Cyclists breaking lights!!

RainyDay

ForstalDave wrote: »

So all drivers should drive slow at all times even if there is nothing in front of them? Yes a child can run out in front of a car does it make it the drivers fault when it happens? Its a tragedy and I am very strongly teaching my son how to cross the road cause i never want it to happen to him

Drivers should drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. Is it really that hard to understand?

SeanW wrote: »

The OPs accident - according to this cyclist

Here's a mad idea - how about you give your opinion, and I'll give my opinion. Because when you try to give my opinion, you tend to get it wrong.

Gongoozler

If it's any consolation RainyDay I stop at red lights too.

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

Drivers should drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. Is it really that hard to understand?

Yes they should and cyclists should stop at read lights and pedestrians should not run out into the middle of the road and guards should treat law breakers from each group equally and not focus on one because a person running into the road is likly to get killed at no fault of the drivers as is a cyclist running a red light and a driver breaking the law is just as bad.

All groups have those who ignore the rules and they should all be subject to the attention of the guards when it happens focusing on one while letting the others get away with breaking the rules encourages them to continue to do so putting lives at risk.

RainyDay

ForstalDave wrote: »

Yes they should and cyclists should stop at read lights and pedestrians should not run out into the middle of the road and guards should treat law breakers from each group equally and not focus on one because a person running into the road is likly to get killed at no fault of the drivers as is a cyclist running a red light and a driver breaking the law is just as bad.

All groups have those who ignore the rules and they should all be subject to the attention of the guards when it happens focusing on one while letting the others get away with breaking the rules encourages them to continue to do so putting lives at risk.

So how often do you break the speed limit when you're driving?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You'll have to enlighten me I'm afraid.

BRT through this green bit
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.464587,-6.233723,3a,75y,120.6h,88.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sItnaoYozC0w7KgXuSO8efA!2e0

Under discussion here

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

So how often do you break the speed limit when you're driving?

Never i don't drive nor do i cycle but i try very hard to cross all roads safely and never to put my self or others at risk when doing so how about you.how often do you break the rules of the road?

RainyDay

ForstalDave wrote: »

.how often do you break the rules of the road?

Just about every day, whether I'm cycling or driving, like just about every other road user - cyclist, driver or pedestrian.

I do work hard to make sure that I don't become an inconvenience or a hazard to other road users, except where that is essential for my own safety.

Roquentin

RainyDay wrote: »

Just about every day, whether I'm cycling or driving, like just about every other road user - cyclist, driver or pedestrian.

I do work hard to make sure that I don't become an inconvenience or a hazard to other road users, except where that is essential for my own safety.

i find myself drifting over the speed limit without realizing it. But thats all

The Duke of Moral Hazard

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!

My rule is stay the phuck away from artics, full stop. If they rock up behind you, do everything in your power, both law abiding and non law abiding to get AWAY from them. There is no compromise to be had here in my book. You cannot depend on the driver having remembered seeing you.

As for an artic being in front of you, same rule applies stay AWAY from them full stop.

The Duke of Moral Hazard

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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.

No that's not the reason I crashed at all. instead of there being a dedicated cycle lane on Lower Churctown Road, there is a useless white line that serves no purpose but to demarcate the road, (which I might add is fairly well demarcated in any case as there's big bleedin wall along) the entire way. This demarcating line being all over the shop means that you continually cross it as it get's wider and thinner, on rainy days this is treacherous.

To your second point, if I joined a queue of traffic back at Dundrum on the way to Ballsbridge and stayed behind the first car I got stuck behind and stayed like this all the way to where I was going, there would be little point in cycling and I may as well get in my car and add to the traffic problem. Then we could all get fatter together and and bitch about pedestrians J-walking all the time.

Bikes are the fastest means of transport in the city, it is you motorists holding up the show. Get out of your cars, off your fat asses and join us, then we all might be a bit fitter and get to where we're going while we're still alive.

First Up

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

No that's not the reason I crashed at all. instead of there being a dedicated cycle lane on Lower Churctown Road, there is a useless white line that serves no purpose but to demarcate the road, (which I might add is fairly well demarcated in any case as there's big bleedin wall along) the entire way. This demarcating line being all over the shop means that you continually cross it as it get's wider and thinner, on rainy days this is treacherous.

To your second point, if I joined a queue of traffic back at Dundrum on the way to Ballsbridge and stayed behind the first car I got stuck behind and stayed like this all the way to where I was going, there would be little point in cycling and I may as well get in my car and add to the traffic problem. Then we could all get fatter together and and bitch about pedestrians J-walking all the time.

Bikes are the fastest means of transport in the city, it is you motorists holding up the show. Get out of your cars, off your fat asses and join us, then we all might be a bit fitter and get to where we'rIe going while we're still alive.

I am willing to speculate with a fair degree of confidence that your suggested solution - i.e a mass conversion from cars to bikes - is not going to happen. It is also unlikely that public transport will improve to the extent needed to make a difference.
This being so, maybe bikers should stop tilting at windmills and recognise that their chosen means of transport comes with some strings attached, including that they are more vulnerable than motorists. If they would start by recognising that they have placed themselves in that position, naybe we would see less anger, arrogance and cavalier behaviour from them.

Gongoozler

but it's only a position of danger because of people not following the rules.

For me, I 'choose' cycling because my options are walk, bus or cycle. Cycling is the quickest option. As well as the healthiest.

Chinasea

First Up wrote: »

This being so, maybe bikers should stop tilting at windmills and recognise that their chosen means of transport comes with some strings attached, including that they are more vulnerable than motorists. If they would start by recognising that they have placed themselves in that position, naybe we would see less anger, arrogance and cavalier behaviour from them.

This is an extremely arrogant, irresponsible insular post. Drive on.

califano

Anne has some thoughts on cycling in Dublin
http://vimeo.com/43062266

hucklebuck

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I am still in shock! I had an accident today and I am still shaking. I was at a junction this morning, my green filter light to turn right came on so I continued to proceed, I traveled about 15 feet and am almost into the junction where I wanted to travel to and a cyclist smashes into the side of my car doing considerable damage to my door. Thankfully the cyclist was ok too but I was in so much shock I could not think properly. The cyclist picked himself up, fixed his chain and continues on. I said to him that he broke a red light and that he will have to repair damage done to my car. He says accidents happen and that he doesnt have any money to fix it. He said he was late for work and continued on.

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

If it happens anyone if the cyclist has contents insurance it picks up the liability.

Personally I would wait for him there you can still sue him or claim off your comp and let your insurance company recover from him. If he tried leave again I would break him up, the neck of him to think you can damage someones property and just leave them to pick up the bill.

On another note as a pedestrian I have been cycled into three times on footpaths, twice blindsided and one of them with such impact the cyclist ended up 10 feet infront of me on the ground leaving me with a sore back for 3 months. I really wouldnt want to be the next cyclist that cycles into me!

traprunner

hucklebuck wrote: »

On another note as a pedestrian I have been cycled into three times on footpaths, twice blindsided and one of them with such impact the cyclist ended up 10 feet infront of me on the ground leaving me with a sore back for 3 months. I really wouldnt want to be the next cyclist that cycles into me!

I found that a very effective way of dealing with cyclists coming head on on a footpath is to keep to your line. If they are going to hit you then turn their handlebars in self defence.

First Up

Chinasea wrote: »

This is an extremely arrogant, irresponsible insular post. Drive on.

Sorry for asking cyclists to recognise reality.

Captain Flaps

Plenty of cyclist hatred in here. I stop for all lights, keep to the cycle lane and indicate well in advance of changing lanes. I've been knocked off my bike twice; once by a driver who broke a red light and once by a guy who overtook me and immediately cut across me to make a left turn rather than waiting the extra 3 seconds for me to clear the junction. I also have a car and drive and while I've seen plenty of dickheads who shouldn't be cycling I've never been involved in an accident with them, whereas I've been involved in 3 separate traffic incidents (again, none of them my fault... I was stationary in traffic for 2 of them) with other cars.

My point is that my personal experience tells me that all drivers are dangerous dickheads but obviously that doesn't qualify me to make such a sweeping statement.

Daith

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Plenty of cyclist hatred in here. I stop for all lights, keep to the cycle lane and indicate well in advance of changing lanes. I've been knocked off my bike twice; once by a driver who broke a red light and once by a guy who overtook me and immediately cut across me to make a left turn rather than waiting the extra 3 seconds for me to clear the junction.

Every time someone posts something about a cyclist doing something wrong the reaction is "well drivers are worse". Yeah they might well be but that doesn't excuse some cyclists for being dicks as well.

Maybe if the reaction was, "yeah they shouldn't be cycling through red lights" instead of "cars kill more people" it might actually help?

Captain Flaps

Did you read the next part of my answer? EVERYBODY is rubbish and EVERYBODY should obey the rules of the road. I'm just saying that for every bad cyclist I've seen a bad driver, and making sweeping generalizations about either group helps nobody.

Maybe the reaction to the OP should have been "Jeez, that's terrible, hope you're ok" rather than the inevitable descent into "yeah I'm not surprised, cyclists eat babies"

Daith

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Did you read the next part of my answer? EVERYBODY is rubbish and EVERYBODY should obey the rules of the road. I'm just saying that for every bad cyclist I've seen a bad driver, and making sweeping generalizations about either group helps nobody.

Why bring it up the bad driver at all? Its about cyclists? What's the point of bringing up another group when the issue is with the cyclists that don't obey the rules of the road.

Instead of actually talking about cyclists, cyclists turn it into a cyclists versus everybody else thing and not once saying "yeah some cyclists are dicks"

traprunner

There are irresponsible and stupid cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. There are responsible cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. If the irresponsible ones obeyed the rules of the road then they would become responsible and help reduce the number of accidents.

Not everyone can be tarred with the same brush. My own opinion is that a higher percentage of drivers are more careful than cyclists because they realise the damage that can be done with a vehicle weighing a tonne or two. Before the cyclists jump on this re-read my first paragraph.

Captain Flaps

Daith, You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you?

It's not about cyclists. It's about someone being involved in an incident with another road user who broke a red, damaged his/her vehicle and then fled the scene. There is no excuse for that and the other road user should be held accountable. The modes of transport used by both parties are largely irrelevant, those are the facts.

Bearing that in mind, I was simply pointing out that we've moved well beyond discussing the original incident and I was using my own experiences to illustrate that sweeping generalisations do nothing other than establish an 'us and them' mentality.

Also, some cyclists are dicks. Actually a lot of cyclists are dicks, and I'm the annoying arsehole who gives out to other cyclists for breaking lights because I enjoy cycling and want to feel safe and respected by other road users.

Daith

Captain Flaps wrote: »

You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you?

It's not about cyclists. It's about someone being involved in an incident with another road user who broke a red, damaged his/her vehicle and then fled the scene. There is no excuse for that and the other road user should be held accountable. The modes of transport used by both parties are largely irrelevant, those are the facts.

No it was a cyclist and cyclists get defensive about a cyclists being in the wrong so it now its "every form of transport and road users".

Can you accept that the cyclist was in the wrong and some cyclists don't obey the rules of the road? Great you did. Nice edit.

Captain Flaps

Daith wrote: »

Can you accept that the cyclist was in the wrong and some cyclists don't obey the rules of the road? Great you did. Nice edit.

Absolutely. I see it every day, and it's infuriating. You seem to have some hard on for me saying that?

Daith

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Absolutely. I see it every day, and it's infuriating. You seem to have some hard on for me saying that?

No and please stop taking it personally.

The only issue I have on these threads is when a cyclist does something wrong and the first reaction is "well cars are worse". Which as you pointed out does nothing to help the us and them mentality.

Captain Flaps

Fine. I honestly apologise if it seemed like I was taking it personally, and I apologise for the attitude.

If I'd come into this thread nearer the start I would have said to the OP how crap it was that that had happened and probably wouldn't have even brought my being a cyclist into it because it's not relevant. The only reason I brought it up is as a reaction to the increasing number of 'cyclists are dicks' posts as the thread went on, and I was trying to present a balanced view.. I don't think cars are worse and I drive probably 50% of the time.

I do think there is an unfair stigma around cycling when there are plenty of 'safe' cyclists, but that's a topic for another thread.

rubadub

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

For those that want to cycle, do you think they wouldn't mind registering for a licence/identifying plate on their bicycles? I personally wouldn't mind at all.

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

Because of my suggestion to licence road users I see the path you're logically following. Badge all people that have any interaction with traffic. Okay. Fire away. Pedestrians included. Maybe your 22,000 plus posts are half-filled with arguments for the sake of it. It suits you to vehemently argue everything. Pathological self righteousness, I dunno. You replied as if I was flaming the thread.

I did think you were trolling or at least stirring up shit.

You suggested licencing road users, of course I consider pedestrians to be road users, very dangerous ones, I see them on the roads all day long, why on earth would you turn a blind eye to them.

It is certainly not for arguments safe, it makes logical sense and its not just me, UK department of transport apparently feels the exact same.
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

The UK’s Department for Transport is pretty good on registration for cyclists: the standard reply is along the lines of “if we required cyclists to be registered and carry number plates we’d have to do the same for pedestrians.”

You will see in that link about various countries scrapping plans for licencing bikes. Japan still does licence, others did but scrapped it.

I would like to hear your implementation plans for licences, if you bother to think about it then the obvious problems will hopefuly become apparent -and you might no longer question if people would mind.

Do they have to do a test? wheres the test centres? cost of test? cost of licence? renewal period? cost of plates? cost of brackets & fixing of plates?

Bear in mind the recent trend for other european countries to actually pay people to cycle, rather than introduce charges.

You used the term "For those that want to cycle", when some people hear "cyclist", they think of a lycra clad group of lads, 2 or 3 abreast holding them up. I think of the guy cycling once a year in the summer, I certainly do think he would mind if his bike was now rendered illegal to use unless he gets a licence and all the costs associated. Children are legally obliged to cycle on the road, are they to be licenced or do you just increase the age limit like for cars? and just have no kids cycling at all, bar the odd place where they could legally do it. I do think parents would object if they had a bunch of kids and the bikes they bought for them are now pretty much rendered useless.

One big objection would be the knock on effect of a huge reduction in cycling numbers, this is a major argument against making helmets compulsory too. Less bikes on the roads has been seen to increase danger, simply as other roadusers are not used to them and so can be surprised when encountering them.

traprunner

Licensing could create a whole new industry and jobs! It would also help change the perception of cyclists by non-cyclists.

Cycling could be thought in schools and show kids a fun way of getting off their lazy asses and leaving the TV and game consoles for a few hours.

Captain Flaps

traprunner wrote: »

Licensing could create a whole new industry and jobs! It would also help change the perception of cyclists by non-cyclists.

Yeah, that's just what we need. Jobs created for the sake of having jobs the ONLY purpose of which is to create more useless bureaucracy. Only cyclists can change the perception of cyclists by non-cyclists, having a license isn't going to do anything to change that.

traprunner wrote: »

Cycling could be thought in schools and show kids a fun way of getting off their lazy asses and leaving the TV and game consoles for a few hours.

We don't need licenses for that!

While I agree general rules of the road and specifics for being safe on a bicycle should be taught in school, it should really be parents taking the lead here.