Poseur cyclists who won't use designated cycle lanes

Tony EH

sdanseo wrote: »

Militant cyclists are a danger to everyone around them including themselves.

http://cdn.ipernity.com/117/88/03/9488803.68f85d3c.560.jpg

Melodeon

Tony EH wrote: »

http://cdn.ipernity.com/117/88/03/9488803.68f85d3c.560.jpg

^
|
|
Le Tour de France, 1940.

Jawgap

Melodeon wrote: »

^
|
|
Le Tour de France, 1940.

Ah sure for the day that's in it - Le Tour, 1415 edition......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBH4hyiF1Lo

Rabo Karabekian

rubadub wrote: »

really? not IME, though they have more sensible laws when it come to red lights in the first place. And better road layouts so they are less likely to be in a situation where they can actually break the law.

I think more sensible laws is key here. There's not much point in cyclists sitting and stopping for a red light at (say) a pedestrian crossing when all the pedestrians have crossed. The same might be said for turning right or left on a red light at certain junctions. Another might be for one way streets to be opened up for cyclists to use both ways. I think this might cut down on my particular issue, which is cyclists using footpaths or pedestrian bridges (and particularly using them as if they have the right of way).

Jawgap

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I think more sensible laws is key here. There's not much point in cyclists sitting and stopping for a red light at (say) a pedestrian crossing when all the pedestrians have crossed. The same might be said for turning right or left on a red light at certain junctions. Another might be for one way streets to be opened up for cyclists to use both ways. I think this might cut down on my particular issue, which is cyclists using footpaths or pedestrian bridges (and particularly using them as if they have the right of way).

Common sense notions like that tend to have certain quarters frothing at the mouths - generally those who can't see beyond the end of their bonnets

K.Flyer

Considering the time of the year we are at, peak traffic in dark and damp evenings. The biggest problem I find with cyclists is to see them in the dark.
I know I may be preaching to the converted, but on Friday evening from Grand Canal St to Dublin 12 the amount of cyclists with little to no illumination was scary.
I take the point on cyclists using more of the road due to the very poor conditions of the road and it strewn with debris at times and I will always give them time and space.
But please, something needs to be done about cyclists with no or useless lights on their bikes.

roverrules

Tony EH wrote: »

http://cdn.ipernity.com/117/88/03/9488803.68f85d3c.560.jpg

Would they not be military rather than militant?

karlitob

The King of Moo wrote: »

Road tax. Just getting that out of the way early.

It's a car tax - not a road tax - and it's based on carbon emmisions. So for both reasons cyclists will pay nothing. Just nipping that in the bud early. You pay to drive the car not drive on a road.

karlitob

K.Flyer wrote: »

Considering the time of the year we are at, peak traffic in dark and damp evenings. The biggest problem I find with cyclists is to see them in the dark.
I know I may be preaching to the converted, but on Friday evening from Grand Canal St to Dublin 12 the amount of cyclists with little to no illumination was scary.
I take the point on cyclists using more of the road due to the very poor conditions of the road and it strewn with debris at times and I will always give them time and space.
But please, something needs to be done about cyclists with no or useless lights on their bikes.

Agreed. All cars should be luminous, increase the number of lights around the car and the driver should wear a helmet also.

Jawgap

K.Flyer wrote: »

Considering the time of the year we are at, peak traffic in dark and damp evenings. The biggest problem I find with cyclists is to see them in the dark.
I know I may be preaching to the converted, but on Friday evening from Grand Canal St to Dublin 12 the amount of cyclists with little to no illumination was scary.
I take the point on cyclists using more of the road due to the very poor conditions of the road and it strewn with debris at times and I will always give them time and space.
But please, something needs to be done about cyclists with no or useless lights on their bikes.

At this time of year the Guards normally run an Operation Light Up to get cyclists to make sure they have proper lights.

They'll no doubt do the same this year, with the added spice of Fixed Penalty Notices - hopefully they'll issue plenty to the ninja cyclists out there.

Gongoozler

karlitob wrote: »

It's a car tax - not a road tax - and it's based on carbon emmisions. So for both reasons cyclists will pay nothing. Just nipping that in the bus early. You pay to drive the car not drive on a road.

That was the point he was making.

Gongoozler

karlitob wrote: »

Agreed. All cars should be luminous, increase the number of lights around the car and the driver should wear a helmet also.

I get your point, but he's simply saying bikes should have lights which they are required to have. It's the same for cars. Not demanding everyone wear high vis, so calm yourself there.

1hnr79jr65

Gongoozler wrote: »

That was the point he was making.

I believe cyclists should have a registered cycling license and insurance though. Also certain gear should be mandatory at all time, helmet, reflective gear, lights and a certificate that they have trained and understand HAND SIGNALS FOR TURNING. This is the one thing that majorly flips me off with cyclists, turning in front of you with no signaling.

Fact is there are bad drivers and they cause accidents and you can claim from their insurance, same rules should apply to bad cyclists who cause accidents either with vehicles or pedestrians.

karlitob

Gongoozler wrote: »

That was the point he was making.

Maybe. I thought his point was that everyone should pay a road tax rather than a car tax to level the playing field and I disagree for the above reasons. I didn't think he mistook car tax for road tax.

Gongoozler

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I believe cyclists should have a registered cycling license and insurance though. Also certain gear should be mandatory at all time, helmet, reflective gear, lights and a certificate that they have trained and understand HAND SIGNALS FOR TURNING. This is the one thing that majorly flips me off with cyclists, turning in front of you with no signaling.

Fact is there are bad drivers and they cause accidents and you can claim from their insurance, same rules should apply to bad cyclists who cause accidents either with vehicles or pedestrians.

Oh I agree.

I also think there should be some sort of course and test for drivers so that they understand the rules of the road, and the way they should behave towards other road users, and that they have a duty to watch out for others. Oh and so that they don't, for some reason, think they have right of way all the time. If only there was such a perfect thing.

Tarzana2

The King of Moo wrote: »

Road tax. Just getting that out of the way early.

karlitob wrote: »

It's a car tax - not a road tax - and it's based on carbon emmisions. So for both reasons cyclists will pay nothing. Just nipping that in the bud early. You pay to drive the car not drive on a road.

Whoosh.

karlitob

Gongoozler wrote: »

I get your point, but he's simply saying bikes should have lights which they are required to have. It's the same for cars. Not demanding everyone wear high vis, so calm yourself there.

I do think drivers should wear high vis and I do think cars should have far more luminosity. If it's good for one group it's good for all.

And you can keep your patronising comment thanks.

karlitob

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Whoosh.

I reserve the right to jump into a debate without viewing all comments and looking like a twat. Thank you.

K.Flyer

karlitob wrote: »

Agreed. All cars should be luminous, increase the number of lights around the car and the driver should wear a helmet also.

Very droll :rolleyes:
A simple very bright front and rear light on the bike would suffice.
I don't have time for idiot car drivers who don't use or have broken lights and don't get me started on the absolute w@nk×rs still driving and holding mobile phones.

barrymanilow

Irish cycle lanes are ridiculous . I have a friend from sweden and when he is over visiting he takes photographs of our cycle lanes to show to the swedes when he goes back . They think our cycle lanes are hilarious .

Tarzana2

karlitob wrote: »

I reserve the right to jump into a debate without viewing all comments and looking like a twat. Thank you.

An attractive quality is the ability not to take oneself too seriously. Try it, you might just like it!

Anesthetize

Ally Dick wrote: »

These people drive me bananas. Where I live, there are decent cycle lanes...however there's a class of cyclist out there who dresses in all of the gear, who refuses to use them, and would instead prefer to hold up the traffic. This really has to stop. As I have said before, there is less and less room for cyclists on the road now, so they need to consider cutting down on it, and at least using cycle lanes where they exist

Banana delivery men?

roverrules

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I think more sensible laws is key here. There's not much point in cyclists sitting and stopping for a red light at (say) a pedestrian crossing when all the pedestrians have crossed. The same might be said for turning right or left on a red light at certain junctions. Another might be for one way streets to be opened up for cyclists to use both ways. I think this might cut down on my particular issue, which is cyclists using footpaths or pedestrian bridges (and particularly using them as if they have the right of way).

But would the same sensibity not apply to motorists stopped at junctions and crossings with no traffic or pedestrians around?

Jawgap

roverrules wrote: »

But would the same sensibity not apply to motorists stopped at junctions and crossings with no traffic or pedestrians around?

No because they're operating a tonne of metal, not a 10kg bike.

roverrules

karlitob wrote: »

I do think drivers should wear high vis and I do think cars should have far more luminosity. If it's good for one group it's good for all.

And you can keep your patronising comment thanks.

Why would the driver require the hi viz, it would be mostly obscured by the doors, except perhaps in things like Aerial Atoms and Caterham 7s, now if you were to say the cars that's a different argument and with the recent introduction of daylight running lamps is already taken care of by EU legislation or are you saying that DLRs are insufficient?

roverrules

Jawgap wrote: »

No because they're operating a tonne of metal, not a 10kg bike.

I don't see the difference between a cyclist being allowed to proceed at a crossing if no pedestrians are present and a car if no pedestrians are present

furiousox

No self respecting lycra clad poseur would ride a bike weighing more than 7.5kg!

traprunner

I feel awful now. My carriage of death weighs an astronomical 8.4kg.

Beasty

traprunner wrote: »

I feel awful now. My carriage of death weighs an astronomical 8.4kg.

You should feel happy. Clearly the OP does not have you in mind....

Zebra3

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I believe cyclists should have a registered cycling license and insurance though. Also certain gear should be mandatory at all time, helmet, reflective gear, lights and a certificate that they have trained and understand HAND SIGNALS FOR TURNING. This is the one thing that majorly flips me off with cyclists, turning in front of you with no signaling.

Fact is there are bad drivers and they cause accidents and you can claim from their insurance, same rules should apply to bad cyclists who cause accidents either with vehicles or pedestrians.

And I believe that any motorist who is caught breaking the rules of the road once is banned from driving for life.