Cyclists - Rules of the road

rubadub

I spotted a driver today with no helmet and no hi viz paint on his car, is that even legal? madness either way, and the cunt doesn't even pay road tax.

Andy From Sligo

cajonlardo wrote: »

I pay €360 for Motor insurance. I pay €25 for Cycling Insurance. Now, do you think the insurance company has researched the risks associated with each?

i didnt even know you could get/buy cycling insurance ...

steamengine

rubadub wrote: »

I spotted a driver today with no helmet and no hi viz paint on his car, is that even legal? madness either way, and the cunt doesn't even pay road tax.

Gee whizz - you don't say, well I never !

whisky_galore

PreparationH wrote: »

Of course, unless you were there and saw it happening, another way of writing that would be: "Cyclist's complete disregard for road rules and legendary sense of entitlement leads to fatal road accident".

Yes, people die on the roads all of the time, but the manner in which you and others love to say "killed by car driver" is to me at least, not representative of the reality. While Ireland's cyclists continue to behave in what can only be described as an astonishingly obtuse fashion, I'm just amazed there isn't more of them killed ever day.

Cyclist need to take responsibility for their own actions first, only then can they point the finger at others.

The irony about this is most adult cyclists happen also to be car drivers...is there some switch in their brain that magically transforms them from a law-abiding motorist into a feckless cyclist the minute they hop on a bike?

tigerboon

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

Mainly as if God wanted us to cycle, he wouldn't have invented cars. I rank bikes with horses. And skateboards. Alright for kids and fields..suspect for adults and roads.

Give that man a medallion! Where are you going to get your opinions now that Clarkeson got the bullet from Top Gear?

Andy From Sligo

tigerboon wrote: »

Give that man a medallion! Where are you going to get your opinions now that Clarkeson got the bullet from Top Gear?

Chris Evans? ....

Rezident

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I just watched the Rules of the Road advert on RTE1 before 9pm news. - When driving watch out for cyclists as they may be riding 2 abreast ... why? why can they do that and take up all that space, last time I checked they are not a width of a vehicle and they do no pay road tax

ha ha ha AH HA HA HA! You make me smile.

diomed

Originally Posted by diomed View Post
Another cyclist killed by a car driver this week.

psinno wrote: »

35 drivers , 15 pedestrians , 11 passengers, 8 motorcyclists and 3 cyclists have died on the roads this year in Ireland. You would need to be psychic or very well informed to be able to assign responsibility to many of them.

The car involved in the collision failed to remain at the scene. Gardaí recovered a silver Volkswagen Golf - 05 D registration - a short time later in Marino.

Bruthal

Jawgap wrote: »

Nobody pays 'road tax'

It has more of a connection to the `road` than the `motor`

steamengine

Now that the fixed penalty notices are being introduced, here's some valuable advice on how to get round them from a cyclists perspective.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/02/wwn-guide-on-how-to-avoid-new-cycling-fines/

dubscottie

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So what about all the other drivers who undertake traffic turning right into cycle lanes separated by a solid white line, thats against the ROTR. Two rules broke if done so without checking mirrors, three if not indicating. Two rules broke for not indicating or checking mirrors if a broken line.

Drivers who stop in the advance areas for cyclists if lights red. Against ROTR. Or who continually creep into the juction untill the lights turn green.

You are aware that the ROTR means feck all?? That is "best practice"..

The Road Traffic Acts are the law. You never hear of someone being in court for breaking the ROTR.

I witnessed a group of cyclists nearly getting wiped out today.

Unaware (or did not care) that if side of the road the are traveling on is obstructed by parked cars they must yield to oncoming traffic.. Kept charging down the hill and forced the car in front of me to hit the ditch.

And then proceeded to abuse us because we did not pull over to let them past.

A theory test for them would sort that..

Jawgap

Bruthal wrote: »

It has more of a connection to the `road` than the `motor`

It has zero connection to either - it goes into the central pot. The amount spent on roads is not coupled in any way to the amount raised from motor taxes.

citytillidie

Seen a guy yesterday who was to busy looking behind him nearly caused an accident. Car was passing and cyclists who was looking behind him swerved out forcing the car to move out more and then swerve back in again right in front of the cyclist as he would have hit a traffic island

wexandproud

psinno wrote: »

35 drivers , 15 pedestrians , 11 passengers, 8 motorcyclists and 3 cyclists have died on the roads this year in Ireland. You would need to be psychic or very well informed to be able to assign responsibility to many of them.

why would you need to be a psychic , common sense will tell you the most common factor in these statistics is the motor car

cython

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware that the ROTR means feck all?? That is "best practice"..

The Road Traffic Acts are the law. You never hear of someone being in court for breaking the ROTR.

I witnessed a group of cyclists nearly getting wiped out today.

Unaware (or did not care) that if side of the road the are traveling on is obstructed by parked cars they must yield to oncoming traffic.. Kept charging down the hill and forced the car in front of me to hit the ditch.

And then proceeded to abuse us because we did not pull over to let them past.

A theory test for them would sort that..

To reiterate the oft-made point, if that was really true, we would see a lot less misuse of the roads and breaking of laws by drivers who have gone through a testing process to drive on the roads. In reality there are just as many arseholes in cars as on bikes, so the testing process seems to have had minimal effect there.

Not to mention that seeing as many cyclists are drivers, plenty have passed the same test already, so why should we undergo another one? I'm licensed to drive categories AM, B and W, so what would you put specifically into a cyclist theory test for me?

Andy From Sligo

hold on I just want to get this straight - the 'Motor Tax' or the money paid for the Tax Disc on the car does not go to upkeep of roads in Ireland - is that what people are saying?

Shep_Dog

citytillidie wrote: »

as he would have hit a traffic island

Sounds like the driver choose an inappropriate place to overtake? was there a separate overtaking lane or was he trying to use the same lane occupied by the cyclists?

steamengine

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

hold on I just want to get this straight - the 'Motor Tax' or the money paid for the Tax Disc on the car does not go to upkeep of roads in Ireland - is that what people are saying?

Yes, that's what some people are saying ok. It's like baking a fruit cake - you add in all the various ingredients including the mixed fruit, but when you go to eat it, you somehow don't eat any currants.

citytillidie

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Sounds like the driver choose an inappropriate place to overtake? was there a separate overtaking lane or was he trying to use the same lane occupied by the cyclists?

It was in donegal, the cyclists was at the side of the road at the yellow lines the car was going past the cyclist was looking behind him and started swerving right out onto the road

Shep_Dog

citytillidie wrote: »

It was in donegal, the cyclists was at the side of the road at the yellow lines the car was going past the cyclist was looking behind him and started swerving right out onto the road

OK, so no overtaking lane & traffic calming measures were in place.

Why was the cyclist looking behind? Was he, maybe, trying to move out to avoid an obstacle got cut off by the driver? Perhaps the driver was speeding and the cyclist was inexperienced and did not expect the driver to come up so quickly?

Mint Sauce

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware that the ROTR means feck all?? That is "best practice"..

The Road Traffic Acts are the law. You never hear of someone being in court for breaking the ROTR.

I witnessed a group of cyclists nearly getting wiped out today.

Unaware (or did not care) that if side of the road the are traveling on is obstructed by parked cars they must yield to oncoming traffic.. Kept charging down the hill and forced the car in front of me to hit the ditch.

And then proceeded to abuse us because we did not pull over to let them past.

A theory test for them would sort that..

Doesn't mean people can go around breaking them, and putting lifes of other in danger though does it.

Did the cyclists have to cross the central line to pass the parked cars. If so, then they had to yeild.

They should though at least moved into single file so they did not cross onto your side.

Yes there are plently of them that give us a bad name, and during sportives or group rides, there are always a few that rules go out the window for them. Obviously did not listen to the organisers or directors before heading off. Were they in club colours? Maybe consider getting in touch with the organisers to have a word with them.

Bruthal

Jawgap wrote: »

It has zero connection to either - it goes into the central pot. The amount spent on roads is not coupled in any way to the amount raised from motor taxes.

Motorists pay tax for using their car on public roads.

Roads need upkeep, costs money. Motorists use roads. They are taxed for using them. Some fella in an office changes the name from road to motor to facilitate hammering motorists more in taxes. Some will align to that so mindlessly, that they have to keep pointing out that there is no road tax anytime its mentioned.
IMO a tax liable for using a road, is road tax. I don't call it road tax myself.

But I know exactly what it is when anyone says it, much as I know what they are talking about when mention a hoover, even though most don't seem to have one.

Jawgap

Bruthal wrote: »

Motorists pay tax for using their car on public roads.

Roads need upkeep, costs money. Motorists use roads. They are taxed for using them. Some fella in an office changes the name from road to motor to facilitate hammering motorists more in taxes. Some will align to that so mindlessly, that they have to keep pointing out that there is no road tax anytime its mentioned.
IMO a tax liable for using a road, is road tax. I don't call it road tax myself.

But I know exactly what it is when anyone says it, much as I know what they are talking about when mention a hoover, even though most don't seem to have one.

The tax goes into a central pot - along with the motor tax paid by cyclists who also own motor vehicles, and the VAT paid by everyone (including cyclists), and income taxes and the household charge.

The road budget comes from the general pot.

As such it is made up of money contributed by everyone and anyone who has ever paid tax in this country.

Meaning the payment of road tax or motor tax or whatever you want to call it does not, in and of itself, confer any greater right to use a public road.

Anyway, as suggested elsewhere I reckon it's only a matter of time before motorists start complaining about cyclists stopping at red lights and causing congestion at junctions - once the FCPNs take effect

Bruthal

Jawgap wrote: »

The tax goes into a central pot - along with the motor tax paid by cyclists who also own motor vehicles, and the VAT paid by everyone (including cyclists), and income taxes and the household charge.

Yea. But you still know what someone means when they mention road tax, I suspect.

The road budget comes from the general pot.

As such it is made up of money contributed by everyone and anyone who has ever paid tax in this country.

Neighbour breaks your window. Pays you 100 euro to repair. You spend that actual 100 he handed you, in a restaurant. You repair the window from money from savings. Did the neighbour pay for the window, or your dinner? Or did everyone who gave you money this year contribute to your window repair?

The reality is that motoring taxes likely more than cover road upkeep. Motorists use the roads, wear them, and they pay for it. People can keep on about it having to be the same actual notes the driver hands in to the tax office that be used to buy new tar, for him to have paid for road upkeep.

Meaning the payment of road tax or motor tax or whatever you want to call it does not, in and of itself, confer any greater right to use a public road.

I don't think I said it does really.

But anyway, overall my point is, everyone knows what is meant by road tax.

Tenzor07

Bruthal wrote: »

The reality is that motoring taxes likely more than cover road upkeep.

Wrong guess, try again!

Bruthal

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wrong guess, try again!

I'd be guessing the average motorist pays far more tax on driving than just the motor tax.

Tenzor07

Bruthal wrote: »

I'd be guessing the average motorist pays far more tax on driving than just the motor tax.

Of course, fuel, toll roads, maintenance and upkeep of the vehicle, NCT, VRT, Insurance levy...

PreparationH

cajonlardo wrote: »

I pay €360 for Motor insurance. I pay €25 for Cycling Insurance. Now, do you think the insurance company has researched the risks associated with each?

The only variable that can affect the outcome is the behaviour of both parties; car drivers and cyclists.

I now expect all cyclists on Dublin's roads to cycle their bikes in a completely insane fashion where rules of the road mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. I consider every cyclist is guaranteed to do something so crazy that you can only conclude they did that in a failed a suicide attempt. And that's multiple times every day with loads of cyclists pulling these stunts. Oh and if you try to correct them in any way, you will be showered with abuse, spat at and/or have your own vehicle damaged.

The fact of the matter is, cyclist behaviour is moulded by what society deems acceptable. The new rules of the road explicitly tackle some of the anti-social behaviour that was alarmingly common amongst cyclists and I'm looking forward to further laws being drawn up to combat the other problems we have with both cyclists and bikes.

PreparationH

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

whisky_galore

PreparationH wrote: »

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

LOL, good luck in getting every bike manufacturer to fall into line with (1):pac:

(3) People don't even bother their ar*ses chipping pets and horses, what makes you think they'll do the same with bicycles?

(2), (4) and (5) are going to make you really popular. I don't think I've seen a bike with mirrors unless it was piloted by a 5 year old and had stabilisers fitted.