Incident between taxi and bike - Dublin city centre

SeanW

cdebru wrote: »

If I was the driver and I let a passenger exit in a dangerous place I would accept responsibility for it after all I am in charge of the vehicle.

Both the taxi driver and the cyclist were in charge of "Road Vehicles"

cdebru wrote: »

The cycle lane is a traffic lane, you cannot load or unload passengers except when pulled in safely if you leave the cycle lane free on the inside then cyclists are free to use it

The laws quoted by Spook_ie clearly contradict this: they clearly indicate that a cyclist may undertake slow moving or stationary traffic to his/her hearts content, excluding 3 cases, one of which is a vehicle stationary for the purposes of loading/unloading passengers.

I really do not understand how complicated this is: the laws quoted by Spook appear to me at least to be both simple and clear. Like "Red light means stop and wait" or "don't ride on footpaths"

And how would a cyclist or any other road user know if you intend to turn left, or let out passengers ? Just putting on a left turn signal doesn't give you any right of way it is merely an indication of your intention.

You just answered your own question.

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

dr.fuzzenstein

SeanW wrote: »

Both the taxi driver and the cyclist were in charge of "Road Vehicles"

The laws quoted by Spook_ie clearly contradict this: they clearly indicate that a cyclist may undertake slow moving or stationary traffic to his/her hearts content, excluding 3 cases, one of which is a vehicle stationary for the purposes of loading/unloading passengers.

I really do not understand how complicated this is: the laws quoted by Spook appear to me at least to be both simple and clear. Like "Red light means stop and wait" or "don't ride on footpaths"

You just answered your own question.

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

But is a vehicle allowed to come to a stop in lane 2 of a roadway to unload goods or passengers? The cycle lane is a traffic lane, what does the law say, for example, if a taxi stops on lane 2 of a dual carriageway to let passengers out?
I bet you in this case the "I'll just open the door without looking" brigade would think twice, but as I stressed, this is just my commen sense point and does not in any way change the fact that the taxi driver stopped in an unsafe place. Which some people may argue is the very definition of taxi driver.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Of course, I am well aware of the fact that cyclists consider laws to be only for other other people. I see it all the time while walking in pedestrian areas in Dublin City, and I see it all the time here on boards where cyclists advocate designing stuff (and laws) around non-motorist stupidity. (No surprises for guessing that particular poster had "cycl" in his/her username).

So, besides the fact that cyclists simply ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical, can you indicate - at least theoretically - why the laws quoted by Spook_ie, clearly indicating limits on cyclists privilege of (the dangerous maneuvre of) passing on the inside, don't actually apply when they say they they do.

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

dr.fuzzenstein

RainyDay wrote: »

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

Amen to that brother. Unless the Gards get off their hole and actually start enforcing the odd law, nothing too strenuous, only like, every now and then, to make people aware that any kind of crap is not on, this will not improve.
The problem is that we're all just happy to pull the piss ourselves and simply point the finger at everyone else when pulled up on it.
Unless there's a bit of pressure on the government to start leaning on the Gardai to start doing something (fat chance of that), things will continue as they are. So it looks like muppetry on Irish roads will continue for a good while.

roverrules

Point of interest. Does anyone have links to what the definitions of cycle tracks, paths, lanes etc are?

I notice that the SI 332/2012 has a section mentioning cycle tracks as being defined as

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—

(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,

(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or

(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).

Which would seem to now put all on road and on path cycle facilities as cycle tracks.

So does a cycle track have the same legal standing as a lane? I would wonder what the legal standpoint actually is?

galwaycyclist

roverrules wrote: »

Point of interest. Does anyone have links to what the definitions of cycle tracks, paths, lanes etc are?

I notice that the SI 332/2012 has a section mentioning cycle tracks as being defined as



Which would seem to now put all on road and on path cycle facilities as cycle tracks.

So does a cycle track have the same legal standing as a lane? I would wonder what the legal standpoint actually is?

Yes in Ireland all cycle facilities within a road are "cycle tracks", this is regardless of whether they are on the roadway or footway parts of the road.

In my reading of the legislation, cycle tracks do not come under the definition of traffic lane. The courts might take a different view of this as some might think it reasonable to treat cycle tracks as a lane. Also to my knowledge the state has not published any reasoning why cycle tracks are not lanes.

In Ireland, the legal term for a separate road dedicated to bicycles, or bicycles and people on foot, is a "cycleway".

SeanW

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But is a vehicle allowed to come to a stop in lane 2 of a roadway to unload goods or passengers? The cycle lane is a traffic lane, what does the law say, for example, if a taxi stops on lane 2 of a dual carriageway to let passengers out?
I bet you in this case the "I'll just open the door without looking" brigade would think twice, but as I stressed, this is just my commen sense point and does not in any way change the fact that the taxi driver stopped in an unsafe place. Which some people may argue is the very definition of taxi driver.

The laws against undertaking are severe and absolute, no amount of fnckwittery on the part of the undertaken legally justifies undertaking outside of strict limits.

Literally, for example if there were a gob****e doing 30kph in the overtaking lane of a 2 lane motorway, and I were approaching from behind, I would find the speed limit to be 30kph, because the law absolutely does not give me the right to pass the fool on the inside. If I tried to pass, and the fool cut into me to reach an exit or something, the accident would be my fault, because no matter how bad a gob****e the other driver was, I would be at root fault for illegally passing on the inside. Full stop. That's how bad undertaking is considered to be.

You as cyclists have additional rights to undertake, but it is still a dangerous thing to do which is why those 3 restrictions are there. You have additional rights to undertake, it is not an absolute.

RainyDay wrote: »

Still banging the anti-cyclist drum, despite that fact that you've been presented with clear evidence repeatedly that many drivers and many pedestrians and many cyclists ALL ignore most road laws and treat them as theoretical. It must be great to be able to ignore the facts and be plain prejudiced...

Yes, most road users treat at least some road laws as theoretical, but cyclists are the most blatantly hypocritical about it. The "laws are for everyone else" brigade on here is almost exclusively made of those whose handles include "bike" or "cycl" or otherwise identify as cyclists. It's this hypocritical attitude that makes it much harder to ignore all the cyclists hogging footpaths, footbridges, running red lights.

dr.fuzzenstein

It is not undertaking (well, overtaking on the inside) if the vehicle is stationary.
If a car had broken down on the outside lane, would you sit there for 3 days until it is removed?
Otherwise we would also not be allowed to pass vehicles turning right.

SeanW

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It is not undertaking (well, overtaking on the inside) if the vehicle is stationary.
If a car had broken down on the outside lane, would you sit there for 3 days until it is removed?
Otherwise we would also not be allowed to pass vehicles turning right.

Passing vehicles turning right is explicitly listed in the ROTR as an exception to the rules against undertaking.

I.E. a motorist may not pass another vehicle on the inside except in limited circumstances, one of which is that the vehicle to be undertaken is stopped or slowed down for the purposes of making an imminent right turn, which it is signalling for.

The broken down vehicle would probably have its emergency lights on, so it would be fairly obvious that something is up. If not explicitly legal to pass it, you would probably be OK if you passed it with extreme caution.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anyway, the whole "passing on the inside" thing seems a bit of a red herring to me, this is more loading/unloading, very different from two moving vehicles and one passing the first on the inside.
And still the issue with the cycle track. One would not blame the cyclist for cycling on a cycle track, we complain about them not using it, so we can't blame the cyclist for getting doored on a cycle track.

PeadarCo

SeanW wrote: »

The laws against undertaking are severe and absolute, no amount of fnckwittery on the part of the undertaken legally justifies undertaking outside of strict limits.

Go tell that to all the bus drivers and taxi drivers who use bus lanes. The whole idea of cycling and Bus/taxi lanes is to enable them to pass on the inside. Anyone to driver/cycles/walks in Dublin is well aware of this.

I know in other threads some bus drivers have mentioned that Dublin Bus has specific rules with regard where drivers can drop off and collect passengers. The reasons for which are aptly demonstrated by the Op.

SeanW

PeadarCo wrote: »

Go tell that to all the bus drivers and taxi drivers who use bus lanes. The whole idea of cycling and Bus/taxi lanes is to enable them to pass on the inside. Anyone to driver/cycles/walks in Dublin is well aware of this.

Yes. Like cyclists, these groups are given a limited exemption form the rules on undertaking, being permitted to do so under rules in marked lanes.

Noone objects to buses, taxis and cyclists undertaking in line with the law. It's undertaking illegally that is the problem.

I know in other threads some bus drivers have mentioned that Dublin Bus has specific rules with regard where drivers can drop off and collect passengers.

Yes, they're buses, and city buses can only stop at designated bus stops. Taxis do not have such as infrastructure, neither do some rural buses.

Peppa Pig

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Like cyclists, these groups are given a limited exemption form the rules on undertaking, being permitted to do so under rules in marked lanes.

Here is the section from the rules of the road. Rules of the Road p52

You may overtake on the left when

You want to go straight ahead when the driver in front of you has moved out and signalled that they intend to turn right.

You have signalled that you intend to turn left.

Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane.

No mention of exempt groups. Anyone can pass on the left if any of the conditions above are met.
Or am I missing where only buses, taxis and cyclists are given this exemption?

PeadarCo

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. Like cyclists, these groups are given a limited exemption form the rules on undertaking, being permitted to do so under rules in marked lanes.

Noone objects to buses, taxis and cyclists undertaking in line with the law. It's undertaking illegally that is the problem.

Yes, they're buses, and city buses can only stop at designated bus stops. Taxis do not have such as infrastructure, neither do some rural buses.

To be honest don't know where the disagreement is coming from then with the general conclusion here that taxi driver was in the wrong.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, most road users treat at least some road laws as theoretical, but cyclists are the most blatantly hypocritical about it. The "laws are for everyone else" brigade on here is almost exclusively made of those whose handles include "bike" or "cycl" or otherwise identify as cyclists. It's this hypocritical attitude that makes it much harder to ignore all the cyclists hogging footpaths, footbridges, running red lights.

Just to give me a chance to fully understand your comments about hypocrisy, could you tell me how many times you broke the 50 kmph speed limit on your last drive through any city or town?

SeanW

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest don't know where the disagreement is coming from then with the general conclusion here that taxi driver was in the wrong.

Look back to Spook_ie's post 41:

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

I would have thought that was very simple: the taxi was stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, thus it the cyclist should not have undertaken it.

RainyDay wrote: »

Just to give me a chance to fully understand your comments about hypocrisy, could you tell me how many times you broke the 50 kmph speed limit on your last drive through any city or town?

No more than you ran red lights through I would wager.

I apologise in advance if I am lumping you in with other cyclists I've encountered here on boards and elsewhere, but there's a certain "other people are scummy lawbreakers who need to be hunted down and incinerated, I'm a little angel" vibe that I only get from cyclists, and respond in kind. Literally, have a look at any of my discussions with a wide variety of users with "cycl" or "bike" in their usernames, or who otherwise self-identify as cyclists (I can cite examples if required). Discussing transport policy with some (but not necessarily all) cyclists seems to be like discussing religious freedom with an Islamic State rabble-rouser on crack, and yields the same results.

Though again I do apologise if I am generalising and you are not like most of the other cyclists on here.

PeadarCo

SeanW wrote: »

Look back to Spook_ie's post 41:



I would have thought that was very simple: the taxi was stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, thus it the cyclist should not have undertaken it.

The problem is how does the cyclist know that? A taxi stopped in the middle of the road doesn't gain any specials rights. Cycle lane was free and as you've already quoted they are perfectly entitled to undertake. If the taxi driver doesn't pull in off the road and make it clear they are letting off passengers the bit quoted by Spook doesn't apply.

Personally I think any cyclist should be wary when undertaking traffic. But surely one of first things any child is thought about cars is to ensure its safe to exit the vehicle and that you don't door another person/cyclist/car etc.

dr.fuzzenstein

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is how does the cyclist know that? A taxi stopped in the middle of the road doesn't gain any specials rights. Cycle lane was free and as you've already quoted they are perfectly entitled to undertake. If the taxi driver doesn't pull in off the road and make it clear they are letting off passengers the bit quoted by Spook doesn't apply.

Personally I think any cyclist should be wary when undertaking traffic. But surely one of first things any child is thought about cars is to ensure its safe to exit the vehicle and that you don't door another person/cyclist/car etc.

I dared to suggest that and got flame grilled for suggesting this apparently idiotic, outlandish and bizarre idea, so no, common sense, my friend, is long, long dead. So when opening a door there is no need to look, just fling'eropenterfcuk, begrand. If someone gets hurt, just look them straight in the eye and tell them "It's not my job to look out for others, you owe me for the door"

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

No more than you ran red lights through I would wager.

I apologise in advance if I am lumping you in with other cyclists I've encountered here on boards and , but there's a certain "other people are scummy lawbreakers who need to be hunted down and incinerated, I'm a little angel" vibe that I only get from cyclists, and respond in kind. Literally, have a look at any of my discussions with a wide variety of users with "cycl" or "bike" in their usernames, or who otherwise self-identify as cyclists (I can cite examples if required). Discussing transport policy with some (but not necessarily all) cyclists seems to be like discussing religious freedom with an Islamic State rabble-rouser on crack, and yields the same results.

Though again I do apologise if I am generalising and you are not like most of the other cyclists on here.

Yes, you are generalising and lumping. I didn't break any red lights on my last bike journey.

So I'll ask again - how often did you break the urban 50 kmph speed limit on your last drive through a city or town?

SeanW

No, my last drive was indeed entirely within the city, and I would have kept to urban-limit speeds throughout. Like I most always do when I'm driving on 50kph roads that are clearly urban streets.

Now I am going to generalise unapologetically - as a routine pedestrian in Dublin City I find it difficult to believe that you didn't break any road laws on your bike.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

No, my last drive was indeed entirely within the city, and I would have kept to urban-limit speeds throughout. Like I most always do when I'm driving on 50kph roads that are clearly urban streets.

I don't believe you, to be honest. I don't see any driver who sticks to the speed limit. I tried setting the speed limiter on my car to 50 kmph recently, and I had little grannies in Micras coming speeding past me, frustrated at my 'crawling'.

So if you do stick to the urban speed limit, you are one in a million - seems rather unlikely to me.

SeanW wrote: »

Now I am going to generalise unapologetically - as a routine pedestrian in Dublin City I find it difficult to believe that you didn't break any road laws on your bike.

Yes, more generalisation there. For the record, I didn't say that I didn't break any road laws on my bike. I said that I didn't break any red lights on my bike.
I don't routinely break red lights on my bike. If it's lashing rain, and I've just seen the pedestrian who pressed the button at the pedestrian light completing their crossing, and there is no other pedestrian around, then I just might break the red light.

To save time, in relation to general road laws, I break them all the time. Every time I stop at a junction with no 'bike box', I break the law by going through the white line to wait ahead of the traffic in a position where I can be seen. I'm sure I break other road laws too from time to time, and I'm not small-minded enough to pretend otherwise.

But you seem to be missing the point about hypocrisy. You rail at 'law breaking cyclists' when anyone with a pair of eyes can see that most road users break road traffic laws all the time - not just cyclists. Unless you really are that one-in-a-million driver who never breaks the law, it is hypocritical to moan about law-breaking cyclists.

By contrast, I don't rail at law breaking drivers. I rail at dangerous drivers, the ones who kill 200 people each year.

SeanW

So if you do stick to the urban speed limit, you are one in a million - seems rather unlikely to me.

I did qualify this by saying "on roads that are clearly urban streets" or similar. I make no such claims relating to peripheral roads where the 50kph limit is a mile or more into the countryside, with green fields or ribbon developments.

RainyDay wrote: »

By contrast, I don't rail at law breaking drivers. I rail at dangerous drivers, the ones who kill 200 people each year.

Then it seems I may have misjudged you and an apology may be in order. The cyclists I've had the "pleasure" of discussing transport policy with here mostly all seem to think that motorists should have GPS speed-trackers or speed governors fitted to cars, along with strict limits on acceleration, a whole raft of new "carbon" taxes, want everyone to be forced to live in motorist-hostile (and by extension people-hostile) housing designs like "home zones" and "the Essex design", and use the cry of "induced demand" to oppose any kind of road building. (I can back all this up from recent and near-historical examples).

If you do not share these positions, then I have misjudged you and over-generalised. But the fact is that discussing transport policy with these individuals who I do not believe for one second would like to adhere to similar standards on their bikes. That's left me with a negative general impression of cyclists, who as a group I do not believe to be capable of a "live and let live" approach to road use.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Then it seems I may have misjudged you and an apology may be in order. The cyclists I've had the "pleasure" of discussing transport policy with here mostly all seem to think that motorists should have GPS speed-trackers or speed governors fitted to cars, along with strict limits on acceleration, a whole raft of new "carbon" taxes, want everyone to be forced to live in motorist-hostile (and by extension people-hostile) housing designs like "home zones" and "the Essex design", and use the cry of "induced demand" to oppose any kind of road building. (I can back all this up from recent and near-historical examples).

Yes, some recent and near-historical examples would be helpful.

But regardless, you might find it more helpful to treat people as individuals, rather than as a group.

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, some recent and near-historical examples would be helpful.

Well, here's cyclopath2001 giving his views on speed enforcement:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, and I'm never surprised where some drivers will break speed limits, especially if they think they won't be caught.

The best place for a speed trap is where people break speed limits.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's because stronger measures are needed. Current deterrants are not working.

Instant driving bans should be applied for speeding offences, then re-training followed by long periods of supervision/monitoring once the license has been restored.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The principal benefit of speed limits is that they define a way of measuring who is a law-abiding motorist and who is not.

I thought speed limits existed to define safe vehicle operation and to protect vulnerable road users that may be present, but ... no, it could be completely arbitrary, but that's OK, it's just a test to filter out "lawbreakers"! This is coming from an Irish cyclist ...

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No brainer really - and very welcome news if they are serious. Its insane that you can buy cars in this country that are capable of significantly exceeding the highest speed limits 120km\hr.

Ideally also they should put strict limits on acceleration performance.

Intelligent speed adaptation is well established technology at this point. It makrs much more sense to limit the performance of the car rather than expect local governments to go to the expense of reconstructing urban roads to achieve traffic calming by physical means or expecting the police to be everywhere 24 hours a day.

Again, this was from a routine Irish cyclist. This was in turn thanked by Victor, another cyclist, and a key figure in the Dublin City Cycling campaign, or at least he was in the past.

The same cyclist came up with this recently, in a current thread which you might have read:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Instead a "hero" is being made of some joker in van (who calls small children "idiots") because he managed to stop for a child whose presence he should have been well aware of.

If that is the extent of his understanding of risk assessment on public roads then maybe he should be invited to resit his driving test?

So, two adults create a dangerous situation by directing a child in their care to behave dangerously, a motorist arriving on this scene proceeds slowly with due care, combined with prompt response times, prevents a nasty accident that would have scarcely been his fault had it occured. But galwaycyclist thinks the victim who reacted appropriately should be "invited" to re-sit his driving test ... because he wasn't chirpingly cheerful about the near-miss or something. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Two posters with very extreme positions, also quite contradictory given their status, all with "bike" or "cycl" in their usernames.

This is where I asked Iwannahurl if it was possible for a speed limit to be too low under any circumstances, I had been asking him/her this consistently for several months, this was the best response I got.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KZvtt4ZpFfg/Tzupi_YfAWI/AAAAAAAACes/TJDacyzlBRU/s1600/libertarian.jpg

Here is me suggesting that if a speed limit is being broken a lot, it might, just possibly, just maybe, some chance that it could be too low for the prevailing conditions. IWH didn't agree, to put it mildly. Again, this is an Irish cyclist, complaining about others breaking laws :rolleyes:

In fact I challenged the bould hurler repeatedly:

SeanW wrote:

Also (with the exception of the above HQDC) show me ONE example of a road with a speed limit you think is too low. ONE road!

Needless to say s/he could not answer this, because there was no basis on which to answer the challenge, i.e. IWH could not identify a single road, anywhere in Ireland, where the speed limit was too low for any prevailing conditions, at any time. There was other amusing stuff in that thread or a similar one IIRC involving silly little triangles.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I pay Motor Tax, and I am fully in favour of increased taxes on car usage. Additional charges that would take proper account of currently unpaid externalities include road pricing, proper fees for parking and carbon taxes. These charges should be set at a rate that achieves the necessary effect in terms of a reduction in car use and a decrease in traffic congestion. Alone or in combination, and as part of a suite of Demand Management measures, such economic interventions would be a sustainable alternative to more road building, such as the "bypass" proposed for Galway.

This is somehow supposed to help people get from the East towards Clifden, Connemara etc. IWH can't explain how though.

But regardless, you might find it more helpful to treat people as individuals, rather than as a group.

Perhaps. But I've seen a lot from the cycling community that I have a very serious problem with.

cdebru

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is how does the cyclist know that? A taxi stopped in the middle of the road doesn't gain any specials rights. Cycle lane was free and as you've already quoted they are perfectly entitled to undertake. If the taxi driver doesn't pull in off the road and make it clear they are letting off passengers the bit quoted by Spook doesn't apply.

Personally I think any cyclist should be wary when undertaking traffic. But surely one of first things any child is thought about cars is to ensure its safe to exit the vehicle and that you don't door another person/cyclist/car etc.

Of course that's common sense, you can't open a door anywhere you feel like and complain that you shouldn't have been undertaken.
The law he is referring to as regards cyclists is in regard to where cyclist use the same lane as other traffic, and the bit about loading and unloading passengers refers to actively doing it ie doors are already open and passengers are already entering or leaving and is more specifically aimed at vehicles like buses where the open door wouldn't block the cyclists way like most normal car doors would anyway.

The point that escapes this poster is once you paint lines on a road they gave specific meanings as regards crossing them or entering them, it is a traffic lane like a bus lane or any other traffic lane, and you certainly shouldn't open your door into a bus lane or normal lane you shouldn't do it to a cycle path the only difference here is that the taxi driver doesn't give a **** because it will be the cyclist who come off worse unlike if he allowed a passenger open a door onto an oncoming double decker bus.

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I dared to suggest that and got flame grilled for suggesting this apparently idiotic, outlandish and bizarre idea, so no, common sense, my friend, is long, long dead. So when opening a door there is no need to look, just fling'eropenterfcuk, begrand. If someone gets hurt, just look them straight in the eye and tell them "It's not my job to look out for others, you owe me for the door"

You still haven't grasped the concept it is the driver who is responsible for his/her vehicle, no one is saying throw open or fling open anything, but that doesn't alter who is responsible if you do fling open or throw open a door it is the driver.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

You still haven't grasped the concept it is the driver who is responsible for his/her vehicle, no one is saying throw open or fling open anything, but that doesn't alter who is responsible if you do fling open or throw open a door it is the driver.

This an automated message. The poster is sick of doing this circle again, for answers, please refer back to earlier replies. :P

RainyDay

So just to clarify, out of the six allegations that you made, listed out seperately below;

SeanW wrote: »

The cyclists I've had the "pleasure" of discussing transport policy with here mostly all seem to think that

1. motorists should have GPS speed-trackers
2. or speed governors fitted to cars,
3. along with strict limits on acceleration,
4. a whole raft of new "carbon" taxes,
5. want everyone to be forced to live in motorist-hostile (and by extension people-hostile) housing designs like "home zones" and "the Essex design", and
6. use the cry of "induced demand" to oppose any kind of road building.

(I can back all this up from recent and near-historical examples).

your "recent and near-historical examples" stand up one of these issues (speed governors) and make no reference to any of your other allegations.

Exaggerate much? I do see lots of things that you disagree with, and a few things that I disagree with, but I don't see anything that justifies your blanket criticism.

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps. But I've seen a lot from the cycling community that I have a very serious problem with.

You see that's where you're going wrong in the first place. There is no 'cycling community'. There are a few posters on boards, who do not claim to be a community, and do not act like a community, and are not respresentative of cyclists in general or the community at large.

But you seem determined to look for a target for your hate, in the same way that some people love to hate Muslims, or gay people or Travellers. Nice.

But if you really do want to hate cyclists, here you go;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

cdebru

roverrules wrote: »

Point of interest. Does anyone have links to what the definitions of cycle tracks, paths, lanes etc are?

I notice that the SI 332/2012 has a section mentioning cycle tracks as being defined as



Which would seem to now put all on road and on path cycle facilities as cycle tracks.

So does a cycle track have the same legal standing as a lane? I would wonder what the legal standpoint actually is?

Cycle track covers all lanes specifically for use by bicycles whether they are on the road, or off road or completely separated like along the canal, when the cycle track is on the road it is a traffic lane the same as any other traffic lane and the lines indicate you can not cross or enter without yielding to traffic already in the lane the same as any other lane on a roadway.

galwaycyclist

cdebru wrote: »

Cycle track covers all lanes specifically for use by bicycles whether they are on the road, or off road or completely separated like along the canal, when the cycle track is on the road it is a traffic lane the same as any other traffic lane and the lines indicate you can not cross or enter without yielding to traffic already in the lane the same as any other lane on a roadway.

Hmm no thats not strictly correct. Legally the term "cycle track" refers to something within a larger road that has been set aside for cyclists to use. It can be part of the "roadway" - that part of the road usually set aside for vehicles. Alternatively, a cycle track can be part of the "footway" - that part of the road usually set aside for pedestrians (aka footpaths).

Where a separate road has been provided for cyclists (or cyclists and pedestrians) then this is defined as a "cycleway" under the roads act.

Edit: Also cycle tracks are not legally defined as traffic lanes anywhere in the road signs legislation.