Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Carpentry

highdef wrote: »

I would make the reasonable assumption that Macy0161 means she (assuming she is a female going by username) cycles as far to the left as is possible whilst taking into account all the points raised. For all we know, when she says that she cycles as far to the left, she may mean as far as left as one can go without having any risk of hitting the kerb (not curb!) or needing to cycle slower due to being so close to the kerb.

I don't cycle very often but I too cycle as close as I can to the kerb/verge as I want to be as far as possible from any passing vehicles. The further out from the kerb/verge I am, the more likely it is that I will be closer to passing cars as they will have been given insufficient room by me. I'd feel like a selfish plonker cycling along 3 feet from the kerb/verge with a line of cars unable to get past me. I have NEVER had an issue with debris causing me to crash. My bicycle and tyres were chosen so that they can travel safely over little bits of dust or the off pebble because I know that's what is on the ground. If I see something along my path, I will see it well ahead and act accordingly to get past it safely, otherwise stop, look around and get past it safely.

FINELY

highdef

gadetra wrote: »

Provided there is a gap in traffic to allow you to do so. Before Christmas, I did just what you are saying, between 2 Dublin buses as it turned out, as I don't go up the inside of them at a red. One pulled up behind me and kept beeping, the driver red in the face waving at me to get into the cycle lane which was full of holes, 2 pedestrians and a dog. .

Would you have a photo of the section of bus lane that was "full of holes"? I've encountered some slightly bumpy or very slightly pot holed cycle lanes before but I've never considered abandoning the cycle lane to join busy city traffic. I'd rather go slower on any really bumpy bits rather than increasing my chances of being injured or killed on the motorised traffic lanes.

As for the 2 pedestrians and a dog on the cycle lane, you should signal for them to get out of the way....maybe an air horn would be a good idea for cyclists to alert pedestrians that they are on a cycle way :P
Cars have air horns to signal a hazard, any reason why a bicycle cannot? Would be great for cycling on the cycle lanes on Chesterfield Avenue in the Phoenix Park!

desertcircus

Carpentry wrote: »

FINELY

What you're thrilled by is the exact opposite of all advice given to cyclists regarding road safety.

Lemming

Carpentry wrote: »

But I am a driver, as well as a cyclist, so I kind a know how to find myself on the road behind the wheel and on the bike.
Some cyclists are just plain stupid and that's crap.

What is "crap" exactly? "Ownership of the road"? It's not. Again; you should know this as a driver. Every time you enter a yellow box to turn right, you take "ownership of the road" in obstructing other traffic so that you can effect your manoeuvre.

Cyclists at the front of the traffic at lights is the same idea; it's a way of effectively completing a manoevure safely; in this case starting off for cyclists in what is obstensibly a higher density of traffic (ergo with lower visibility of other road users) than would otherwise be found on a road that has flowing traffic.

You should also know that you "drive as the conditions allow". If you have slow moving traffic in front of you , then suck it up and wait until it is safe to proceed ahead.

animaal

highdef wrote: »

As for the 2 pedestrians and a dog on the cycle lane, you should signal for them to get out of the way....maybe an air horn would be a good idea for cyclists to alert pedestrians that they are on a cycle way :P

The equivalent for a cyclist would be the bike's bell, which all bikes must legally have in this country. They can be surprisingly loud - in Germany when I walked on a cycle lane, a bike's bell was a bit of a shock and I was quick to jump back to where I should have been!

Macy0161

highdef wrote: »

I would make the reasonable assumption that Macy0161 means she (assuming she is a female going by username

Just checked... I'm still male!

Kinet1c

Mec-a-nic wrote: »

Oh Jeeze, here we go again...

http://lovindublin.com/opinion/why-i-hate-dublin-city-cyclists

(warning - a very poorly written 'opinion' piece with a huge number of generalisations...)

Horrific website posts horrific article. Pure bait link and what you'd expect from them.

CramCycle

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I think NBar's point is that if every cyclist stopped at red lights = group is slower to get away when lights turn green (especially if need to clip in) = motorists delayed when lights go green = fewer motorists get through the green = more annoyed motorists.

And that motorists dont actually realise that cyclists are doing them a favour by jumping the red and getting out of their way. Allowing them a speedier get away.

But thats the stupidity of it, the motorist and cyclist will either be travelling the same way or one will turn in another direction. If one turns off, the delay is minimal and the motorist will have caught up to where they would have been at the next junction momentarily. If they are both going the same direction, it's a case of the motorist overtaking them just after the junction rather than a few hundred metres down the road on days with minimal traffic or the motorist pointlessly overtaking to catch traffic 25metres down the road during rush hour.

The only motorists who should get annoyed are those lacking reasonable attention spans or foresight.

Carpentry

To all bitching about safety on the roads.

I bet that every single one of you is cycling with your earphones on, how safe is that ???

TonyStark

highdef wrote: »

I would make the reasonable assumption that Macy0161 means she (assuming she is a female going by username) cycles as far to the left as is possible whilst taking into account all the points raised. For all we know, when she says that she cycles as far to the left, she may mean as far as left as one can go without having any risk of hitting the kerb (not curb!) or needing to cycle slower due to being so close to the kerb.

I don't cycle very often but I too cycle as close as I can to the kerb/verge as I want to be as far as possible from any passing vehicles. The further out from the kerb/verge I am, the more likely it is that I will be closer to passing cars as they will have been given insufficient room by me. I'd feel like a selfish plonker cycling along 3 feet from the kerb/verge with a line of cars unable to get past me. I have NEVER had an issue with debris causing me to crash. My bicycle and tyres were chosen so that they can travel safely over little bits of dust or the off pebble because I know that's what is on the ground. If I see something along my path, I will see it well ahead and act accordingly to get past it safely, otherwise stop, look around and get past it safely.

I notice as you describe how you come to a stop you have no mention of looking around or signalling as you come to a stop, only when pulling off again. Are you able to look over your shoulder or is the expectation that cyclists and cars coming behind you should second guess erratic behaviour.

It's in the rules of the road that you should signal your intention to stop.

NBar

Carpentry wrote: »

To all bitching about safety on the roads.

I bet that every single one of you is cycling with your earphones on, how safe is that ???

I prefer to text or be on the phone when cycling

ROK ON

The point made by JepGam several posts back is lost on countless cyclists commuting daily I feel.

What is the point of putting yourself in danger by squeezing between vehicles to get a few meters up the road?
Many evening head out of town via the South Quays I witness cyclists trying to squeeze ahead of a bus stopped at lights next to OShea The Merchants corner. Why not safely wait dire toy behind the bus and simply proceed as the bus moves off.
Furthermore on the North Quays I have sometimes been subject to hecklingfrom other c lists for not trying to squeeze left of a bus on the few pinch points.

I filter in the left up traffic if there is plenty of room (circa 1.5 meters) and I can see what's ahead. There are plenty of idiots out there on all manner of vehicles - I have no desire to join them simy to get to the bead of the queue.

Tony EH

NBar wrote: »

I prefer to text or be on the phone when cycling

I like doing my makeup.

Lumen

Carpentry wrote: »

To all bitching about safety on the roads.

I bet that every single one of you is cycling with your earphones on, how safe is that ???

Thanks for the interest! Here's a fairly recent 9 page thread discussing that issue.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057240829

Grandpa Hassan

highdef wrote: »

I would make the reasonable assumption that Macy0161 means she (assuming she is a female going by username) cycles as far to the left as is possible whilst taking into account all the points raised. For all we know, when she says that she cycles as far to the left, she may mean as far as left as one can go without having any risk of hitting the kerb (not curb!) or needing to cycle slower due to being so close to the kerb.

I don't cycle very often but I too cycle as close as I can to the kerb/verge as I want to be as far as possible from any passing vehicles. The further out from the kerb/verge I am, the more likely it is that I will be closer to passing cars as they will have been given insufficient room by me. I'd feel like a selfish plonker cycling along 3 feet from the kerb/verge with a line of cars unable to get past me. I have NEVER had an issue with debris causing me to crash. My bicycle and tyres were chosen so that they can travel safely over little bits of dust or the off pebble because I know that's what is on the ground. If I see something along my path, I will see it well ahead and act accordingly to get past it safely, otherwise stop, look around and get past it safely.

I disgree 100% with that comment.

Cycling as close to the kerb as possible encourages overtaking where there is no room....actually increases the risk of getting hit in my opinion (and in my experience). The vehicle should go round and actually overtake, moving at least partially into the nextdoor or oncoming lane....not take the opportunity to try to squeeze by within the one lane, where there is no room for a bike and car side by side. I have seen people squeezed against the kerb by buses and trucks on DUblin quays far too often

YOu say that you don't cycle often....in my experience it is the less experienced cyclist that finds themsleves in this situation

CramCycle

Carpentry wrote: »

I bet that every single one of you is cycling with your earphones on, how safe is that ???

MOD VOICE: You will find from other similar threads that no, this is not the case but either way it is deflecting from the flow of conversation.

A warning to everyone, stay on topic or within the flow of the thread. Go for the post, not the poster as the saying goes.

Cards will come out if you can't.

NeedMoreGears

I think FPNs are a simple and effective way of dealing with the various offences - a lot less messy than a day in court for all involved.

In the unlikely event of an enforcement campaign, I think it could be very interesting if all road users, ideally including pedestrians, were targetted simultaneously. Maybe it would help reinforce the concept of shared space etc.

Jawgap

Carpentry wrote: »

If we are all equal on the roads, why then cyclists are allowed to stop the traffic/make the obstruction by lining up in front ?

i still don't follow what you are saying and I'm not being obtuse / dense.

A traffic signal turns red, the traffic stops - traffic includes bicycles, motorcycles, cars, vans, trucks etc - as required by law.

The signal changes - traffic sets off, if safe to do so, again in accordance with the law. Some react quicker than others, some can accelerate quicker than others (bikes vs HGVs, for instance).

On my bike I wouldn't be as quick off the mark as the guy on the Fireblade, but I'm not breaking any laws (or contravening the RotR) by not being first off the mark.

there may be a bunch or shoal of cyclists at the head of the queue waiting for the lights to change, but that's where they should be because that's wear it's safer, rather than being strung out through the mechanically propelled vehicles.

Incidentally, the new legislation will likely include FPNs for people on bikes who overtake dangerously - this is intended to address those muppets on bikes who filter dangerously and at speed through stopped vehicular traffic - but there is nothing to stop someone filtering forward on a bike at a safe pace, in fact it should be encouraged because the safest spot is at the front where you can be seen.

CramCycle

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

In the unlikely event of an enforcement campaign, I think it could be very interesting if all road users, ideally including pedestrians, were targetted simultaneously. Maybe it would help reinforce the concept of shared space etc.

Agreed, I can't understand this mentality of targeting one road user at a time, unless it is somehow logistically easier.

keithclancy

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I disgree 100% with that comment.

Cycling as close to the kerb as possible encourages overtaking where there is no room....actually increases the risk of getting hit in my opinion (and in my experience). The vehicle should go round and actually overtake, moving at least partially into the nextdoor or oncoming lane....not take the opportunity to try to squeeze by within the one lane, where there is no room for a bike and car side by side. I have seen people squeezed against the kerb by buses and trucks on DUblin quays far too often

YOu say that you don't cycle often....in my experience it is the less experienced cyclist that finds themsleves in this situation

Agree with this +1000

The ability to overtake should be the same regardless of your road position as long as you are in the middle or left of the middle of the left lane.

Cycling in toward the kerb gives you no space to do anything if something goes wrong.

eeeee

highdef wrote: »

Would you have a photo of the section of bus lane that was "full of holes"? I've encountered some slightly bumpy or very slightly pot holed cycle lanes before but I've never considered abandoning the cycle lane to join busy city traffic. I'd rather go slower on any really bumpy bits rather than increasing my chances of being injured or killed on the motorised traffic lanes.

As for the 2 pedestrians and a dog on the cycle lane, you should signal for them to get out of the way....maybe an air horn would be a good idea for cyclists to alert pedestrians that they are on a cycle way :P
Cars have air horns to signal a hazard, any reason why a bicycle cannot? Would be great for cycling on the cycle lanes on Chesterfield Avenue in the Phoenix Park!

I don't have pics as a) I don't have a phone that takes pics and b) I'm pretty concentrated on cycling rather than whipping a phone out to take a pic of what's in front of me. The piece of cycle lane is on the n11 between ucd and Nutley lane, it's as bad in the other direction.

I am safer on the road than those cycle lanes due to debris (puncture, blow out, loss of control out onto traffic that hasn't seen me) and also that particular cycle lane spits you out onto left turning traffic and people's driveways, who look surprised you're there.
I suggest reading the post above outlining the reasons for staying 1m out from the gutter. Your suggested cycling method is dangerous. You are more visible and predictable (being out of the path of manholes and drains) out from the gutter.

Pinch Flat

NBar wrote: »

Wait until the weekends out around Howth/Sutton/Malahide with all the cyclists stoping at the lights up front and lights go green and motorists all held back when delayed by cyclists getting going, then we will have another rant for McGrath to go on about, more cycle paths with cycle traffic signals and maybe a full review

Lol. I get held up for 13km by an almost continuous stream of traffic into Dublin City every morning. Guess who causes the mayhem? Yep you guessed - motorists

NBar

Think its best we wait and see what happens when this legislation comes into play and the first day of the campaign we will have the figures of how many cyclists were detected and then maybe ask after a 2 months how many paid the fine or decided to ignore it and go to court.

Don't forget the front and rear reflectors and bell, unless its a racing bike.

Helmets should be compulsory for everybody and that would be the best one to enforce as well

Beasty

NBar wrote: »

Helmets should be compulsory for everybody and that would be the best one to enforce as well

Read the Charter and FAQs, and do not take this thread off-topic - in particular do not take it down that route

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

highdef

TonyStark wrote: »

I notice as you describe how you come to a stop you have no mention of looking around or signalling as you come to a stop, only when pulling off again. Are you able to look over your shoulder or is the expectation that cyclists and cars coming behind you should second guess erratic behaviour.

It's in the rules of the road that you should signal your intention to stop.

Stop in a safe and legal manner obviously. I'm not going to spell out the obvious

magicbastarder

Mec-a-nic wrote: »

Oh Jeeze, here we go again...

http://lovindublin.com/opinion/why-i-hate-dublin-city-cyclists

(warning - a very poorly written 'opinion' piece with a huge number of generalisations...)

good god, if i i had been in transition year and had turned in an essay that badly written, my teacher would have pulled me to one side to make sure i hadn't suffered a brain injury.

Carpentry

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Lol. I get held up for 13km by an almost continuous stream of traffic into Dublin City every morning. Guess who causes the mayhem? Yep you guessed - motorists

Is it because they are being delayed by the cyclists at every light ?

Lumen

Carpentry wrote: »

Is it because they are being delayed by the cyclists at every light ?

The biggest cause of delays at lights is vehicles with stop-start and drivers sitting in yellow boxes.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

The biggest cause of delays at lights is vehicles with stop-start and drivers sitting in yellow boxes.

And the configuration of irish lights being designed for long periods of go, followed by long periods of stopped. rather than shorter intervals of both.

magicbastarder

tunney wrote: »

And the configuration of irish lights being designed for long periods of go, followed by long periods of stopped. rather than shorter intervals of both.

i've often wondered about this; given the overhead of braking for red and accelerating for green, it does not follow that shorter cycles are necessarily better. it's also quite dependent on how much space there is between the lights - i.e. how many cars many be in the queue at lights, so you maximise the use of the greens. it strikes me as being an issue with many, many factors to account for.