Poseur cyclists who won't use designated cycle lanes

Beasty

furiousox wrote: »

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

Jawgap only ever goes to one significant digit. Alas when he uses it around motorists he tends to suffer a bit of a backlash....:)

Jawgap

roverrules wrote: »

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

Well that's probably down to a failure to understand physics

Jawgap

Beasty wrote: »

Jawgap only ever goes to one significant digit. Alas when he uses it around motorists he tends to suffer a bit of a backlash....:)

All my bikes are 10kg or more - it helps explain my lack of speed

Pinch Flat

Zebra3 wrote: »

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

And have their car cubed. Mobile car cubing machines at key locations

Qualitymark

And any driver who doesn't signal, there should be electrodes attached from wheel to groin that would give a small jolt when the wheel turns without the indicator being deployed.

roverrules

Jawgap wrote: »

Well that's probably down to a failure to understand physics

No I think you'll find its down to you not realising if there's no pedestrians there then there are no pedestrians there, and therefore the mass is irrelevant

traprunner

roverrules wrote: »

No I think you'll find its down to you not realising if there's no pedestrians there then there are no pedestrians there, and therefore the mass is irrelevant

It is very relevant if it hits a pedestrian or bike.

furiousox

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And have their car cubed....

....with the offending driver locked inside clutching their "road tax" disc! :pac:

roverrules

traprunner wrote: »

It is very relevant if it hits a pedestrian or bike.

Then its only relevant if there are pedestrians around, the post was stating that cyclists should be allowed to ignore pedestrian crossings etc if there were no pedestrians using it, if there are no pedestrians using it then the mass is irrelevant.

Jawgap

roverrules wrote: »

No I think you'll find its down to you not realising if there's no pedestrians there then there are no pedestrians there, and therefore the mass is irrelevant

It's a function of risk and hazard - the risk may be low but the hazard / outcome is orders of magnitude worse if you are walloped by a car.

Some countries have a left / right on red, but they have a much more mature driving culture than Ireland (for example, compare our motorway driving to other countries). Simply put, Irish drivers can't be trusted to make such decisions.

rubadub

karlitob wrote: »

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

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.

Calm youself?! seemed perfectly calm to me...

In many threads people declare cyclists "mad" for not wearing helmets, while I strongly suspect the posters have cycled themselves without helmets. Cycling style helmets are said to provide far more protection to motorists than cyclists, it would make far more sense for them to wear them even with all the airbags and seatbelts. But few people call drivers mad for not wearing them, or say they are idiots as they are not wearing them, or claim they are not wearing them as they are concerned about looking "uncool".

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

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..

roverrules wrote: »

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

Checking the various laws worldwide it would appear they do not apply the same logic -since many do allow cyclists to do what he suggests.

I would have no problem with cars driving through clearly empty pedestiran crossings, maybe treat it like a stop size. They are often empty as the pedestrian has pressed the lights and illegally crossed the road in the meantime. They ideally would be able to press the button again to turn it off, but I suppose this is an admittance of the lack of enforcement of the "jaywalking" laws here, though someone could decide not to cross for other reasons. Many here do not even know there are "jaywalking" laws, yet will be first to cast the first stone at cyclists, some literally.

C.D.

Jawgap wrote: »

Some countries have a left / right on red, but they have a much more mature driving culture than Ireland (for example, compare our motorway driving to other countries). Simply put, Irish drivers can't be trusted to make such decisions.

I live in California and the standard of driving on freeways is shocking. I see tailgating at <1 car length at 60 MPH+ every day, people crossing 3+ lanes in one fell swoop in busy traffic at 60 MPH+ etc. etc. If people here can get by with right hand turn on red, then the Irish can too!

Have you seen the quality of the majority of cycle lanes throughout Ireland?

glynf

Bit of give and take needed round towns especially, don't cycle but appreciate how sh!t the infrastructure is here so I give cyclists a wide berth. Last thing you want is to hit one. Game over then, never ends well for the motorist.. However saying that I can't abide the militant MAMMIL's blocking up really crap county roads 2-3 abreast who think just cause they can, they should. Some total **** out there..

sdanseo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

All too right, I'm grateful that there's no militant drivers on the road

Especially ones who crash into the luas
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/luas-releases-video-footage-of-drivers-crashing-into-trams-1.1820304

Ignore railway level crossings
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/shocking-irish-rail-footage-shows-motorists-crashing-into-level-crossings-34137819.html

Or, shock horror, drive when banned and cause accidents
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/over-500-banned-drivers-in-serious-crashes-in-two-years-1.2400717

You can take me out of context all you like, it doesn't change the factual value of what I posted. The thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

By your logic the following is just as relevant:

There are militant whale-watchers who patrol the south atlantic throwing foul-smelling nonsense at whale boats.

[random source]
[random source]
[random source]

shootermacg

The quality of the lanes are really poor between Ranelagh and Sandyford. I got a double puncture the other day because there was a boneshaker cunningly covered with leaves.

I was looking at a giant tcr vs a giant defy. I'd love the tcr, but given the quality of the roads, would that not be a crazy decision, when the defy's clearance allows thicker tires.

furiousox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

shootermacg

furiousox wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

LMAO "Please allow 1.5 metres when passing a cyclist" more like don't scrape the paint off your car when passing a cyclist!

furiousox

I was nearly flattened by a car once while cycling IN THE HARD SHOULDER.
Which means that ALL motorists are idiots, obviously.

glynf

Fine on a reasonably straight road like that..Two & three abreast on the Kilternan to Enniskerry road, or Kilmacanogue to Roundwood? Stupid and dangerous for everyone else on the road.

cython

glynf wrote: »

Fine on a reasonably straight road like that..Two & three abreast on the Kilternan to Enniskerry road, or Kilmacanogue to Roundwood? Stupid and dangerous for everyone else on the road.

Nope, group of 10 cyclists cycling 2x5 on virtually any road that has a clear lane in each direction is safer than a 1x10 chain which takes significantly longer to overtake. On at least the second of the two examples you mention, you need to know there is no traffic coming against you to safely overtake any cyclists, and you don't need anywhere near as long a stretch with no oncoming traffic to overtake the cyclists two abreast.

Pinch Flat

sdanseo wrote: »

You can take me out of context all you like, it doesn't change the factual value of what I posted. The thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

By your logic the following is just as relevant:

There are militant whale-watchers who patrol the south atlantic throwing foul-smelling nonsense at whale boats.

[random source]
[random source]
[random source]

so making a statement about militant cyclists (an opinion without backing up this so called militant nature)

Versus

real evidence of militant drivers out there, as evidenced in recent media articles backing it up



This thread might be about cyclists (usually started by an irate motorist), but we've had people come on here suggesting we get off the roads, cycle on inappropriately designed and maintain cycle lanes, cycle single file, get insurance, pay 'road / car tax', wear helmets, hi vis etc - only air is poor cyclists who cause so much mayhem on the roads can come on and defend ourselves. God, I'm starting to feel guilty now for all those traffic jams I cause on my commute into Dublin every morning

Pinch Flat

cython wrote: »

Nope, group of 10 cyclists cycling 2x5 on virtually any road that has a clear lane in each direction is safer than a 1x10 chain which takes significantly longer to overtake. On at least the second of the two examples you mention, you need to know there is no traffic coming against you to safely overtake any cyclists, and you don't need anywhere near as long a stretch with no oncoming traffic to overtake the cyclists two abreast.

I'm amazed how often this has to be pointed out to drivers who've clearly never cycled.

glynf

Most cyclists are usually in smaller groups, two abreast on a busy road like 755 is not helping; forces motorists out farther to give minimum 1.5M safe passing, not wise on a narrow road with pedestrians, cyclists etc. coming the other direction. The cyclists move in to single file lets motorists/buses etc. pass much more easily-faster is safer when overtaking. In turn, less irate drivers up their arse tailgating. Win for all.

Or you could stick to your guns and plod up the hill at 15-20 Kph pissing every other road user off. Because after all, you're in the right.

cython

glynf wrote: »

Most cyclists are usually in smaller groups, two abreast on a busy road like 755 is not helping; forces motorists out farther to give minimum 1.5M safe passing, not wise on a narrow road with pedestrians, cyclists etc. coming the other direction. The cyclists move in to single file lets motorists/buses etc. pass much more easily-faster is safer when overtaking. In turn, less irate drivers up their arse tailgating. Win for all.

Or you could stick to your guns and plod up the hill at 15-20 Kph pissing every other road user off. Because after all, you're in the right.

Heed your own suggestion, the overtake can be completed faster when there is less distance to be traversed in a horizontal plane, which is achieved with cyclists two abreast!!!!!

Pinch Flat

glynf wrote: »

Most cyclists are usually in smaller groups, two abreast on a busy road like 755 is not helping; forces motorists out farther to give minimum 1.5M safe passing, not wise on a narrow road with pedestrians, cyclists etc. coming the other direction. The cyclists move in to single file lets motorists/buses etc. pass much more easily-faster is safer when overtaking. In turn, less irate drivers up their arse tailgating. Win for all.

Or you could stick to your guns and plod up the hill at 15-20 Kph pissing every other road user off. Because after all, you're in the right.

You see, this is where most of the misunderstanding arises. You're driving a car - it has the potential to kill someone if you don't use it responsibly. Cyclists don't force you to do anything - you need yo friend responsibly, within the limit and to suit the road conditions, off loading this responsibility onto a group of cyclists in inappropriate. What about horse riders, caravans or other slow moving traffic?

By requesting cyclists to cycle single file, you're creating a situation that encourages dangerous overtaking. So what if you encounter those pedestrians coming the other way, or a car coming the other way? Now you potentially have a group of cyclists in single file, you on your cat and the oncoming traffic / pedestrians trying to squeeze by. What are you going to do in a car if you're now drawn alongside a group of cyclists in this scenario? I'm sorry, but we had some asshat in the same situation about this time last year who took down the front two cyclists when he panicked and swung left in front of us.

What's the problem of just easing back, waiting for an opprurtunity to overtake that's safe (I'm sure we'll have someone on here who was stuck from Dublin to Galway behind a group of cyclists, or sepmthing equally hyperbolic).

glynf

A car doing 60+Kph is covering 15+ meters a second; a push bike is what, 2-3M long? Not exactly a huge 'distance to be traversed' is it? So maybe move in a bit way and maybe just maybe, make it a bit easier for the motorist? If you're too ignorant to consider others-especially on already dangerous & busy country roads, maybe its time to head back to the 'burbs?

Jawgap

glynf wrote: »

A car doing 60+Kph is covering 15+ meters a second; a push bike is what, 2-3M long? Not exactly a huge 'distance to be traversed' is it? So maybe move in a bit way and maybe just maybe, make it a bit easier for the motorist? If you're too ignorant to consider others-especially on already dangerous & busy country roads, maybe its time to head back to the 'burbs?

.....by making it more hazardous for the cyclist?

Cycling close to the road margin puts you up against the kerb (where there is one) or it means riding in the gutter or running the gauntlet of the worst maintained piece of the road.

If your time is critical, here's a hint......leave early.

Plus roads are inherently dangerous - it's the operators of motor vehicles that make roads dangerous by travelling on them at inappropriate speeds.

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

.....by making it more hazardous for the cyclist?

Cycling close to the road margin puts you up against the kerb (where there is one) or it means riding in the gutter or running the gauntlet of the worst maintained piece of the road.

If your time is critical, here's a hint......leave early.

Plus roads are inherently dangerous - it's the operators of motor vehicles that make toads dangerous by travelling on them at inappropriate speeds.

I suspect outlining a common sense approach is somewhat misplaced in this thread Jawgap...

glynf

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You see, this is where most of the misunderstanding arises. You're driving a car - it has the potential to kill someone if you don't use it responsibly. Cyclists don't force you to do anything - you need yo friend responsibly, within the limit and to suit the road conditions, off loading this responsibility onto a group of cyclists in inappropriate. What about horse riders, caravans or other slow moving traffic?

By requesting cyclists to cycle single file, you're creating a situation that encourages dangerous overtaking. So what if you encounter those pedestrians coming the other way, or a car coming the other way? Now you potentially have a group of cyclists in single file, you on your cat and the oncoming traffic / pedestrians trying to squeeze by. What are you going to do in a car if you're now drawn alongside a group of cyclists in this scenario? I'm sorry, but we had some asshat in the same situation about this time last year who took down the front two cyclists when he panicked and swung left in front of us.

What's the problem of just easing back, waiting for an opprurtunity to overtake that's safe (I'm sure we'll have someone on here who was stuck from Dublin to Galway behind a group of cyclists, or sepmthing equally hyperbolic).

As road users, cyclists are equally liable to cause accidents, or are the cops ticketing light jumpers on bikes for fun?

And please quit with the stupid generalisations about motorists, we're not all out to get you.:rolleyes: