Those damn cyclists again!

mathie

cournioni wrote: »

I have a question.

Why are motorists taxed for the use of their vehicles on public roads and cyclists are not?

Emissions?

magicbastarder

i was once told by an engineer that the wear on the roads is proportional to the third power of the weight per wheel (if someone can correct this, please do so) - so based on this, a car with ten times as much weight per wheel as a bike will be causing one thousand times as much wear to the road.

Potatoeman

I walk into work and the amount of drivers that dont indicate is staggering. There are a few spots that are particuarly bad where there are smaller roads on crossroads, where most of the traffic goes one route and most drivers dont indicate. Im surprised no one has been killed at the bridge on Dorset street lower.

gramar

Turtwig wrote: »

Great so you'll just state your opinion and won't attempt to explore it. That's not a discussion.

I think I did explore it somewhat. I gave my opinion. Cyclists should have insurance. Studies have found that a significant number of accidents are caused by cyclists and also mentioned why these statistics vary from country to country and what factors determine the level of accidents. Check my previous posts and you'll see this.

Now I'm off on me bike to terrorise pedestrians on footpaths and scream through red lights at junctions. Pedal Power!

00sully

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage:

Motor tax =/= Road tax

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Most of us understand that, we just don't agree with it.

oh well THEN!!! if you don't agree with the tax you pay sure you might as well not pay it either :pac:

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods. ....

You should be bashed by the grammar police also

I look forward to the introduction of the quays cycle corridor. By then cars and buses won't be delaying me on my commute anymore

Cars using bus lanes. Motorbikes using cycle lanes. Ban them all!

CramCycle

gramar wrote: »

Check my previous posts and you'll see this.

Your previous posts claimed 60% of accidents were caused by cyclists and then when challenged, you could only find one report that actually implied that number is incorrect i.e. 60% motorists fault.

Lets not get hung up on inaccuracies and facts though.

gramar

CramCycle wrote: »

Your previous posts claimed 60% of accidents were caused by cyclists and then when challenged, you could only find one report that actually implied that number is incorrect i.e. 60% motorists fault.

Lets not get hung up on inaccuracies and facts though.

No, lets not! Should I be posting on boards while I'm cyclinnnnnnnnnnnn.................dsfasfasfffafaf

Sir Arthur Daley

Its better take in the roads till this is sorted.

Ratzo Rizzo

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

seamus

BFDCH. wrote: »

Does the motorist have a right of way here? is it not the same as any other road user, in that the person further ahead on the road has right of way, the driver behind should only over take when it is safe to do so

Where the cyclist is using the cycle lane, he is for all intents and purposes a vehicle in a separate lane, and therefore must yield to traffic in the other lane if he intends to move out of the cycle lane.

Where the cyclist is not using a cycle lane, then yes the following motorist must treat the cyclist like any other vehicle and provide the full width of the roadway for the cyclist's usage.

gramar

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

TonyStark

jelenka wrote: »

I don't mind cyclists on the road, I'd say more of them are vigilant and don't break the rules, but i absolutely hate it when 2 cyclists cycle next to each other having a chat, leaving no room to overtake them.

Legally they are entitled to cycle to abreast.

Even to pass one cyclist safely with the recommended clearance you would need to go partially over the white line. Otherwise you are not leaving the cyclist enough space.

SteM

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.


I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

Do you think this 'bike license' will stop some people from cycling poorly? Just like having a drivers license stops some drivers from driving poorly? You go on about cyclists needing to know drivers stopping distances but if you look at the roads any day of the week you see drivers that don't know their own stopping distances!

RSA ads alone are not enough - using the road requires education for both drivers and cyclists.

RobbieTheRobber

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

What a crock of ****!

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

RobbieTheRobber

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

Eh

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog Azbikelaw, crunched some numbers on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common collision was when a driver struck a cyclist from behind.

44% cyclists fault
56% car drivers fault

:rolleyes:

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

CramCycle

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

In all of the studies bar the Washington post one which they do not give numbers for, for some unknown reason, referred to in that article, motorists were deemed to be more at fault than cyclists for collisions.

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog , on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety on contributing factors in bike-car crashes. It found that in 2009, cyclists were at fault in 49 percent of crashes, while drivers were at fault in 51 percent. Failing to yield to right of way was the most frequent cause of the snarls.

And the Washington Post recently a 2004 report from DC showing cyclists more likely than motorists to be at fault in a crash.

But a older from Hawaii had a different conclusion. Using police-reported crash data from 1986 to 1991, researchers found that motorists were at fault in approximately 83.5 percent of incidents, whereas bicyclists were at fault in only 16.5 percent of incidents.

SteM

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

You had no reason to engage with him. He wasn't breaking the law, he doesn’t have to use cycle lanes if they're available. If you see another driver driving poorly will you make a point to roll down your windows at lights to engage with them. You may say yes but I bet you'll just keep on driving.

'Largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists' - care to explain that? So were there pedestrians on the cycle lane? Just one or two or none? Did you stop and ask the pedestrians why they were walking on the cycle lane endangering their own lives or do you just have a thing against cyclists?

Did this cyclist accuse you of endangering his life or was he just getting on with his life and leaving you to yours?

seamus

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

Yes. In the same way that having a motorway but not being legally obliged to use it makes sense.

cournioni

Caliden wrote: »

Because we're polluting the environment and causing more wear and tear to the roads.

mathie wrote: »

Emissions?

Are motorists not already taxed for their pollution/usage/emissions when they fill up at the pumps? The more you use, the more you're taxed.

I agree that motorists have to be taxed for their road usage due to wear and tear and for infrastructural improvements, but shouldn't this apply to all road users (including cyclists)?

TonyStark

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

There is no legal requirement to use a cycle lane. Usually cycle lanes are littered with glass and debris and it is preferable sometimes to use the road. Provided he wasn't on the M50 he is breaking no law.

RobbieTheRobber

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

You can call them cycle lanes I prefer the more descriptive "painted paths" as a name.

Caliden

SteM wrote: »

Do you think this 'bike license' will stop some people from cycling poorly? Just like having a drivers license stops some drivers from driving poorly? You go on about cyclists needing to know drivers stopping distances but if you look at the roads any day of the week you see drivers that don't know their own stopping distances!

RSA ads alone are not enough - using the road requires education for both drivers and cyclists.

There's a system in place to deal with poor drivers. There is no camera to determine bad driving so the Gardai rely on being in the right place at the right time and the public in order to deal with bad drivers.

It's not the greatest system but it does help.


The same can not be said about a system dealing with bad cyclists.


I'm not saying there aren't bad motorists (there are) and I'm also not saying that every cyclist is a bad cyclist but I would think that those cyclists who obey the rules of the road would like to separate themselves from the cyclists who pick and choose what rules to obey.

I would like to think that anyone using the road could be readily identifiable so as to deter bad behaviour.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26837911/ns/health-behavior/t/anonymity-opens-split-personality-zone/#.U8Zy_PldVEI

the above is an article which quotes a studying showing that "out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward."

People change when they think they cannot be identified. The same goes for online message boards.

Peist2007

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

RobbieTheRobber

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

Whats a taxi lane?

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You can call them cycle lanes I prefer the more descriptive "painted paths" as a name.

And to answer the question?

TonyStark

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

You think that that is bad?

I came in by train and saw traffic come to a complete stall because of other cars...... crawling doesn't seem so bad!

Buzz Killington the third

While driving I've almost been hit by a car because they swerved to my side of the road to avoid a cyclist who was overtaking another cyclist without indicating first. If there had been an accident it would have been both their fault. Motorists will defend motorists and cyclists will defend cyclists. It's just going to go round in circles. At the end of the day, if everyone was just more aware of each other then it'd be grand.

RobbieTheRobber

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

And to answer the question?

What question?

Are you asking why a road user legally entitled to use the road, would then use said roads?

endacl

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

It's not really. It's a confusion that leads to begrudgery.