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

Danjamin1

Carpentry wrote: »

But if you are cycling along them in the traffic you are mixed with them anyway...cars and cyclists need to watch out for each other. I understand that cyclists are 1000 times more vulnerable than cars, but still rules are rules.

But using the advanced stop box is completely within the rules....

Carpentry

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask the road engineers who provide advance stop boxes for cyclists across the whole width of the lane.

I just wrote that not every junction has them, come on...

Pinch Flat

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask the road engineers who provide advance stop boxes for cyclists across the whole width of the lane.

They've obviously being doing it wrong all this time.

The aim must be at all costs to expedite the way for the private car that's 20% occupied through the traffic clogged streets of our towns and cities. Jayney what's the road tax for anyway?

Jawgap

What the Rules of the Road say......

Do not take up a position on the ‘inside’ of a large vehicle out of view of
the driver. Instead, stay behind if the large vehicle has stopped at a
junction with the intention of turning left.

and

When cycling alongside traffic stopped in line, be aware of gaps in the
traffic to allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane. The view
of the car that is turning may be blocked due to the traffic build-up.

To me the Lords of HiViz in the RSA seem to think that cyclists shouldn't stop when traffic stops, but should, of course stop for traffic lights.

Jawgap

Carpentry wrote: »

But if you are cycling along them in the traffic you are mixed with them anyway...cars and cyclists need to watch out for each other. I understand that cyclists are 1000 times more vulnerable than cars, but still rules are rules.

Yes, and just because a lane of traffic stops it doesn't mean that all traffic has to stop.

Do you have anything from a reputable road safety body that says or advises that it is a good idea for cyclists to stop in vehicular traffic at a stop signal, rather than maintaining steady progress to get yourself to the head of the queue where it's safest.

Johnny Jukebox

Carpentry wrote: »

Thank god I don't need to drive in the morning city traffic, but my wife does.
And she's complaining about that situation every morning.

Lights go green, cars cannot go, because it take ages for cyclists to move off, in the end 2 cars getting across the junction = traffic

I don't know where your yard is, but it can't be in Dublin....

I see this every morning, especially as you get towards the city. It is a factor of the volume of cyclists, not their speed. What tends to happen is that cyclists come up the cycle lane and then fan out in front of the traffic. Then the opposite happens - the cyclists have to filter back into the cycle lane on the other side of the junction. If there is > 10 cyclists, this of course holds up vehicle traffic.

And that's just too bad.

Carpentry

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, and just because a lane of traffic stops it doesn't mean that all traffic has to stop.

Do you have anything from a reputable road safety body that says or advises that it is a good idea for cyclists to stop in vehicular traffic at a stop signal, rather than maintaining steady progress to get yourself to the head of the queue where it's safest.

If you are cycling along and the traffic stops and you have no way of getting by the cars what you do ? Start to cycle around and in between cars or jumping with your bike on the footpath to pass by ?

Answer bearing safety in mind !

Carpentry

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

I see this every morning, especially as you get towards the city. It is a factor of the volume of cyclists, not their speed. What tends to happen is that cyclists come up the cycle lane and then fan out in front of the traffic. Then the opposite happens - the cyclists have to filter back into the cycle lane on the other side of the junction. If there is > 10 cyclists, this of course holds up vehicle traffic.

And that's just too bad.

Thank You Johnny

Jawgap

Carpentry wrote: »

If you are cycling along and the traffic stops and you have no way of getting by the cars what you do ? Start to cycle around and in between cars or jumping with your bike on the footpath to pass by ?

Well I wouldn't go on the path - but I would slowly weave between the cars (as motorcyclists do), if they are stationery - it's unlikely they'd be nose to tail and kerb to kerb to the point that you couldn't get through.

http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering

Filtering means moving past queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic. Go to any town or city and you'll see cyclists and motorcyclists doing this. It's quite legal and it enables you to make progress when wider vehicles cannot.

In some circumstances, you can even pass on the left. Such 'undertaking' comes with a critical warning: never, ever undertake a long vehicle such as bus or an articulated lorry unless it is completely stationary and will remain so until you are safely past.

If in any doubt, don't attempt to undertake. You will be in the driver's blind spot. If the vehicle moves to the left a little or, even worse, begins a left turn, you may go under its wheels and die. Some lorries even have signs for cyclists on the back nowadays, saying 'Right side' (on the off side) and 'Suicide' (on the near side).

The laws in England are not that much different to here.

Jawgap

Johnny Jukebox wrote: »

I see this every morning, especially as you get towards the city. It is a factor of the volume of cyclists, not their speed. What tends to happen is that cyclists come up the cycle lane and then fan out in front of the traffic. Then the opposite happens - the cyclists have to filter back into the cycle lane on the other side of the junction. If there is > 10 cyclists, this of course holds up vehicle traffic.

And that's just too bad.

Carpentry wrote: »

Thank You Johnny

I think you have to consider what impact those 10+ cyclists would have on traffic, if they hopped off their bikes and traded them for cars as means of getting through the morning rush hour.......

Pinch Flat

Carpentry wrote: »

If you are cycling along and the traffic stops and you have no way of getting by the cars what you do ? Start to cycle around and in between cars or jumping with your bike on the footpath to pass by ?

Answer bearing safety in mind !

I will quite happily filter up the inside of cars, or in the middle where there's two lanes. I will weave in and out of stationary traffic. Just because cars are causing mayhem and delays, I don't have to be part of this.

One part of my cycle I'll avoid altogether - the stretch outside castleknock college. It's frequently backed up for several hundred meters to the lights - no room on the left to pass, and overtaking stationary traffic on the right is too dangerous because of oncoming traffic. So I choose a different route of I have to use this stretch at certain times (school start times mainly).

I personally Never cycle on the path. It's illegal and dangerous.

Lumen

Carpentry wrote: »

I just wrote that not every junction has them, come on...

Oh, I didn't see that.

I'm not clear whether you're opposed to horizontal queuing in principle or are simply concerned with people forming ad-hoc lines across the road where the engineers haven't got around to painting an advance stop box.

Carpentry

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you have to consider what impact those 10+ cyclists would have on traffic, if they hopped off their bikes and traded them for cars as means of getting through the morning rush hour.......

I think you have to consider that those 10+ cyclists jump into their cars if it's raining or it's to cold.

Pinch Flat

Carpentry wrote: »

I think you have to consider that those 10+ cyclists jump into their cars if it's raining or it's to cold.

Therefore adding to the mayhem. Have I missed something In your point? Or does traffic move noticeably quicker on days when all these cyclists are supposedly driving?

Jawgap

Carpentry wrote: »

I think you have to consider that those 10+ cyclists jump into their cars if it's raining or it's to cold.

Then they need to HTFU......

In my experience unless it's absolutely Baltic, people will take the bike - the dread of sitting in traffic when you could whizz through in a fraction of the time, makes the decision for them.

Carpentry

I said before I cycle and drive, like 90 to 10 % and trying to avoid public transport at all costs. And when I'm driving I try to cause as little problems on the road to the other users ,including cyclists, as possible. This apply the other way around as well.
I think that some cyclists are either dump or have no common sense and they do whatever they want to do and when they want to do.
It's like turning first and than indicating, why bother ?

Carpentry

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Therefore adding to the mayhem. Have I missed something In your point? Or does traffic move noticeably quicker on days when all these cyclists are supposedly driving?

I didn't intend to make any point.

Jawgap

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Therefore adding to the mayhem. Have I missed something In your point? Or does traffic move noticeably quicker on days when all these cyclists are supposedly driving?

Which raises an interesting point......

Everyone knows that during the summer hols traffic around Dublin drops considerably - congestion for those glorious 8 weeks is minimal - all at a time when cycling peaks in the good weather........when everyone with a clunker in the shed takes it out, dons their GAA jersey and takes to the streets.....

If @carpentry is right, and cyclists are the problem, why then at that time of the year does congestion not peak? Why does it seem to be noticeably worse in December when fewer people are commuting by bike?

CramCycle

Carpentry wrote: »

I didn't intend to make any point.

MOD VOICE: As seems to be the aim of most of your posts, please do not post in thread again, any questions via PM only.

Carpentry

Why are you judging me ?

Beasty

Carpentry wrote: »

Why are you judging me ?

If you post in this thread again you will be banned from the forum.

Lumen

Carpentry wrote: »

It's like turning first and than indicating, why bother ?

Indeed.

This morning I was travelling through this junction from bottom left to top right.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3407018,-6.2700531,3a,75y,121.83h,60.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSDOlWbesJyNL7jgY2qE-2g!2e0?hl=en

The lights were red as I pulled into the advance stop box. To my right alongside me was a white van in the same box, with no indicators flashing.

The lights turned green and I cautiously pulled off, and was cut up by the non-indicating van. I gestured my silent displeasure with non-obscene arm movements and went on my way.

The van behind passed, returning my undirected gesture. At the next set of lights he explained (with expletives) that I was categorically in the wrong, because I am apparently required by law in all cases to pass on the right of vehicles at this junction, regardless of:

1. Whether other vehicles indicate intent to turn left.
2. The fact that there is a single lane for both straight on and left-turning traffic, with limited road space to pass on the right.
3. The presence of a clearly marked cycle lane on the left hand side all the way through the junction.

This is a classic case of victim blaming and holding cyclists to a higher standard because they are more vulnerable. This attitude is extremely common amongst drivers.

Note that both you and he believe you are right, and yet have opposing views on how a cyclist is legally required to navigate a junction.

Anyway, nice story bro etc.

Danjamin1

It's amazing the amount of people on the road that will quote "the law" to you without actually knowing it themselves. Neanderthals.

Pinch Flat

Lumen wrote: »

Indeed.

This morning I was travelling through this junction from bottom left to top right.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3407018,-6.2700531,3a,75y,121.83h,60.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSDOlWbesJyNL7jgY2qE-2g!2e0?hl=en

The lights were red as I pulled into the advance stop box. To my right alongside me was a white van in the same box, with no indicators flashing.

The lights turned green and I cautiously pulled off, and was cut up by the non-indicating van. I gestured my silent displeasure with non-obscene arm movements and went on my way.

The van behind passed, returning my undirected gesture. At the next set of lights he explained (with expletives) that I was categorically in the wrong, because I am apparently required by law in all cases to pass on the right of vehicles at this junction, regardless of:

1. Whether other vehicles indicate intent to turn left.
2. The fact that there is a single lane for both straight on and left-turning traffic, with limited road space to pass on the right.
3. The presence of a clearly marked cycle lane on the left hand side all the way through the junction.

This is a classic case of victim blaming and holding cyclists to a higher standard because they are more vulnerable. This attitude is extremely common amongst drivers.

Note that both you and he believe you are right, and yet have opposing views on how a cyclist is legally required to navigate a junction.

Anyway, nice story bro etc.

White van men are usually highly trained specialised drivers, with extensive specialised courses in advanced driving , some of whom are ex senior cousels with expert knowledge of traffic law and umpteen peer reviewed journals on the subject. A bit like taxi drivers, who rank along side them in expertise.

Lumen

Pinch Flat wrote: »

White van men are usually highly trained specialised drivers, with extensive specialised courses in advanced driving , some of whom are ex senior cousels with expert knowledge of traffic law and umpteen peer reviewed journals on the subject. A bit like taxi drivers, who rank along side them in expertise.

Judging by standard of driving of middle aged fat men in suits driving up the bus lane and turning into the four courts, I feel you're doing a disservice to white van men.

lgk

Jawgap wrote: »

What the Rules of the Road say......



To me the Lords of HiViz in the RSA seem to think that cyclists shouldn't stop when traffic stops, but should, of course stop for traffic lights.

RSA produce interpretations of the law that are designed to be easily understood by the masses, they're not always up to date or comprehensive.

The law states cyclists are fully entitled to pass on the left:

[S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012]

(b) “A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”

As for expecting ten (or whatever number) cyclists to line up one behind the other, the problem there is they will all want to proceed at whatever pace they desire (as they are fully entitled to), so when one starts to overtake another, then in accordance with the law, it would be illegal for any other traffic to overtake them. If one is traveling just marginally faster than the other, it may take some time to complete the maneuver. You get past one, and then perhaps meet another cyclist in the middle of an overtake.

The advanced stop lines help eliminate this by allowing cyclists to line up and move off at their own pace. As someone who drives in Dublin daily, I think they're a great idea.

Tenzor07

Vaguely related, the Journo has an article on Safe passing of cyclists:

http://www.thejournal.ie/cycling-safety-laws-minimum-overtaking-called-for-1869915-Jan2015/








Mods: please delete if not relevant.

MayoAreMagic

Lumen wrote: »

This is a classic case of victim blaming and holding cyclists to a higher standard because they are more vulnerable. This attitude is extremely common amongst drivers.

A genuine question. Shouldn't the fact that they are more vulnerable mean that cyclists and motorists are in fact not the same and shouldn't be treated as such? That isn't saying one is superior or inferior, it is saying that they are simply very different. For me, this is the underlying problem - they aren't the same, but in fact are quite different, and putting them into the same box under the heading 'vehicle' is just leading to problems.

The best way forward, I believe, is to create suitable cycle lanes and separate the two.

colossus-x

There are extremly wide footpaths on the Rock Road heading to Dun Laoghaire on some spots. I will always cycle on them (at times ) no matter what . The alternative is the extremely busy road where once one motorist hit me with their side mirror to my right hand. No damage done but it was scary. I also cycle a short distance for about 3 minutes to my gym everyday on the fairly wide footpath because I dont want do do the whole busy road,helmet, vis jacket etc when it's just such a short hop. I'll continue doing that was well - it would be daft not too. I have plenty lights on my bike so am okay there but I don't always wear a high vis jacket and neither do I feel I should, when I have plenty lights that is.

I heard on uk radio that other day that in Holland cark/bike collisions are always deemed the fault of the vehicle driver without exception , no matter what. And it works because it make the drives more aware/vigilant. That's the type of laws we need here instead of these pathetic little measures that have been introduced. When I was knocked of my bike in central London it was because the mini cab drive didn't look, not because I wasn't lit up. There is no point in being visible when the driver doesn't look in the first place.

Lumen

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

A genuine question. Shouldn't the fact that they are more vulnerable mean that cyclists and motorists are in fact not the same and shouldn't be treated as such? That isn't saying one is superior or inferior, it is saying that they are simply very different. For me, this is the underlying problem - they aren't the same, but in fact are quite different, and putting them into the same box under the heading 'vehicle' is just leading to problems.

The best way forward, I believe, is to create suitable cycle lanes and separate the two.

But we don't separate trucks and cars on motorways, despite the fact that car drivers are much more vulnerable.

This is because we hold truck drivers to a high standard of driving and recognise that having segregated truck lanes on motorways would be extremely expensive and/or create dangerous problems at junctions.