Those damn cyclists again!

CramCycle

missierex wrote: »

I should add that it also confirms that a cyclist should keep to the left as much as possible, but only when it is safe to do so. Fair enough.

Cyclecraft which would be accepted by most groups as the best advice for cyclists, will tell you, the same as most cyclists, that keeping as far last as possible is incredibly dangerous. I can ride in the gutter all day long but I am far more likely to lose my grip and fall into the road (potentially under a motor vehicle or just physically injure myself), far more likely to puncture, far more likely to lose my balance due to uneven road surface and debris, it encourages close overtaking (if I can go that close to the edge surely i can deal with a car being that close on the other side of me). I don't generally hold the lane but I damn well won't cycle as far left as possible as to do so is dangerous and ignorant.

CramCycle

cython wrote: »

Glad you highlighted that second section (which I have bolded), as the road traffic law received updates specifically relevant to this discussion in the second half of 2012, meaning that obviously sections of that document may not in fact apply to all any road users any more (and since the RoTR is not a legal statute its own assertion of the rules application has no bearing on matters). That document is at best 5 and at worst 7 years out of date, depending on your perspective, so please don't rely on it too much. The legislation, however, is always up to date once it becomes law.

It is also an interpretation of the law, not the law, I prefer to go by the letter of the law and not find out that some bureaucrats interpretation (and there are huge mistakes in that document) is not what the Garda or Judges interpretation of the law is.

No Pants

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Just joined the thread after 40 pages. Anything ground breaking or do I have to read through it all from the start?

No. As expected, it's Groundhog Day.

jimgoose

CramCycle wrote: »

It is also an interpretation of the law, not the law, I prefer to go by the letter of the law and not find out that some bureaucrats interpretation (and there are huge mistakes in that document) is not what the Garda or Judges interpretation of the law is.

So that's why ye wobble all over the place and sail through red lights. Yer heads are too full of legal meballacks to be bothered with Earthly matters! :pac:

cython

jimgoose wrote: »

So that's why ye wobble all over the place and sail through red lights. Yer heads are too full of legal meballacks to be bothered with Earthly matters! :pac:

LOL. I think you'll find those of us quoting the law and making the distinction between the RoTR and the statutes are likely the ones who actually obey red lights.

CramCycle wrote: »

It is also an interpretation of the law, not the law, I prefer to go by the letter of the law and not find out that some bureaucrats interpretation (and there are huge mistakes in that document) is not what the Garda or Judges interpretation of the law is.

Yeah, I mentioned that (not a legal statute) but didn't really want to rehash the discussion too much some posters probably have blisters on their fingers already from get that distinction across (in vain in some cases, it would seem)!

Pinch Flat

No Pants wrote: »

No. As expected, it's Groundhog Day.

Ah jaybus

I'm guessing the following have been covered:
Red lights
Headphones
Hi-vis
Cycling 2 abreast
Having fun with each other / talking
Lycra
Mamils
Insurance / tax
Tolls for bikes
Bike registration
Nct for bikes
Buy a car / why can't you afford a car
Sweat / body odour
Arrogance

Am I close?

jimgoose

cython wrote: »

LOL. I think you'll find those of us quoting the law and making the distinction between the RoTR and the statutes are likely the ones who actually obey red lights...

I should say so, yes. Just kidding with ya!

roadrunner16

SeanW wrote: »

Only it's not a Motor tax really, if your car is off the road and recorded as such you are not liable for the tax.

Cyclists don't pay to use the road, motorists do. And I think you'll find someone like me who has to pay €800/year - just in one tax/imposed cost alone - to drive 5000 miles or less is paying plenty for roads and a few other things.

The tax is calculated based on the size of the motor of the vehicle and more recently ( 2008 I may be wrong on that ) on the Co2 emissions of the vehicle. Its a tax paid by road users that have a motor. arguing over what it should be called is pointless. It;s true that motorists pay a lot more to use roads that cyclists do . but why shouldn't they ? most of the money spent on roads is spent on a large portion of the road that cyclists won't / can't safely use. But like I said money for development of roads is taken from general taxation meaning cyclists have just as much right to use the roads as motorists. I just hate the "tar with same brush attitude" of " you don't pay road tax " and if you are paying that much for road tax to only rive 5000 miles , maybe you should pick up a bike !!!

magicbastarder

great news! cyclists have been ousted as the blackguards of learned opinion!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631366-seagulls/

endacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

great news! cyclists have been ousted as the blackguards of learned opinion!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631366-seagulls/

Seagulls not paying road tax?!?

FFS Joe. This is a step too far! Feckin' Garth Brooks all over again!

:mad:

Pinch Flat

Apparently Charles Darwin is to blame

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/02/why-motorists-get-so-angry-cyclists-psychologists-theory

oak5548

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people. They outright refuse to use cycle lanes and come up with every excuse possible, the most common being they're full of glass and debris (they rarely are). Unfortunately they dont cater to the wannabe lance armstrongs who treat the road as their own personal exercise space.

Recently in the commuting and transport forum there was a massive thread on hi-viz jackets and nearly every cyclist commenting said hi-viz was stupid and pointless.

They're a gigantic pain in the arse to deal with tbh as a safe driver and casual cyclist myself.

Also I suppose the fact that we're using boards.ie doesnt help with the smart arse comments, inflated egos, and reverse psychology everyone seems to display.

Every single thread = disagree with the op because my opinion = correct.

Jawgap

What it boils down to is that drivers perceive anything that deprives them of the 'right' to drive at the speed limit as being a problem. That seems to be a peculiarly Irish view of speed limits. It's an attitude driven (excuse the pun) by generations of poor driving that has fostered a sense of entitlement (including the idea that you hold your driver's licence as a matter of right rather than as a privilege).

Cyclists are traffic - if you are delayed by traffic you either didn't leave early enough, didn't plan your route properly or were just unlucky.

Drivers want to have their cake and eat it (and why not, we pay enough motor tax, fuel duty etc) -

• they complain when cyclists use the road lawfully, and complain when they use it unlawfully (if a cyclist jumps a light, are they not removing themselves from the immediate stream of vehicular traffic and thereby not obstructing it - likewise cyclists on the pavements can't be obstructing vehicular traffic can they?)
  
• they complain when roadspace is given over to bus lanes and cycle lanes
  
• they complain about too much, too little and the wrong type of enforcement, in the wrong place (in other words enforcement that's proximal to them)
  
• they complain about traffic when they are traffic
  
• with so sense of irony they complain about cyclists being 'self-righteous

A little less begrudgery would go a long way........

Chips Lovell

oak5548 wrote: »

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people.

You are correct. It's all a vast conspiracy to annoy you.

Jawgap

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah jaybus

I'm guessing the following have been covered:
Red lights
Headphones
Hi-vis
Cycling 2 abreast
Having fun with each other / talking
Lycra
Mamils
Insurance / tax
Tolls for bikes
Bike registration
Nct for bikes
Buy a car / why can't you afford a car
Sweat / body odour
Arrogance

Am I close?

By my reckoning only 6.5....

These have definitely been covered....
Red lights
Cycling 2 abreast
Having fun with each other / talking
Lycra
Insurance / tax
Bike registration


Arrogance hasn't specifically been covered, but it seems axiomatic from some of the other posters that cyclists, collectively, are an arrogant bunch....

Knasher

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Just joined the thread after 40 pages. Anything ground breaking or do I have to read through it all from the start?

Well so far I don't think there has been anyone either wishing that cyclists would die, or saying that they plan on ensuring that those wishes come through. Making this probably the most cordial thread on cyclists in AH I've ever seen.

endacl

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Apparently Charles Darwin is to blame[/url]

Can't imagine how. No cycle lanes, cars or traffic lights in his day. Plus, he would have been up in a high nelly of some description.

Perhaps if boards had existed in the 19th century people would have been on it having good old irrational rantywhinges about highway tax v carriage tax, and pesky perambulators?

:pac:

endacl

oak5548 wrote: »

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people. They outright refuse to use cycle lanes and come up with every excuse possible, the most common being they're full of glass and debris (they rarely are). Unfortunately they dont cater to the wannabe lance armstrongs who treat the road as their own personal exercise space.

Recently in the commuting and transport forum there was a massive thread on hi-viz jackets and nearly every cyclist commenting said hi-viz was stupid and pointless.

They're a gigantic pain in the arse to deal with tbh as a safe driver and casual cyclist myself.

Also I suppose the fact that we're using boards.ie doesnt help with the smart arse comments, inflated egos, and reverse psychology everyone seems to display.

Every single thread = disagree with the op because my opinion = correct.

^^

Should be stickied as a summary of the bullcr4p posted whenever the topic comes up...

:rolleyes:

missierex

CramCycle wrote: »

Cyclecraft which would be accepted by most groups as the best advice for cyclists, will tell you, the same as most cyclists, that keeping as far last as possible is incredibly dangerous. I can ride in the gutter all day long but I am far more likely to lose my grip and fall into the road (potentially under a motor vehicle or just physically injure myself), far more likely to puncture, far more likely to lose my balance due to uneven road surface and debris, it encourages close overtaking (if I can go that close to the edge surely i can deal with a car being that close on the other side of me). I don't generally hold the lane but I damn well won't cycle as far left as possible as to do so is dangerous and ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by missierex

I should add that it also confirms that a cyclist should keep to the left as much as possible, but only when it is safe to do so. Fair enough.

endacl

missierex wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by missierex

I should add that it also confirms that a cyclist should keep to the left as much as possible, but only when it is safe to do so. Fair enough.

But that's just road sense, and applies to everybody. Drivers included.

Badly Drunk Boy

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

at least the cyclists are on the roads, it boils my blood to see fully grown men & women cycling on footpaths..IT'S ILLEGAL.

I was once stopped by the Gardaí and they told me to cycle on the footpath. This was long before cycle lanes or any of that...

Tenzor07

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah jaybus

I'm guessing the following have been covered:
Red lights
Headphones
Hi-vis
Cycling 2 abreast
Having fun with each other / talking
Lycra
Mamils
Insurance / tax
Tolls for bikes
Bike registration
Nct for bikes
Buy a car / why can't you afford a car
Sweat / body odour
Arrogance

Am I close?

I also spotted the term "Helmet Warrior".... I'm sure it's also the name of a dodgy low-budget 80's movie I once saw?? :rolleyes:

missierex

endacl wrote: »

But that's just road sense, and applies to everybody. Drivers included.

Of course, I was simply responding to Cramcycle's comment on my post (I failed miserably at quoting it :S )

topper75

Is somebody posting in July 2014 writing about wannabe Lance Armstrongs?!

Sorry to have to be the smart arse to have to point that out.

PrzemoF

oak5548 wrote: »

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people. They outright refuse to use cycle lanes and come up with every excuse possible, the most common being they're full of glass and debris (they rarely are). [..]

I can't agree more!! All cycle lanes are perfectly designed and clean as a whistle, but I'm a weirdo and I prefer to risk my life cycling on the road!

You've never ever cycled, did you? Do it _once_ and it will change your point of view completely.

Jawgap

oak5548 wrote: »

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people. They outright refuse to use cycle lanes and come up with every excuse possible, the most common being they're full of glass and debris (they rarely are). Unfortunately they dont cater to the wannabe lance armstrongs who treat the road as their own personal exercise space.

Actually, the most common is that they are poorly designed, laid out and constructed.

Out of interest, the Armstrong reference is a bit tired - actually it's quite ridiculous but given most people it seems are unaware of the RotR it's hardly unusual to find them using a reference to a long retired cyclist.

You can find more information on current cyclists here - http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/

Can I suggest that in future, rants at directed towards cyclists should include, (instead of 'wannabe Lance Armstrongs) references to 'wannabe SIR Bradley Wiggins' (you should add and the emphasise the 'sir' for real effect) or 'wannabe Mark Cavendishes' (or just 'wannabe Cavs') - bonus points for referencing Nibali, Cancellara or Voigt.

I suppose we'll be 'wannabe Nico Roches' if he ever wins a grand tour?

oak5548 wrote: »

Recently in the commuting and transport forum there was a massive thread on hi-viz jackets and nearly every cyclist commenting said hi-viz was stupid and pointless.

They're a gigantic pain in the arse to deal with tbh as a safe driver and casual cyclist myself.

Also I suppose the fact that we're using boards.ie doesnt help with the smart arse comments, inflated egos, and reverse psychology everyone seems to display.

Every single thread = disagree with the op because my opinion = correct.

Hi-viz has its place - it's mostly harmless and not a patch on a decent set of lights.


@pinch_flat - we're now up to 7.5

oak5548

endacl wrote: »

^^

Should be stickied as a summary of the bullcr4p posted whenever the topic comes up...

:rolleyes:

Are you just part of the cyclist circle-jerk or are you going to tell me what part of the post was bullcrap?

I get the feeling most arrogant cyclists dont even have licenses. Every car driver knows that driving at slow speeds is dangerous and impedes every other road user.
Infact, you FAIL your driving test for being too slow.

So what gives cyclists the right to refuse to move 1 meter to the left, stop getting in peoples way, stop swerving erratically because they cant hold the handlebars steady, stop ignoring cycle lanes which were built costing millions, to stop cycling in packs of 5 abreast or more?

Yes the road has to be shared, but its a two way street. Truck drivers have to take up as much space as possible and manouver their truck in a way that often straddles 2 lanes and they have to assert themselves over other road users.

Cyclists dont seem to understand that either no do a lot of car drivers.

Reekwind

endacl wrote: »

Perhaps if boards had existed in the 19th century people would have been on it having good old irrational rantywhinges about highway tax v carriage tax, and pesky perambulators?

AH would be too busy rubbishing Darwin's theory of evolution and wondering why the British weren't doing more to stamp out Irish to worry about horseless carriages.

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

...Out of interest, the Armstrong reference is a bit tired - actually it's quite ridiculous but given most people it seems are unaware of the RotR it's hardly unusual to find them using a reference to a long retired cyclist...

Oh, I dunno - you'll still get the "'Oo d'you think you are then, Barry Sheene??" from the Plod. Granted the younger ones will sometimes use "fookin' Carl Fogarty??" these days! :pac::pac::pac:

Tenzor07

topper75 wrote: »

Is somebody posting in July 2014 writing about wannabe Lance Armstrongs?!

Sorry to have to be the smart arse to have to point that out.

Ha! I recall getting shouted at before from a passenger in a moving car... "..here who the F.. dya think you are... Stephen Roche!!?""