Careless cyclists.

LeoB

At a time when there is a lot of roads signs going up to warn us about giving cyclists enough space when we are over taking them I wonder has anyone thought about putting a few signs to ask cyclists to be careful.

Twice in the last week I have seen cyclists nearly causing accidents at the R132 roundabout on way to Swords. They were heading to Swords but in the lane taking the turn for Donabate and proceeded to shoot across the lanes going to Swords causing a HGV and 2 cars to break on the busy roundabout.. It was in my opinion very irresponsible of the cyclists

I saw what looked like 2 "serious" well equipped cyclists ( well lit and good looking bikes) using the cycle tunnel this week. While it is great to see people out cycling and using bikes for short trips or staying fit and cycling clubs getting people out some cyclists seem to think the road is for their use and getting the good cyclists a bad name.

Should cyclists be pointed to the tunnel and away from this roundabout?

Dizzyblonde

I think people are the same in charge of a vehicle as they are in general, and unfortunately an increasing number of people are ill-mannered. They're bent on where they're going and make no allowances for anyone else. It's the Me, Me, Me age

I'm not talking about young people - in fact the 40+ age group are as bad, if not worse.

Ewan Hoosarmi

I think there is a problem with cyclists going faster than they can safely stop. I know they aren't restricted by law, and you would think they would like to stay safe, but this doesn't seem to be a factor with a lot of cyclists.

Time for speed limits for cyclists perhaps?

LeoB

Weepsie wrote: »

Drivers do this all the time too on roundabouts. Some people just don't know how to use them or try to cut ahead by purposely taking the wrong lane.

Some also think that cyclists don't have the same rights of way on them that cars do.

They do indeed but everyone has a responsibility to act with due care and respect

Weepsie wrote: »

It's not a cyclists problem. It's a people problem
Some people are either idiots, or ignorant.

In this instance it is a serious cyclists problem.

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

I think people are the same in charge of a vehicle as they are in general, and unfortunately an increasing number of people are ill-mannered. They're bent on where they're going and make no allowances for anyone else. It's the Me, Me, Me age

I'm not talking about young people - in fact the 40+ age group are as bad, if not worse.

Agree... me me I....

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

I think there is a problem with cyclists going faster than they can safely stop. I know they aren't restricted by law, and you would think they would like to stay safe, but this doesn't seem to be a factor with a lot of cyclists.

Time for speed limits for cyclists perhaps?

Interesting point. Are cyclists subject to the speed limits along the quays in Dublin?

Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or injured off the bike or in a car as a result of carelessness but I think at this roundabout we will have a serious accident if people dont kop on. (cyclists and drivers alike)

P_1

LeoB wrote: »

Interesting point. Are cyclists subject to the speed limits along the quays in Dublin?

AFAIK no, mainly due to the fact that bikes aren't fitted with speedometers as standard.

Effects

LeoB wrote: »

Interesting point. Are cyclists subject to the speed limits along the quays in Dublin?(cyclists and drivers alike)

Most cyclists don't break the speed limit there regardless. 92% of all vehicular traffic does.

LeoB

Effects wrote: »

Most cyclists don't break the speed limit there regardless. 92% of all vehicular traffic does.

Was just an interesting point. Some of the serious cyclists fairly belt along.

Important to point out this is not an anti-cyclist post just a concern for health and well being of all roads users.

rushfan

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote:

Time for speed limits for cyclists perhaps?

Seriously??? Get a grip ffs.

rushfan

LeoB wrote:

Should cyclists be pointed to the tunnel and away from this roundabout?

Personally I always use the tunnels, far safer option.

Ewan Hoosarmi

rushfan wrote: »

Seriously??? Get a grip ffs.

Nice to see reasoned argument and debate isn't dead. :rolleyes:

rushfan

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote:

Nice to see reasoned argument and debate isn't dead.

Equally nice to see sense & rationality too.

beauf

LeoB wrote: »

Was just an interesting point. Some of the serious cyclists fairly belt along.

Important to point out this is not an anti-cyclist post just a concern for health and well being of all roads users.

There is a charge of reckless or dangerous cycling I think.

Considering enforcement is abysmal for all road users another law they won't use isn't worth squat.

Ewan Hoosarmi

rushfan wrote: »

Equally nice to see sense & rationality too.

OK why should cyclists not be subject to speed restrictions? It was all fine when cyclists meant steel, sit-up-and-beg machines, but now cycling speeds are much, much higher.

We're told that speed kills. Does that not apply to cyclists? Do safe stopping distances not apply either?

OttoPilot

LeoB wrote: »

Was just an interesting point. Some of the serious cyclists fairly belt along.

Important to point out this is not an anti-cyclist post just a concern for health and well being of all roads users.

Not on the quays as there is a lot of cyclist traffic.

OttoPilot

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

OK why should cyclists not be subject to speed restrictions? It was all fine when cyclists meant steel, sit-up-and-beg machines, but now cycling speeds are much, much higher.

We're told that speed kills. Does that not apply to cyclists? Do safe stopping distances not apply either?

How about because there is no speedometer on a bike?

rushfan

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote:

OK why should cyclists not be subject to speed restrictions? It was all fine when cyclists meant steel, sit-up-and-beg machines, but now cycling speeds are much, much higher.

Personally, I don't believe that cyclists generally cycle too fast, where is your evidence?? Who exactly would enforce these speed restrictions? Ad the poster above says, there is NO enforcement in this country. And finally, what in the name of God is a "sit up & beg machine "?

Ewan Hoosarmi

OttoPilot wrote: »

How about because there is no speedometer on a bike?

So, no cyclist knows their speed? We all carry around mobile phones capable of GPS speed readings.

I'm sure there are posts in the cycling forum of cyclists saying how fast they were going. How do they know?

It's all moot though, as there are no laws currently in place. But the speed some cyclists travel at has to be of some concern, especially with their small road contact.

(I see the call to arms has gone out. )

Ewan Hoosarmi

rushfan wrote: »

And finally, what in the name of God is a "sit up & beg machine "?

Ah bless your innocence. Let Mr. Google help you.

As a driver and not a cyclist 90% of the dangerous and law breaking bullsh1t I see on the roads every day is caused by dangerous, inconsiderate drivers. I watch cars break the speed limit and red lights at almost all times.

Cyclists don't cause deaths. Drivers do.

Drivers need to provide space for cyclists. Some of them are crappy and inconsiderate but your life will rarely if ever be put in danger because of a cyclist, compared to how often you are at risk because of your own and your neighbour's driving.

P_1

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

OK why should cyclists not be subject to speed restrictions? It was all fine when cyclists meant steel, sit-up-and-beg machines, but now cycling speeds are much, much higher.

We're told that speed kills. Does that not apply to cyclists? Do safe stopping distances not apply either?

Ok I'll bite...

A car travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 12 meters
A bike travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 6 meters

I'd consider that a fairly safe stopping distance tbh

rushfan

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote:

Ah bless your innocence. Let Mr. Google help you.

Whoopdeedee. Innocence my Aras!! You still haven't answered my question regarding evidence of cyclists speeding. I'm sure you've collated a substantial amount of evidence. So, share it..........

Middle Man

OttoPilot wrote: »

How about because there is no speedometer on a bike?

AFAIK, bikes can be fitted with speedometers - as someone else pointed out, there's also GPS - perhaps a monitoring device specifically designed for bikes could be manufactured - mightn't be accurate over very short distances, but should be accurate enough to generate an average speed for any particular stretch of road or street.

chicorytip

LeoB wrote:

Twice in the last week I have seen cyclists nearly causing accidents at the R132 roundabout on way to Swords. They were heading to Swords but in the lane taking the turn for Donabate and proceeded to shoot across the lanes going to Swords causing a HGV and 2 cars to break on the busy roundabout.. It was in my opinion very irresponsible of the cyclists

Are there pedestrian crossings adjacent to that roundabout? If I (when cycling) wish to take the second or third exit off a busy roundabout I will always dismount and use them, if they are present.

Middle Man

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'll bite...

A car travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 12 meters
A bike travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 6 meters

I'd consider that a fairly safe stopping distance tbh

I must also be said that a cyclist travelling at any speed of 30kph or higher tend to be far less observant than other road users. I've cycled (in the past) and now drive and walk a lot - between those three modes, cycling is the most dangerous in terms of awareness regarding one's surroundings.

Ewan Hoosarmi

rushfan wrote: »

Whoopdeedee. Innocence my Aras!! You still haven't answered my question regarding evidence of cyclists speeding. I'm sure you've collated a substantial amount of evidence. So, share it..........

It's the same body of evidence that you have presented that they don't.

My own perception of cyclists moving faster than they could possibly stop in an emergency, oh, and posts in the cycling forum of cyclists going arse over handlebars at crossings. I do see motorists going faster than they should too, but that's not the subject if the thread.

I'm going to leave it there as I've no interest in getting involved in cyclist hysteria and smartarsery.

Have a safe journey everyone.

P_1

Middle Man wrote: »

I must also be said that a cyclist travelling at any speed of 30kph or higher tend to be far less observant than other road users. I've cycled (in the past) and now drive and walk a lot - between those three modes, cycling is the most dangerous in terms of awareness regarding one's surroundings.

I guess that makes sense seeing as you wouldn't have mirrors and whatnot on a bike. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though. On the bike you can see in front of you and you can hear whats coming from behind.

Middle Man

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

It's the same body of evidence that you have presented that they don't.

My own perception of cyclists moving faster than they could possibly stop in an emergency, oh, and posts in the cycling forum of cyclists going arse over handlebars at crossings. I do see motorists going faster than they should too, but that's not the subject if the thread.

I'm going to leave it there as I've no interest in getting involved in cyclist hysteria and smartarsery.

Have a safe journey everyone.

I'll do them same - cyclists don't want to listen to anyone else and think (along with the more aggressive drivers) that they're above the law - hopefully by the 2020's, common sense will have prevailed and that people will start being reasonable to each other again - unfortunately, Ireland is not as friendly as it used to be!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

OK why should cyclists not be subject to speed restrictions? It was all fine when cyclists meant steel, sit-up-and-beg machines, but now cycling speeds are much, much higher.

We're told that speed kills. Does that not apply to cyclists? Do safe stopping distances not apply either?

What's your objective by implementing speed limits for cyclists?

Wheety

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

Ah bless your innocence. Let Mr. Google help you.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Middle Man wrote: »

I must also be said that a cyclist travelling at any speed of 30kph or higher tend to be far less observant

What a load of codswallop. How do some people come up with such ignorant "facts" like this?

beauf

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

It's the same body of evidence that you have presented that they don't.

My own perception of cyclists moving faster than they could possibly stop in an emergency, oh, and posts in the cycling forum of cyclists going arse over handlebars at crossings. I do see motorists going faster than they should too, but that's not the subject if the thread.

I'm going to leave it there as I've no interest in getting involved in cyclist hysteria and smartarsery.

Have a safe journey everyone.

"moving faster than they could possibly stop" is so vague as to be useless.

If you are walking and someone trips you up, you don't scream for speed limits for walking.

There are new laws for cycling. Just no one to enforce them. The one most used for this is.

1. Driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.

cbreeze

Motorists have to pass a driving test and know the rules of the road. Should cyclists be (a) obliged to pass a road theory test; (b) have insurance; (c) be subject to penalty for infringement?

Wheety

cbreeze wrote: »

Motorists have to pass a driving test and know the rules of the road. Should cyclists be (a) obliged to pass a road theory test; (b) have insurance; (c) be subject to penalty for infringement?

No.

beauf

cbreeze wrote: »

Motorists have to pass a driving test and know the rules of the road. Should cyclists be (a) obliged to pass a road theory test; (b) have insurance; (c) be subject to penalty for infringement?

No

blackvalley

Middle Man wrote: »

I must also be said that a cyclist travelling at any speed of 30kph or higher tend to be far less observant than other road users. I've cycled (in the past) and now drive and walk a lot - between those three modes, cycling is the most dangerous in terms of awareness regarding one's surroundings.

I absolutely disagree with you on this point . As someone who has cycled for over forty years I consider that the faster you are travelling the more observant you become . Its called " self preservation " .
In more recent times it has not been an issue with me personally as travelling at over 30 kph is a distant memory

beauf

The faster you are the more careful you generally are. But your ability to do anything about it is reduced.

rushfan

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote:

I'm going to leave it there as I've no interest in getting involved in cyclist hysteria and smartarsery.

Good idea. Off with ya to the "Kite flying " forum!

Wishbone Ash

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

So, no cyclist knows their speed? We all carry around mobile phones capable of GPS speed readings.

I'm sure there are posts in the cycling forum of cyclists saying how fast they were going. How do they know?

It's all moot though, as there are no laws currently in place. But the speed some cyclists travel at has to be of some concern, especially with their small road contact.

(I see the call to arms has gone out. )

Yes, most of us use Garmins or other devices which record speed, distance, elevation etc. but the law states that speed limits only apply to vehicles constructed with a speed measuring device. I've yet to see a bike constructed with one. Motorised vehicles which are constructed without a speedometer are not subject to speed limits either.

I see drivers exceeding the speed limit every day, yet the vast majority of them are driving vehicles with a speedometer so what point are you trying to make?

Mystery Egg wrote: »

...Cyclists don't cause deaths. Drivers do....

Yes, in the past 20 years only 2 road deaths have been attributed to cyclists.

cbreeze wrote: »

Motorists have to pass a driving test and know the rules of the road. Should cyclists be (a) obliged to pass a road theory test; (b) have insurance; (c) be subject to penalty for infringement?

So a 10 year old must know the rules of the road, pass a theory test and have insurance as well as being subject to penalties?

95% of adult cyclists are regular motorists but only a small percentage of motorists are regular cyclists. BTW - all club cyclists have insurance as it's a club requirement.


Leo B - how do some cyclists behaving illegally give all cyclists a bad name? If I see a van driver breaking a red light I don't assume all van drivers have a bad name.

looksee

Wheety wrote: »

No.

beauf wrote: »

No

Why not?

The Hill Billy

Moved from Dublin County North to Commuting & Transport.

@Op - If you wish to restart a thread specific to the locality please do so in DCN, but make that clear from the off.

@All - C&T charter now applies.

tHB

Wishbone Ash

looksee wrote: »

Why not?

Not my answers but passing a test, having insurance, paying penalties etc, hasn't stopped drivers of motor vehicles killing hundreds of people each year. What makes people think applying those requirements to cyclists will reduce road deaths? It will just put more motorists on the road and raise road deaths as cycling will become undesireable to many people and we will just get fatter as a nation.

jaxxx

Not sure how common this is elsewhere, but I'm seeing a lot of cyslists not obeying traffic lights quite frequently. Now I don't cycle myself, but I assume that cyslists still have to adhere to traffic lights the same as drivers too?

Hurrache

jaxxx wrote: »

... a lot of cyslists not obeying traffic lights quite frequently. ........ I assume that cyslists still have to adhere to traffic lights the same as drivers too?

Seems like they are.

Tigger

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'll bite...

A car travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 12 meters
A bike travelling @30kph has a stopping distance of about 6 meters

I'd consider that a fairly safe stopping distance tbh

Citation needed

Wishbone Ash

jaxxx wrote: »

.. but I assume that cyslists still have to adhere to traffic lights the same as drivers too?

I see dozens of drivers breaking amber/red lights every day. And even more would do it if they could but once the vehicle in front stopd, they have no option but to stop also.

I'd love to see all cyclists stopping at red lights but how many people do those cyclists injure/kill? Concentrate on motorists first as they cause most injuries/deaths.

soups05

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

So a 10 year old must know the rules of the road, pass a theory test and have insurance as well as being subject to penalties?

.

as a 9 year old i passed a cycling proficiency test which involved a few weeks training and a cert at the end.

this was in 1980, the rules of the road knowledge came in handy when i did my driving test in the 90s lol.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7956939/Cycling-Proficiency-test-facing-axe.html

as to the thread, we don't have a cyclist problem or a driver problem, we have an asshole problem. it does not matter what mode of transport they happen to use.

Charles Babbage

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd love to see all cyclists stopping at red lights but how many people do those cyclists injure/kill? Concentrate on motorists first as they cause most injuries/deaths.

This is the "don't worry about muggers when there are gang killings" argument. People being mugged are entitled to concern to.
I'd suggest making some effort to stop all red light breaking, which would rapidly reduce the amount of it. The problem is that while cameras etc can detect motorists cyclists are currently undetectable and consequently do what they like.

I notice too a new drive to have motorists not pass within one metre of cyclists, which is fair enough. But will we also have a drive to ensure that cyclists do not pass within one metre of pedestrians?

Wishbone Ash

soups05 wrote: »

as a 9 year old i passed a cycling proficiency test which involved a few weeks training and a cert at the end.
...

I did it myself in the 1970's.

P_1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is the "don't worry about muggers when there are gang killings" argument. People being mugged are entitled to concern to.
I'd suggest making some effort to stop all red light breaking, which would rapidly reduce the amount of it. The problem is that while cameras etc can detect motorists cyclists are currently undetectable and consequently do what they like.

I notice too a new drive to have motorists not pass within one metre of cyclists, which is fair enough. But will we also have a drive to ensure that cyclists do not pass within one metre of pedestrians?

You mean cyclists should give pedestrians who are on a footpath separated from the road by a kerb a meter of space? I'd have thought the kerb would do that job just fine

average_runner

P_1 wrote: »

You mean cyclists should give pedestrians who are on a footpath separated from the road by a kerb a meter of space? I'd have thought the kerb would do that job just fine

Or was he talking about cyclists on footpaths. A common thing

Wishbone Ash

Charles Babbage wrote: »

... cyclists are currently undetectable and consequently do what they like.

Some cyclists.

.. we also have a drive to ensure that cyclists do not pass within one metre of pedestrians?

Have cyclists been killing pedestrians lately?