traffic and passing each other out at busy junctions that frightens the fook out of me. I've regularly literally been surrounded by cyclists at busy junctions and not knowing what they're going to do next just frightens the fook out of me. Harolds Cross bridge and Templeouge bridge are two prime examples of frightening behaviour by cyclists every day with many having no consideration for anyone bar themselves and no regard for their own safety.

To be honest I find it baffling that cyclists can operate a bike with no training, no licence and no regard for their own safety and that of other road users (I.e drivers who will be found at fault if a cyclist veers out in front of them and gets knocked down).

As for the utter cvnts riding two abreast on minor roads blocking traffic, well let's just say that you provoke urges in me I didn't think were possible. :mad:

designbydan

Big Nasty wrote: »

To be honest I find it baffling that cyclists can operate a bike with no training, no licence and no regard for their own safety and that of other road users (I.e drivers who will be found at fault if a cyclist veers out in front of them and gets knocked down).

As for the utter cvnts riding two abreast on minor roads blocking traffic, well let's just say that you provoke urges in me I didn't think were possible. :mad:

I completely agree that cyclists should have training and be subject to the same laws as everyone else, (including HAVING to wear helmets like bikers do!) and possibly insurance too.

I had a cyclist veer into me, straight into my lane (and me) as I was passing him by, never bothered to look behind him before turning, and had no helmet on, He admitted fault and nothing came of it luckily, because even though he was in the wrong, I still would've been the one paying, since I'd insurance and he didn't)

No Pants

designbydan wrote: »

I completely agree that cyclists should have training and be subject to the same laws as everyone else, (including HAVING to wear helmets like bikers do!) and possibly insurance too.

I've been riding a bike since I was three years old. I've been insured since 2012. Any suggestion on where a three year old gets insurance nowadays?

Mycroft H

Can we not have this descend into the monthly "those cyclists don't pay road tax joe" thread? Bit repetitive.....

Qualitymark

Yes, some cyclists are foolish. Yes, some motorists are foolish. It's nice to be acknowledge when you cycle or drive considerately.

endacl

TL;DR?

One person was considerate, another had manners.

Let the 'some people are idiots when driving/cycling' shenanigans commence...

glic71rods46t0

Qualitymark wrote: »

Yes, some cyclists are foolish. Yes, some motorists are foolish. It's nice to be acknowledge when you cycle or drive considerately.

Maybe some people would like it but I suspect that most would just think its a bit weird. I would tell you to fook off and stop being a self righteous tosser

Big Nasty

Qualitymark wrote: »

Yes, some cyclists are foolish. Yes, some motorists are foolish. It's nice to be acknowledge when you cycle or drive considerately.

You're dead right and I always drive with the concept that every other road user be it cars / motorbikes / pedestrians / cyclists are unpredictable.

I find motorcyclists the most aware and considerate of all road users and cyclists the worst.

I hate them tbh, not for who they are but for the fear of God they put through me.

Dilbert75

Big Nasty wrote: »

I hate them tbh, not for who they are but for the fear of God they put through me.

You should try being a cyclist. The muppet in the Kia Soul who passed within inches of me two weeks ago when I was going to the Passage East ferry is a good example - saved himself maybe a second or two by taking a straighter line through some bends and then queued for the ferry, just like I did.

It's this type of behaviour that necessitates cycling two abreast for the safety of the cyclists - drivers in general have no concept of giving space to other road users. The group I cycle with are generally pretty good about how they share the road with others. Maybe the same can't be said about individual cyclists in big urban settings.

Btw I drive too and pay road tax on two cars. Just to knock that on the head before it comes up.

keithclancy

Be thankful they are on a bike and not clogging up the road so you can drive your car with less of a jam

endacl

Dilbert75 wrote: »

You should try being a cyclist. The muppet in the Kia Soul who passed within inches of me two weeks ago when I was going to the Passage East ferry is a good example - saved himself maybe a second or two by taking a straighter line through some bends and then queued for the ferry, just like I did.

It's this type of behaviour that necessitates cycling two abreast for the safety of the cyclists - drivers in general have no concept of giving space to other road users. The group I cycle with are generally pretty good about how they share the road with others. Maybe the same can't be said about individual cyclists in big urban settings.

Btw I drive too and pay road tax on two cars. Just to knock that on the head before it comes up.

*ahem*

Motor tax.

Big Nasty

It's urban commuter cyclists I have a problem with.

Leisure / Group cyclists (I don't know the correct term) tend to be fine and a lot more aware / compliant apart from the annoying 'we will command the road' two abreast thing.

No Pants

I had some daftie in what looked like a fat-ass Peugeot saloon perform a close overtake on me today...while I was going through some fully signed, traffic calming measures somewhere between Ratoath and Clonee. Gave me quite a start.

Luckily the road surface there isn't too bad, so I was travelling in a straight line. Coming out of Ratoath until just before Fairyhouse, the surface is so bad in places that the bike was skipping all over the place and my hands were going numb.

endacl

Big Nasty wrote: »

It's urban commuter cyclists I have a problem with.

Leisure / Group cyclists (I don't know the correct term) tend to be fine and a lot more aware / compliant apart from the annoying 'we will command the road' two abreast thing.

'Some' urban commuter cyclists, I'd imagine.

People generally only take note of what annoys them. Road users who just go about their business, sticking to the rules, and taking a bit of care, never linger much in the memory...

Edit: do a search for 'two abreast cycling'. It's been done, it's boring, and any point you might make will have been posted and refuted/agreed with/explained umpteen times.

designbydan

No Pants wrote: »

I've been riding a bike since I was three years old. I've been insured since 2012. Any suggestion on where a three year old gets insurance nowadays?

Maybe the same place they get health insurance ?

From their parents.. .

(I'm not saying three year olds needs insurance btw but you ask a stupid pointless question you'll get a stupid pointless answer) I still believe to be allowed on the road you should have some form of 'road' insurance,


My original point was, the OP created a thread to "show thanks" but in reality when you read it you can see they were just having a stab at other motorists not doing the same.

endacl

designbydan wrote: »

I still believe to be allowed on the road you should have some form of 'road' insurance,

Applying online now for pedestrian insurance. Just tpft. At 40, there's probably no point in going fully comp. it'd be cheaper to just replace me.

No Pants

designbydan wrote: »

Maybe the same place they get health insurance ?

From their parents.. .

(I'm not saying three year olds needs insurance btw but you ask a stupid pointless question you'll get a stupid pointless answer) I still believe to be allowed on the road you should have some form of 'road' insurance

There's a big difference between health insurance and other insurance that covers behaviour/activity. What insurance company is going to cover the activities of a three year old?

As for the stupidity angle, you're the one who said that cyclists should have insurance. Like I said, I started cycling at three. Unless you're suggesting that it's not necessary until a higher age limit is reached.

designbydan

No Pants wrote: »

As for the stupidity angle, you're the one who said that cyclists should have insurance. Like I said, I started cycling at three. Unless you're suggesting that it's not necessary until a higher age limit is reached.

You were cycling in the middle of Dublin on your own swerving between cars when you were three?

I'm not engaging in a pointless argument about 3 or 5 year olds having insurance.

If your only way to prove a point is to take examples to the extreme then you've already lost whatever argument you had to begin with

porsche959

Big Nasty wrote: »

A fairly good percentage of cyclists are bloody dangerous on the road and scare the fook outta me tbh.

Ok, they break traffic laws a lot of the time by going through red lights but to be fair most drivers break the speed limit at some stage every day. I know I do anyhow.

Going through red lights p1sses me off no end but it's the weaving in traffic and passing each other out at busy junctions that frightens the fook out of me. I've regularly literally been surrounded by cyclists at busy junctions and not knowing what they're going to do next just frightens the fook out of me. Harolds Cross bridge and Templeouge bridge are two prime examples of frightening behaviour by cyclists every day with many having no consideration for anyone bar themselves and no regard for their own safety.

To be honest I find it baffling that cyclists can operate a bike with no training, no licence and no regard for their own safety and that of other road users (I.e drivers who will be found at fault if a cyclist veers out in front of them and gets knocked down).

As for the utter cvnts riding two abreast on minor roads blocking traffic, well let's just say that you provoke urges in me I didn't think were possible. :mad:

Recent years do seem to have seen an outbreak of illegal, dangerous, provocative and in some cases downright threatening behaviour by a significant minority of cyclists. The Guards have the powers to do something about it, why don't they? Offenders should be cautioned leading to court appearances if necessary.

One point: cycling two abreast is legal though. Probably shouldn't be on minor roads.

keithclancy

endacl wrote: »

Applying online now for pedestrian insurance. Just tpft. At 40, there's probably no point in going fully comp. it'd be cheaper to just replace me.

You find it amusing but its quite normal here

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/living/official-matters/insurance

I have AVP which covers me on the bike

No Pants

designbydan wrote: »

You were cycling in the middle of Dublin on your own swerving between cars when you were three?

I'm not engaging in a pointless argument about 3 or 5 year olds having insurance.

If your only way to prove a point is to take examples to the extreme then you've already lost whatever argument you had to begin with

First time you've mentioned Dublin. It was insurance for cyclists before.

Rather that trying to attack, just admit your argument was horse**** and we can both move on.

power pants

Qualitymark wrote: »

I was cycling through Terenure today when I noticed a car door open a crack - moved out just in case, and when I was past, looked back to see the driver cautiously opening the door.

I went back and thanked him for his care, caution, kindness and good sense. Took a good two minutes before he was convinced he was being thanked and praised, then he blushed and grinned with pleasure.

Nice to see a driver who knows how to open a door with care for other road users.

Im very cautious like that too. To be honest, its more not wanting a dent on my door than anything else.

If someone cycled back to thank me, I would think they were very odd with too much time on their hands

No Pants

porsche959 wrote: »

One point: cycling two abreast is legal though. Probably shouldn't be on minor roads.

Actually, that's probably when it is most needed.

Qualitymark

I've been cycling on the roads since I was seven, and have been able to drive since I was seventeen.
Most cyclists cycle safely, just as most drivers drive safely. There are some people who cycle and drive foolishly through red lights - marginally safer for a cyclist who can see if there's anything coming, though still a silly thing to do. There are selfish and not-too-bright cyclists who shoulder their way past you (whether you're on a bike or in a car) and behave as if they're alone on the road. They're a bigger danger to other cyclists than to cars, though a pain to both.
The commonest accident to cyclist is caused by drivers and their passengers flinging open the doors of cars; the worst result of this is that the cyclist breaks his fingers on the door then flips over it and breaks his skull on the road.
I'm not certain of this, but I think home insurance may cover you against hurting someone in a pedestrian or cycling accident.
If there were separate insurance against cycling accidents, it would surely be priced in cents, because so few people are hurt by cyclists. Most cycling accidents involve one person, a bicycle and a gust of wind, or else a bicycle falling afoul of a tonne of car or three tonnes of bus.
If I thank you for good driving, I'm not patronising you, I'm thanking you.
Cyclists don't pay motor tax, because that's a carbon tax to compensate for pollution. Yes, I pay it.

designbydan

keithclancy wrote: »

You find it amusing but its quite normal here

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/living/official-matters/insurance

I have AVP which covers me on the bike

No Pants wrote: »

First time you've mentioned Dublin. It was insurance for cyclists before.

Rather that trying to attack, just admit your argument was horse**** and we can both move on.

The above posts shows it's not horse**** . . thanks keithclancy.

I've also mentioned a few times how my original point was the OP just posted to stir up **** , but I don't see you mentioning that. Calling my point horse**** seems like more of an attack to me but there ya go .

As I said I'm not going to continue a pointless argument any more, so this will be my last post regarding insurance as it's been proven to not be a such a ridiculous idea after all.

Lets get back to the OP's passive aggressive topic shall we?

Qualitymark

Since this is obviously about to become rude, I'm going to stop following the topic.

No Pants

Qualitymark wrote: »

Most cycling accidents involve one person, a bicycle and a gust of wind, or else a bicycle falling afoul of a tonne of car or three tonnes of bus.

Don't leave out forgetting/being unable to unclip from pedals.

Sobanek

Expected to see a post about a guy who doors cyclist on purpose.

See the first post.

Still not didsapointed.

Shrek is love.

No Pants

designbydan wrote: »

Lets get back to the OP's passive aggressive topic shall we?

Sounds reasonable.

galwaytt

...last Wednesday evening, on the way home from work at about 18:30, I met a woman cycling towards me.
On the wrong side of the road.
Accompanying a child (on her own small bike...)
Over a hump backed railway bridge.

There is no footpath, she was in my lane.

No lights, helmets, or hi-viz of any kind.

I was more than bloody tempted to turn the fupp around and talk to her...

It should be an indictable offence.

Here's the location : https://www.google.com/maps/@53.305988,-8.741803,3a,75y,212.17h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szNDGDf1diKW0x2-TelKdWw!2e0

Dilbert75

galwaytt wrote: »

I was more than bloody tempted to turn the fupp around and talk to her...

You would have done right.

Supergurrier

It's all about timing...

monument

designbydan wrote: »

I completely agree that cyclists should have training and be subject to the same laws as everyone else, (including HAVING to wear helmets like bikers do!)

Err... "subject to the same"... Motorists and pedestrians have to wear helmets?!?

designbydan wrote: »

I had a cyclist veer into me, straight into my lane (and me) as I was passing him by, never bothered to look behind him before turning, and had no helmet on, He admitted fault and nothing came of it luckily, because even though he was in the wrong, I still would've been the one paying, since I'd insurance and he didn't)

If there was damage done to you or your bike or car, then the cyclist is liable regardless of him or her not having insurance.

keithclancy wrote: »

You find it amusing but its quite normal here

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/living/official-matters/insurance

I have AVP which covers me on the bike

That's not cycling insurance, that's public liability insurance.

Mandatory public liability insurance for everybody -- that'll go down well on top of water and household "charges".

I'll accept it if we get Dutch-style strict liability at the same time!

designbydan wrote: »

Maybe the same place they get health insurance ?

From their parents.. .

(I'm not saying three year olds needs insurance btw but you ask a stupid pointless question you'll get a stupid pointless answer) I still believe to be allowed on the road you should have some form of 'road' insurance,


My original point was, the OP created a thread to "show thanks" but in reality when you read it you can see they were just having a stab at other motorists not doing the same.

Most people don't have health insurance! And people are not renewing policies on mass because they can't afford them.

monument

galwaytt wrote: »

...last Wednesday evening, on the way home from work at about 18:30, I met a woman cycling towards me.
On the wrong side of the road.
Accompanying a child (on her own small bike...)
Over a hump backed railway bridge.

There is no footpath, she was in my lane.

No lights, helmets, or hi-viz of any kind.

I was more than bloody tempted to turn the fupp around and talk to her...

It should be an indictable offence.

Here's the location : https://www.google.com/maps/@53.305988,-8.741803,3a,75y,212.17h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szNDGDf1diKW0x2-TelKdWw!2e0

She was cycling with a child... Let me guess, at walking speed?

Why would they have lights at 6.30pm in daylight?

thebullkf

monument wrote: »

She was cycling with a child... Let me guess, at walking speed?

Why would they have lights at 6.30pm in daylight?

Ffs monument staunchly defending cyclists again I see !! Sure as you've said yourself a flashing light is better tha hi vis, she didn't even have hi vis, granted when walking in countryside where there's no path we were always taught to walk facing oncoming traffic. It's good advice.

monument

thebullkf wrote: »

Ffs monument staunchly defending cyclists again I see !!

Staunchly defending against the silliness that lights should be legally needed at 6.30pm when light up hours start about two hours later.

thebullkf wrote: »

...she didn't even have hi vis,

Most people on rural road or, in this case, urban roads without out provision for all users, won't wear high-vis. You're living in a cocoon if you think otherwise.

thebullkf wrote: »

granted when walking in countryside where there's no path we were always taught to walk facing oncoming traffic. It's good advice.

Was I staunchly defending or did I have some kind of vague point? Who knows!

thebullkf

monument wrote: »

Staunchly defending against the silliness that lights should be legally needed at 6.30pm when light up hours start about two hours later.




Most people on rural road or, in this case, urban roads without out provision for all users, won't wear high-vis. You're living in a cocoon if you think otherwise.




Was I staunchly defending or did I have some kind of vague point? Who knows!

Never the cyclists fault.!

monument

thebullkf wrote: »

Never the cyclists fault.!

That's my only my position in your imagination.

keithclancy

monument wrote: »

That's not cycling insurance, that's public liability insurance.

Mandatory public liability insurance for everybody -- that'll go down well on top of water and household "charges".

I'll accept it if we get Dutch-style strict liability at the same time!
.

Public Liability Insurance is something else (Relates to a property)

AVP relates to damage that you cause to other peoples property, including while riding a bicycle.

Although in principal this relates more to pedestrians as the weaker road users, in almost all cases the Car is seen as being at fault.

Its not mandatory here either, just highly recommended.

creedp

monument wrote: »

Staunchly defending against the silliness that lights should be legally needed at 6.30pm when light up hours start about two hours later.

At last some sense .. I was in danger of developing a complex from driving around in the daylight without my dims on .. especially after reading a few threads on here. So now its fine I don't have to light up until at least 8.30pm or presumably when visibility is poor.

Danjamin1

It's spectacular how quickly this turned in to cyclist bashing.

Nice one OP for acknowledging the driver, I tend to give acknowledgement for consideration with a hand gesture, both when by bike and by car.

No Pants

creedp wrote: »

I don't have to light up until...visibility is poor.

I would agree with that statement.

glic71rods46t0

Danjamin1 wrote: »

It's spectacular how quickly this turned in to cyclist bashing.

Nice one OP for acknowledging the driver, I tend to give acknowledgement for consideration with a hand gesture, both when by bike and by car.

Nothing spectacular about it at all. The OP wasn't about acknowledging the driver - its true intent was to have a go at motorists for "dooring cyclists" - even the thread title states this. The OP is just the latest cyclist to wander into a motoring forum to have a go at motorists in general.
I think that tight fitting lycra restricts blood flow to the brain and causes lasting brain damage to some of these loons

Danjamin1

60whgkuyvt5rxl wrote: »

Nothing spectacular about it at all. The OP wasn't about acknowledging the driver - its true intent was to have a go at motorists for "dooring cyclists" - even the thread title states this. The OP is just the latest cyclist to wander into a motoring forum to have a go at motorists in general.
I think that tight fitting lycra restricts blood flow to the brain and causes lasting brain damage to some of these loons

Fair enough if that's how you read it, but that's not how I read it. I thought the overall tone suggested that there was general thanks, albeit possibly a little OTT, from the OP. I'm all in favour of acknowledging considerate behaviour, even if the title may have been poorly chosen. Perhaps you should reassess your attitude as you immediately went on the defensive?

jimgoose

Hmm. That driver obviously knew you were watching carefully. Don't worry - he'll get the next one. :cool:

Mycroft H

60whgkuyvt5rxl wrote: »

Nothing spectacular about it at all. The OP wasn't about acknowledging the driver - its true intent was to have a go at motorists for "dooring " - even the thread title states this. The OP is just the latest cyclist to wander into a motoring forum to have a go at motorists in general.
I think that tight fitting lycrcyclistsa restricts blood flow to the brain and causes lasting brain damage to some of these loons

I've been doored in the past. It's rather painful and it killed my Treks fork. I have no problem with praising someone who checked before opening the door. Fair play. Much as I'll have a go at someone who doesn't check. It's dangerous. Much as breaking red lights, speeding and on the phone while driving is dangerous. Stupid people will do stupid things.

Descending into "they must be stupid because they were lycra" argument really just serves to lower the quality of your point; "I can't come up with anything better to say so I'll just insult them..."

I am a cyclist as much as I am a petrolhead and not just a blow in from the cycling forum.

No Pants

60whgkuyvt5rxl wrote: »

I think that tight fitting lycra restricts blood flow to the brain and causes lasting brain damage to some of these loons

Nice to see an unbiased opinion.