Cyclists breaking lights!!

Roquentin

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

Yeah, good luck with that.

good luck to you as a paraplegic when you break the red. I betcha you will stop at the red lights on your wheel chair

jkiamasnake

thisNthat wrote: »

Oh here we go,
More whining and complaining from whiney complainers who have no idea how difficult it is to cycle in urban areas and the dangers involved,
The typical I'm always right the cyclist is always wrong attitude,
If you were using your mirrors correctly you would have seen the cyclist, you could have killed him/her.
I pay road tax so I own the road attitude, Usually from people who have never cycled a day in their lives.
Open your eyes and use your mirrors next time and no-one will cycle into you.
Obey the rules of the road too, you don't own the road and try and look out for more vulnerable road users.

if you had bothered to read my post you would clearly see that i was turning right on a green filter and the cyclist crashed into my side as i was turning right. i do use my mirrors properly...maybe if the cyclist wasnt speeding and stopped at the light at he was supposed to my car would not have ben hit!!! its not my fault he couldnt afford to pay for my damage. why should i be taking a financial hit aswell by losing my no claims bonus and having my insurance next year increase?

jkiamasnake

ive noticed quite a few regular cyclists who claim that they would have no sympathy for cyclists who break lights and are involved in accidents. thats all well and good but what about the impact it will have on the person they cause to crash? what about the mental state and or financial impact they create by ignoring a red light and are the sole responsible party for causing an accident!!!!

--LOS--

ugh ffs not this again.


All this hatred towards cyclists means that as a cyclist, whether you obey the rules of the road or not, you will nonetheless suffer abuse from drivers. Now when it comes to cyclists versus drivers, one is significantly more vulnerable than the other. A cyclist is likely to come out worse off in an accident, doesn't give them the excuse to abuse the rules of the road but it does warrant extra caution around them, not the opposite! It's not their fault that our roads suck, they are entitled to be on the road as much as drivers.

It's like cyclists can't win. People are not happy with them on the roads, people are not happy with them on the foothpaths. When they're on the road, they're being driven off by cars passing dangerously close and shouting abuse. Sometimes you're just forced to prioritise safety, for yourself and everyone else regardless of the rules of the road.

Spook_ie

thisNthat wrote: »

Ya mirrors have nothing to do with driving, Your right :rolleyes:
Of course if a bicycle hits a car (as suggested), the car gets smashed and the bicycle is perfectly fine and able to continue on its way :rolleyes:
More made up crap from people who could do with getting their ass onto a bike to see what its like to cycle in an urban area.
I pay road tax, I'm right, end of, yawnnnn... ZZZzzzzzz :rolleyes:

Just a thought..

jkiamasnake wrote: »

im not 100% sure what else happened him..but i remember him fixing the chain on his bike. a new door for my car is needed is all i do know having gone in to a mechanic. you can see his footprint on the door aswell.

and to be frank i could not give a **** about his bike. it was his choice to break a light and deal with whatever consequences arise.

im not sure if you have ever been involved in an accident but its not a nice experience and it fairly traumatizing!

In an impending collision with a car by using your foot to bash the car door, the denting of the door and flexibility of the human joints would probably leave the door in a mess and the bike and rider relatively unscathed.

EDIT : Just as another thought...

Quite possible (given the footprint) that the cyclist took a deliberate kick at the car door and fell off his bike due to Newtons 3rd Law,

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

which would make him an even bigger scrote than someone who didn't stop after an accident

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

First Up

--LOS-- wrote: »

ugh ffs not this again.


All this hatred towards cyclists means that as a cyclist, whether you obey the rules of the road or not, you will nonetheless suffer abuse from drivers. Now when it comes to cyclists versus drivers, one is significantly more vulnerable than the other. A cyclist is likely to come out worse off in an accident, doesn't give them the excuse to abuse the rules of the road but it does warrant extra caution around them, not the opposite! It's not their fault that our roads suck, they are entitled to be on the road as much as drivers.

It's like cyclists can't win. People are not happy with them on the roads, people are not happy with them on the foothpaths. When they're on the road, they're being driven off by cars passing dangerously close and shouting abuse. Sometimes you're just forced to prioritise safety, for yourself and everyone else regardless of the rules of the road.

I see you give your location as Amsterdam - a city with many cyclists. In my experience of Holland, as well as cities in Germany, Denmark and elsewhere in European, cyclists are plentiful, sensible, respectful of the law and of other road users - in vehicles or on foot. They negotiate their way between cars, trams and pedestrians with the minimum of fuss and everyone gets along.

On the other hand Dublin, London and (especially) New York has a breed of cyclists) that is aggressive, deliberately flouts the law and treats their time on the road as some sort of ideological battle of wits. (These usually lycra clad assholes are equally aggressive towards other cyclists who get in their way.)

I sympathise with cyclists who have to veer into the road because some gob****e in a white van has parked in the cycle lane. But I also sympathise with pedestrians at bus stops being terrorised by cyclists whizzing past at speed in the adjoining bike lane. An elderly or very young pedestrian is at least as vulnerable to injury from a bike at speed as a cyclist is from a city centre shunt with a car. At least the biker will have a helmet, although some of them have little enough worth protecting inside it.

Berserker

Drove out of the end of my estate this morning and one young cyclist cut right in front of me. Had to slam on the breaks. I am not an aggressive driver, so I didn't beep the horn and act like a madman, so the lady cycled off oblivious to the potential danger of the incident. No headgear on her too.

blackwhite

thisNthat wrote: »

Oh here we go,
More whining and complaining from whiney complainers who have no idea how difficult it is to cycle in urban areas and the dangers involved,
The typical I'm always right the cyclist is always wrong attitude,
If you were using your mirrors correctly you would have seen the cyclist, you could have killed him/her.
I pay road tax so I own the road attitude, Usually from people who have never cycled a day in their lives.
Open your eyes and use your mirrors next time and no-one will cycle into you.
Obey the rules of the road too, you don't own the road and try and look out for more vulnerable road users.

Have you actually read a single post on the thread, or are you just here to have a rant?

Darkglasses

The most important thing to remember is that cyclists are all the same person and are defined by their means of transport at a single point in time.

dan1895

Darkglasses wrote: »

The most important thing to remember is that cyclists are all the same person and are defined by their means of transport at a single point in time.

They all think as one and share the same opinions on everything. Like LOI fans.

eeeee

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

If an artic or other such vehicle pulled up beside me at a junction, I wouldn't hesitate breaking a red light. Period.

That is one of the stupidest things I have read in ages.

If a lorry pulls up ahead of you at the lights you STAY BEHIND if on a bike! I was born and reared around artics, they CANNOT SEE YOU so pedalling off like a deamon in front of them under the cab is a stupid, stupid, recklessly dangerous thing to do. Second to going up the inside of them to get in front.
I say that as someone who cycles between 200 and 300k a week. You are going to get yourself killed!

A while ago (maybe last year?) there was an artic parked on o connel st and people were invited in to see just how much the driver could/couldn't see. The majority of the population have no idea. And before someone says it, no HGV's should not be banned from the city centre because of some people's Darwin award style stupidity. Have a bit of consideration and use your brain.

Antagonism, them v us thinking gets you no where. We all have to share the road so why not work together? I am so sick and tired of the lack of understanding from both sides.

Rant over!

SeanW

Darkglasses wrote: »

The most important thing to remember is that cyclists are all the same person and are defined by their means of transport at a single point in time.

dan1895 wrote: »

They all think as one and share the same opinions on everything. Like LOI fans.

Well, when a cyclist posts in Commuting and Transport or various other for a about the need for GPS speed enforcers in cars, motorist-hostile housing design or Strict Liability, it usually results in a circle-jerk of thanks whoring from other cyclists, so you'll have to forgive me if I suspect they actually share ideologies.

Pinch Flat

SeanW wrote: »

motorist-hostile housing design

I love this one. I'm going to ask my residents committee if we can petition fingal county council to have a dual carriageway through our 'motorist hostile' estate replacing the safe roads . I mean all those kids playing these summer evenings will be perfectly safe, no?

traprunner

Counted the bikes as a passenger in a car yesterday morning.

Out of 31:
27 broke the lights.
1 cycled on the footpath,
1 cycled on the wrong side of the road.
2 obeyed the rules of the road.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

dub_skav

traprunner wrote: »

Counted the bikes as a passenger in a car yesterday morning.

Out of 31:
27 broke the lights.
1 cycled on the footpath,
1 cycled on the wrong side of the road.
2 obeyed the rules of the road.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Can you also report on the number of accidents and injuries caused?

MayoAreMagic

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

I was cycling down lower Churchtown Rd. one morning, cars backed up all the way from the Dropping Well to Dundrum. Barely any space between the long line of cars and a slippery single yellow/white line demarcating the edge of the road. I was the only one making progress, poor unfortunates in their cars must have been there for ages backed-up. My front tyre slips on the yellow line and I loose control of the bike and smash a wing mirror off a car to my right.

I felt bad about the incident so went back and gave the driver my number, I got hit for a 500euro bill, It had to be a BMW 5 series I had crashed into :-(

Bottom line, cyclists don't have insurance so taking responsibility for an accident comes straight out of your pocket and can be a big ask. Poor and non existing cycling lanes were responsible for my accident. If there had have been a proper cycle lane the accident wouldn't have happened.

Sorry but you are wrong. The reason for the accident wasn't down to there not being a cycle lane. That is like a driver smashing into a load of pedestrians and then complaining that the road should be wider. The reason your crashed was down to you choosing to cycle your bike in too tight an area between cars when you should have either got off and walked it or stayed behind. If it isn't safe to pass then you don't pass. Fair play for going back and Im not trying to start an argument about it, Im just highlighting how people can lose track of common sense when they get bogged down in what they are legally entitled to do etc. What you are 'fully within your rights to do' isn't always the correct course of action. If you hit a static object from behind, whether you be cyclist or motorist, the person at fault is you, not the road. You are supposed to be able to see danger and avoid it.

Also, not having money to pay for potential damage isn't a valid excuse. If that is the case then you shouldn't be cycling.

traprunner

dub_skav wrote: »

Can you also report on the number of accidents and injuries caused?

Nah. After a few very close misses with pedestrians and cars I closed my eyes. I didn't want to be a witness to the stupidity and have to spend a day or two giving statements to cops and court. :pac:






There are laws governing cyclists, driver and pedestrians that should be enforced and aren't.

rubadub

TheChizler wrote: »

I'll concede that it depends on your definition of jaywalking. The law doesn't use the word jaywalking.

I always considered it a slang or colloquial term, I would be very surprised if the law here did use the term, just as I would be surprised if laws on indecent exposure used the term "flashing" or "flasher".

TheChizler wrote: »

It's totally different to the crime that exists in some US states for instance which would be the normal definition of it.

:eek: totally different?!? they are laws about pedestrians dangerously walking out onto the road.

First line on wiki Jaywalking is illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway.

The US secton on wiki sounds similar enough to ours, as do the other countries.

Many people think there are no such laws here to stop this, there are. People dangerously walk into traffic all the time, but as most consider themselves pedestrians they do not get up in arms about it, since htey can't go off on an "us & them" rant.

gadetra

gadetra wrote: »

That is one of the stupidest things I have read in ages.

If a lorry pulls up ahead of you at the lights you STAY BEHIND if on a bike! I was born and reared around artics, they CANNOT SEE YOU so pedalling off like a deamon in front of them under the cab is a stupid, stupid, recklessly dangerous thing to do. Second to going up the inside of them to get in front.
I say that as someone who cycles between 200 and 300k a week. You are going to get yourself killed!

A while ago (maybe last year?) there was an artic parked on o connel st and people were invited in to see just how much the driver could/couldn't see. The majority of the population have no idea. And before someone says it, no HGV's should not be banned from the city centre because of some people's Darwin award style stupidity. Have a bit of consideration and use your brain.

Antagonism, them v us thinking gets you no where. We all have to share the road so why not work together? I am so sick and tired of the lack of understanding from both sides.

Rant over!

Read his/her post. They specifically say "if an artic pulls up beside me". Did you not read that? Your comments about blind spots prove the point.

If I was at a junction on the left of the road and an artic pulled up beside me, I would certainly get out of the blind spot and if that was possible by SAFELY breaking a red light then yes, I would do it as well.

WRT the original post, let me be the first to say i don't believe it. Sounds like a bizarre accident - we are supposed to believe a cyclist flew through a red light and rammed a car with sufficient force to cause a grand's worth of damage, taking no evasive action and suffering no damage to himself or his bike? I can't be the only one who thinks that a little unlikely?

thisNthat

blackwhite wrote: »

Have you actually read a single post on the thread, or are you just here to have a rant?

Yes I'd love a cup of tea, Thanks

SeanW

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I love this one. I'm going to ask my residents committee if we can petition fingal county council to have a dual carriageway through our 'motorist hostile' estate replacing the safe roads . I mean all those kids playing these summer evenings will be perfectly safe, no?

No, I am referring to things like houses without driveways and roads to narrow to have on-street parking. Which is the essence of things like the "Essex design" - no one can park outside their houses and parking is strictly rationed in an inconvenient arrangement of "parking courts" - that is, if parking is allowed at all.

How that benefits anyone, is anyone's guess. But cyclist seem to love them.

punisher5112

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Read his/her post. They specifically say "if an artic pulls up beside me". Did you not read that? Your comments about blind spots prove the point.

If I was at a junction on the left of the road and an artic pulled up beside me, I would certainly get out of the blind spot and if that was possible by SAFELY breaking a red light then yes, I would do it as well.

WRT the original post, let me be the first to say i don't believe it. Sounds like a bizarre accident - we are supposed to believe a cyclist flew through a red light and rammed a car with sufficient force to cause a grand's worth of damage, taking no evasive action and suffering no damage to himself or his bike? I can't be the only one who thinks that a little unlikely?

This is very possible as I myself was hit by a cyclist while already halfway through a turn to the left.

I had indicated, checked mirrors again and bang he had flew through a red while flying down a hill on a trials bike with no fitted brakes.

He got back on and flew off.

I then had this 1 screaming from another car saying I hit him but she was texting at the time so found that odd she could make a judgement.

Damaged the passenger door and wing.
All road users should give each other respect.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jkiamasnake

Deleted User wrote: »

Read his/her post. They specifically say "if an artic pulls up beside me". Did you not read that? Your comments about blind spots prove the point.

If I was at a junction on the left of the road and an artic pulled up beside me, I would certainly get out of the blind spot and if that was possible by SAFELY breaking a red light then yes, I would do it as well.

WRT the original post, let me be the first to say i don't believe it. Sounds like a bizarre accident - we are supposed to believe a cyclist flew through a red light and rammed a car with sufficient force to cause a grand's worth of damage, taking no evasive action and suffering no damage to himself or his bike? I can't be the only one who thinks that a little unlikely?

the cyclist was travelling at high speed!!! the evasive action he tried to take was put his foot out!! i had said im not fully sure exactly what damage he had done to his bike. when i got out of my car and went back to him he had the bike turned upside down and was fixing his chain. he was the one saying accidents happen as he knew he was in the wrong!! when i got back in to my car i was still shaking so pulled up on the foot path for a few mins to try calm down so i would be able to drive home..my mind was all over the place! i looked in my mirror and saw he walk across the road with his bike when the green pedestrian light came on and thats the last i saw of him! i went in to a crash repairs garage and also to the axa centre. the crash repair place quoted an approx 1 thousand as i would need a new door and there was a dent on the back passenger door that would need to be fixed too. the axa guy would not comment on the price.

just an update, i met the axa assessor this morning and he said i have no liability and was in no way at fault. although it was re assuring, he could not guarantee that if i do claim my no claims bonus would not be affected

dub_skav

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was asking because people seem to be claiming that this scourge of law breaking cyclists are a clear and present danger to themselves and other road users, yet I suspect that the poster in witnessing 29 of 31 cyclists breaking the rules did not see any accidents.

I would say that if 94% of motorway users were driving at 120mph, then we would see at least 1 accident.

But you knew that you scamp, back to the motorway with you.

RainyDay

traprunner wrote: »

Counted the bikes as a passenger in a car yesterday morning.

Out of 31:
27 broke the lights.
1 cycled on the footpath,
1 cycled on the wrong side of the road.
2 obeyed the rules of the road.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

dub_skav wrote: »

Can you also report on the number of accidents and injuries caused?

And while your at it, could you report on the number of cars that you noticed that were breaking the speed limits, or scooting through the junction on amber or red lights, or had drivers texting or facebooking, or failed to indicate etc etc.

traprunner

RainyDay wrote: »

And while your at it, could you report on the number of cars that you noticed that were breaking the speed limits, or scooting through the junction on amber or red lights, or had drivers texting or facebooking, or failed to indicate etc etc.

Traffic was too heavy to speed and I didn't see one driver doing something illegal (very unusual!). Usually see more drivers using phones on the way home for some reason. Checking with their significant other if they need bread or milk maybe. But then again this thread is apparently about cyclists judging by the title.

RainyDay

traprunner wrote: »

Traffic was too heavy to speed and I didn't see one driver doing something illegal (very unusual!). Usually see more drivers using phones on the way home for some reason. Checking with their significant other if they need bread or milk maybe. But then again this thread is apparently about cyclists judging by the title.

Were you wearing blinkers? If I spend 60 seconds at any junction in Dublin, I'll spot at least one driver doing something illegal.

traprunner

RainyDay wrote: »

Were you wearing blinkers? If I spend 60 seconds at any junction in Dublin, I'll spot at least one driver doing something illegal.

Sorry but I was in observing cyclists in particular. I usually observe other drivers when I am driving and stuck in traffic. This was my one chance of really observing cyclists and they is why I posted in the thread called 'Cyclists brealing lights!!' I haven't come across the 'Drivers breaking lights!!' thread yet.