Cyclists - Rules of the road

Doctor Jimbob

PreparationH wrote: »

Everyone else isn't doing 15km (approx avg) while taking up half of the road with zero rear-view vision. If you were really concerned about safety, you'd decry having people anywhere near fast moving metal objects weighing tons. Yet even when we build a massive amount of cycle paths all over the country, costing a fortune, they're still not used by cyclists!

Some are, tractors for example. The vast majority of times when cyclists are two abreast it's when there are no cycle lanes available so I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing that into it.

The start of that video stated the "cyclists have every right to the road as other users". It did not, however, go on to state that this should only be in the case of situations where their behaviour is seriously impeding the flow of traffic or by their own choice, refusing to use the provided cycle paths. Which, in my opinion, it should and that's where the problems lie. Cyclists should not have the right to ignore cycle paths and where they impede traffic they should pull in at regular intervals to allow the country to keep moving. That is what the roads are for after all.

Cycle lanes aren't always an option though, whether it's because there are none in the first place or because some fool decided it's perfectly appropriate to allow cars to park on them.

Having said that I agree that cyclists should pull in if they're holding up a fair bit of traffic, I do so myself when I get the chance.

Cycling two abreast just pisses people off, pissed off people do stupid things and stupid things lead to accidents. You can argue the principle all you like, but cyclists always come out worse in accidents and this will continue to happen until cycling lobbyists see sense and stop acting like a dog in the manger.

Anyone getting pissed off by people cycling two abreast shouldn't be driving in the first place. A lot less cyclists would do it if drivers gave them a bit of space and respect, but unfortunately that doesn't happen a lot of the time.

It's not a case of arguing the principle, if someone can't drive behind two cyclists until there's a safe point to overtake, they don't have the temperament to be driving in the first place.

Good behaviour begats good behaviour, if we all act reasonably then we're more likely to receive a reasonable response. Otherwise it's just a race to be right, despite the facts, and as a cyclist myself I'd rather be wrong and alive, than dead and right.

You're right in that statement, but the rest of your post seems to be excusing drivers for acting unreasonably, while putting unreasonable demands on cyclists.

RainyDay

PreparationH wrote: »

The start of that video stated the "cyclists have every right to the road as other users". It did not, however, go on to state that this should only be in the case of situations where their behaviour is seriously impeding the flow of traffic or by their own choice, refusing to use the provided cycle paths. Which, in my opinion, it should and that's where the problems lie.

I'm confused now - are you saying that the problem lies with your opinions?

PreparationH wrote: »

Cyclists should not have the right to ignore cycle paths and where they impede traffic they should pull in at regular intervals to allow the country to keep moving. That is what the roads are for after all.

Cyclists don't impede traffic. Cyclists ARE traffic.

I'm not sure how you worked out that the roads are 'for' one particular group of road users, but not others.

And just curious, when you're in heavy urban traffic and a cyclist comes up behind you, do you pull over the let them pass?

ThisRegard

PreparationH wrote: »

3. - And this answer is to all who came back on this. When you turn your head and body your center of gravity shifts and you wobble on your bike, invariably pointing your bike away from the pavement and into the line of oncoming traffic. Mirrors resolve this issue.

How crap a rider are you ?

cajonlardo

PreparationH wrote: »

4-5. - Is about reshaping cyclist behaviour. I completely disagree that cycling two abreast is safer, it is unnecessary and rude behaviour on behalf of cyclists who wish to assert ownership of the road and deliberately block traffic. Take a trip over Bray head any weekend and you'll see this dangerous, entitled behaviour time and again, regardless of the fact that in order to overtake, motor vehicles have to cross double white lines in the middle of the road.

Assuming you are in fact referring Windgates (Vevay rd bray to Greystones road)On most of that road it is illegal to overtake a SINGLE cyclist as it would require you to drive over the white line.

Scary how many drivers post on these threads and broadcast how dangerous they actually drive and with such ignorance of either the law or good practise

citytillidie

Shep_Dog wrote: »

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?

No speeding as there had been a line of cars behind a slow tractor. There had been a number of cyclists already we had gone past so maybe he was looking back for them, they were all wearing the same colour top like belonging to a club.

Andy From Sligo

im not even sure cycles should even share the road with cars and other fast moving traffic at all - i think they would be safer on pavements (and horses and tractors) and just leave roads solely for cars and other fast moving traffic - waits to get flamed and called a troll :rolleyes:

It may not be safe for pedestrians then but hey ho who care about pedestrians anyway they can walk on grass verges to get out of the way of cycles tractors and horses

rubadub

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

im not even sure cycles should even share the road with cars and other fast moving traffic at all - i think they would be safer on pavements

interesting. Maybe introduce a footpath tax that only cyclists have to pay, not that roadtax exists but it's in the minds of morons that it does.

So just like cyclists were on the roads long before cars, it won't matter. The now high & mighty cyclists can now proclaim they have the right to the footpath since they pay footpath tax and the pedestrians can all fuck off and die, stupid pricks getting in their way, get a bike you cheapskate scum, you don't even pay footpath tax. And where's you're walking helmet? don't you know now dangerous it is with all these bikes about. I don't care how long people were walking on the footpaths before the advent of bicycles, you shouldn't be let on them now.

kylith

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

im not even sure cycles should even share the road with cars and other fast moving traffic at all - i think they would be safer on pavements (and horses and tractors) and just leave roads solely for cars and other fast moving traffic - waits to get flamed and called a troll :rolleyes:

It may not be safe for pedestrians then but hey ho who care about pedestrians anyway they can walk on grass verges to get out of the way of cycles tractors and horses

I have never been on a cycle path which is part of a footpath that has not been used by pedestrians. Motorists at least get the idea of 'lanes'.

Andy From Sligo

did i hear correctly in the uk budget today that they are changing the road tax to where its going to go to, it will be solely going to road infrastructure and improvements maybe ireland should do the same - i dont know the ins and outs of it all but they are supposed to be changing the tax band for vehicles as well VE tax (vehicle emmision tax) I think they are calling it?

MadDog76

Boom_Bap wrote: »

HHmmmmmm, the last 2 threads recently didn't solve any cyclist/motorist issues.
I don't expect this one to either.

I think an After Hours Mod (perhaps you Boom?) should make the final decision about Cyclists versus Motorist and then ban the debate from After Hours once and for all ........... just keep in mind, when making your final decision, that all cyclists are w*****s!!!

Four Wheels Good, Two Wheels BAD!!!!!!

Boom_Bap

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think an After Hours Mod (perhaps you Boom?) should make the final decision about Cyclists versus Motorist and then ban the debate from After Hours once and for all ........... just keep in mind, when making your final decision, that all cyclists are w*****s!!!

Four Wheels Good, Two Wheels BAD!!!!!!

I wheely believe that we should allow discussion on cars V bikes. It tends to go in roundabouts and ends up in a car crash or train wreck, and nothing is every resolved. But, we should not put the brakes on the converstaion.

MadDog76

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I wheely believe that we should allow discussion on cars V bikes. It tends to go in roundabouts and ends up in a car crash or train wreck, and nothing is every resolved. But, we should not put the brakes on the converstaion.

Which side of the roundabout are you on Boom .......... take your impartial Mod hat before you answer

TwoShedsJackson

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

im not even sure cycles should even share the road with cars and other fast moving traffic at all - i think they would be safer on pavements (and horses and tractors) and just leave roads solely for cars and other fast moving traffic - waits to get flamed and called a troll :rolleyes:

It may not be safe for pedestrians then but hey ho who care about pedestrians anyway they can walk on grass verges to get out of the way of cycles tractors and horses

In fairness there had been no reply to the thread for over 24 hours so it was about time you came back and said something to try and wind a few more people up.

Boom_Bap

MadDog76 wrote: »

Which side of the roundabout are you on Boom .......... take your impartial Mod hat before you answer

I cycle and drive. When cycling, I see idiots driving and cycling. When driving, I see idiots driving and cycling. Idiots. Idiots everywhere.

MadDog76

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I cycle and drive. When cycling, I see idiots driving and cycling. When driving, I see idiots driving and cycling. Idiots. Idiots everywhere.

Ah .......... cop out!!!!

I cycle and I drive ........ but I'm on the motorist side.

Boom_Bap

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah .......... cop out!!!!

I cycle and I drive ........ but I'm on the motorist side.

Motorists need to acknowledge that there is a greater population of bicycles on the road nowadays with healthy living and cycle to work and all that jazz.
Cyclists need to learn that they need to use the rules of the road.

If each group takes a step in those directions, we could filter out alot of the debate .

pillphil

citytillidie wrote: »

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

If there was an island in the middle of the road, there was probably one at the side which the cyclist had to go around.

rubadub

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Cyclists need to learn that they need to use the rules of the road.

People need to learn why the gardai currently do not enforce the law. It's not always about it being difficult and having to go through courts, they do not even shout out a warning for many illegal acts when they easily could, people need to ask themselves why, or maybe ask the garda.

The likes of George Hook is heading to an early grave with all the unnecessary stress he choses to put himself under. If these people stopped to think for a minute it might become clear, but they seem to enjoy getting infuriated, bitter and riled up beyond belief. Ignorant gobshites making prize tits out of themselves, proud to be stupid.

whisky_galore

rubadub wrote: »

The likes of George Hook is heading to an early grave with all the unnecessary stress he choses to put himself under. If these people stopped to think for a minute it might become clear, but they seem to enjoy getting infuriated, bitter and riled up beyond belief. Ignorant gobshites making prize tits out of themselves, proud to be stupid.

Hooky has made a career out of ignorance, whether that is real or feigned ignorance, hard to tell at times.

dubscottie

cython wrote: »

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?

For a start do not undertake any vehicle that is indicating to turn left.

The basics of the Road Traffic Act, Red means stop etc..

I presume you got the A,M & W on your license by default with your Cat B and never did a test for them? Lots have..

Did you do the theory test (or even a driving test?) for all categories? The basic car (B) the motorbike/Moped (A&M) and work vehicles (W)???

dubscottie

rubadub wrote: »

People need to learn why the gardai currently do not enforce the law. It's not always about it being difficult and having to go through courts, they do not even shout out a warning for many illegal acts when they easily could, people need to ask themselves why, or maybe ask the garda.

Maybe they have more important stuff to do? I have had a Garda drop a summons to my house (witness for a RTC) in his own time as he was not allowed to do it during work time as it was well outside his district. He wanted the person done so went out the way to get me to court.

foggy_lad

Those "head down ass up" racing bikes and "fixies" should be banned in the commuter belt during normal commuting times and only proper sit up & beg type commuter bikes allowed so people can balance better and see what is going on around them a lot easier.

Someone trying to break their personal best time for getting to or from work on their €1500 super bike is not going to be very mindful of other road users.

07Lapierre

foggy_lad wrote: »

Those "head down ass up" racing bikes and "fixies" should be banned in the commuter belt during normal commuting times and only proper sit up & beg type commuter bikes allowed so people can balance better and see what is going on around them a lot easier.

Someone trying to break their personal best time for getting to or from work on their €1500 super bike is not going to be very mindful of other road users.

Please tell me where I can get a super bike for a mere €1500. €15,000 more like!

furiousox

Why, www.canyon.com , obviously.

SeanW

wendell borton wrote: »

I drive a car on the road and don't pay road tax.

You drive a motor on Irish roads and do not pay tax on the usage of said car on the roads? How does that work? Do you drive an ambulance or a coast guard vehicle or something?

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

You drive a motor on Irish roads and do not pay tax on the usage of said car on the roads? How does that work? Do you drive an ambulance or a coast guard vehicle or something?

My brother in law drives on Irish roads and pays feck all tax.....

......he lives in Armagh

hoodwinked

foggy_lad wrote: »

Those "head down ass up" racing bikes and "fixies" should be banned in the commuter belt during normal commuting times and only proper sit up & beg type commuter bikes allowed so people can balance better and see what is going on around them a lot easier.

Someone trying to break their personal best time for getting to or from work on their €1500 super bike is not going to be very mindful of other road users.

i think this is the major problem, when people say "cyclists" they aren't differentiating between two very different groups,

group a: cycling to work/destination, usually seen trying not to get themselves killed getting from a to b.

group b: The groups out racing tour de france style, usually (but not always) seen on country roads/weekends trying to set personal best's and timing their "races" elevations..etc


group b should NOT be on the roads, can you imagine if a group of 5 to 10 cars decided to use public roads for a race every sunday? or a group of runners/walkers? truth is if any other groups used the roads like this gardaí would be called for road closures and health and safety would be involved with ambulances on stand by...etc,

desertcircus

foggy_lad wrote: »

Those "head down ass up" racing bikes and "fixies" should be banned in the commuter belt during normal commuting times and only proper sit up & beg type commuter bikes allowed so people can balance better and see what is going on around them a lot easier.

Someone trying to break their personal best time for getting to or from work on their €1500 super bike is not going to be very mindful of other road users.

We should ban cars that don't have GPS-based speed limiters built in as well. And speaking as someone who's currently a learner driver as well as a racing cyclist, I can see vastly more and better on my road bike than in a car. It's genuinely scary how little I can see (and hear) behind the wheel compared to in the saddle.

Tenzor07

hoodwinked wrote: »

i think this is the major problem, when people say "cyclists" they aren't differentiating between two very different groups,

Ah yea sure Lewis Hamilton, he's some motorist that lad! So's yerman Sébastien Ogier, quite the motorist that boy! Just like me oul Granny, a great motorist too! But those other two boyo's don't pay the oul Road going tax! :pac:

MugMugs

hoodwinked wrote: »

i think this is the major problem, when people say "cyclists" they aren't differentiating between two very different groups,

The irony of your post is laughable.

What about C, the person out to get a bit of exercise, fresh air and enjoy life?