Careless cyclists.

Tombo2001

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I think a lack of enforcement can in a very small way be in the hands of Gardai but the lack of identification of cyclists is a problem - I know the one who hit me zoomed off without stopping.

I disagree with this and I think your logic is muddled.

Firstly - its not as if 'hit and runs' only occur involving cyclists.

I think that most people would acknowledge that there are frequent 'hit and runs' involving motorists; and they are generally of far more tragic consequences.

Its nearly 20 years since a pedestrian died in a collision with a cyclist in Ireland. Its 1 day since a cyclist was killed in a collision with a car, and its 10 days since a pedestrian was killed in a collision with a car in Ireland.

Second - a hit and run has nothing to do with carrying ID.

Third - people, if asked, should be able to produce ID. Thats regardless of who, when, where they are asked. Mosts cyclists will have ID on them, just as most motorists will have ID on them, if its requested by a Garda.

Fourth - I think what you are in a roundabout way referring to is a drivers licence. This is a licence that authorises you to drive. There is no equivalent for cyclists; it would not be practical, most people learn to cycle age 4 or 5 and not even in the most extreme nanny states would we start asking 5 year olds to get 'cycle' licences.

LegallyAbroad

A 17 page thread about cyclists' poor behaviour, based on an OP complaining that cyclists were actually following RSA advice.

Actually quite representative of media discourse.

PeterParker957

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I disagree with this and I think your logic is muddled.

Firstly - its not as if 'hit and runs' only occur involving cyclists.

I think that most people would acknowledge that there are frequent 'hit and runs' involving motorists; and they are generally of far more tragic consequences.

Its nearly 20 years since a pedestrian died in a collision with a cyclist in Ireland. Its 1 day since a cyclist was killed in a collision with a car, and its 10 days since a pedestrian was killed in a collision with a car in Ireland.

Second - a hit and run has nothing to do with carrying ID.

Third - people, if asked, should be able to produce ID. Thats regardless of who, when, where they are asked. Mosts cyclists will have ID on them, just as most motorists will have ID on them, if its requested by a Garda.

Fourth - I think what you are in a roundabout way referring to is a drivers licence. This is a licence that authorises you to drive. There is no equivalent for cyclists; it would not be practical, most people learn to cycle age 4 or 5 and not even in the most extreme nanny states would we start asking 5 year olds to get 'cycle' licences.

Whataboutery 101.

Tombo2001

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Whataboutery 101.

There's no whataboutery. I answered your point head on.

PeterParker957

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There's no whataboutery. I answered your point head on.

No, you didn't. You did the usual tactic of "cars are worse".

Is my injury somehow meaningless because I luckily wasn't killed ??

PeterParker957

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

A 17 page thread about cyclists' poor behaviour, based on an OP complaining that cyclists were actually following RSA advice.

Actually quite representative of media discourse.

Do you not feel that other commuters who share the road have the right to criticise others ??

Tombo2001

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No, you didn't. You did the usual tactic of "cars are worse".

Is my injury somehow meaningless because I luckily wasn't killed ??

I made no comment at all about your injury.

I commented on the fact that you linked 'hit and runs' by cyclists to the fact that cyclists dont carry ID.

I challenged that point on a number of fronts.

PeterParker957

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I made no comment at all about your injury.

I commented on the fact that you linked 'hit and runs' by cyclists to the fact that cyclists dont carry ID.

I challenged that point on a number of fronts.

I did not "link" a hit and run to the fact that there was no ID carried. Try to read.

I pointed out that the imbecile who hit me sped off and there was no way to identify them. If that was a car at least there was a number plate.

They got away scot free.

amcalester

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Do you not feel that other commuters who share the road have the right to criticise others ??

Of course they should have the right, but ask yourself this, is it fair to criticize cyclists for following the rules of the road?

Tombo2001

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I did not "link" a hit and run to the fact that there was no ID carried. Try to read.

I pointed out that the imbecile who hit me sped off and there was no way to identify them. If that was a car at least there was a number plate.

They got away scot free.

Ok, point taken, I misinterpreted your point and I understand now what you are saying. Yes thats an entirely fair point.

But again, its unlikely to happen......is it realistic for bikes to carry reg plates? Not sure how it could happen. Maybe under the cross bar.

I assume this happened on a footpath?

The underlying issue here is that bikes should not be on footpaths; but for as long as the roads arent safe for bikes, then bikes will be on footpaths.

eeguy

You can propose all the licenses, insurance, number plate and whatever else, but it's meaningless when the Gardai don't even bother to enforce current laws.

Danjamin1

How did an OP about cyclist position & presence on roundabouts get to this? We’re nearly at the usual licence em, tax em & insure em point.

Some cyclists are ****e. This doesn’t mean all cyclists are ****e. Ditto for motorists & pedestrians. There’s knobs using all and multiple modes of transport. It’s not a reason to ban one mode from a route unless it’s a purpose built route such as a motorway or off-road cycle track.

amcalester

eeguy wrote: »

You can propose all the licenses, insurance, number plate and whatever else, but it's meaningless when the Gardai don't even bother to enforce current laws.

Exactly, if laws against cycling on footpaths were enforced then it's likely PeterParker wouldn't have been knocked down and there'd be no need to identify the cyclist.

Fix the root cause, not the result.

Tombo2001

amcalester wrote: »

Exactly, if laws against cycling on footpaths were enforced then it's likely PeterParker wouldn't have been knocked down and there'd be no need to identify the cyclist.

Fix the root cause, not the result.

Well you see the problem with this - is that to get cyclists off the footpath, then you also need to 'enforce' the law that motorists give appropriate room when overtaking cyclists.

And I know that this is whataboutery. But its whataboutery for a reason.

Because for as long as cyclists dont feel safe on the roads then they will cycle on the footpath.

Do you really thing cyclist want to be up on the footpath? No, they dont, absolutely not.

Now if laws protecting cyclists were enforced (or alternatively if drivers showed courtesy to cyclists, to the point where cyclists didnt feel so frightened that they shift on to the footpath), then the cyclists on the footpath problem might be addressed.

If you want to fix the root cause, then fix the actual root cause; not the root cause that only affects someone else.

amcalester

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well you see the problem with this - is that to get cyclists off the footpath, then you also need to 'enforce' the law that motorists give appropriate room when overtaking cyclists.

And I know that this is whataboutery. But its whataboutery for a reason.

Because for as long as cyclists dont feel safe on the roads then they will cycle on the footpath.

Now if laws protecting cyclists were enforced (or alternatively if drivers showed courtesy to cyclists, to the point where cyclists didnt feel so frightened that they shift on to the footpath), then the cyclists on the footpath problem might be addressed.

If you want to fix the root cause, then fix the actual root cause; not the root cause that only affects someone else.

Agreed, I didn't mean to imply only enforce laws related to cycling on footpaths.

There needs to be an attitude adjustment in most (all?) road users, that by following the rules of the road all road users will get to where they are going safer and possibly faster.

That won't happen though.

Tombo2001

amcalester wrote: »

Agreed, I didn't mean to imply only enforce laws related to cycling on footpaths.

There needs to be an attitude adjustment in most (all?) road users, that by following the rules of the road all road users will get to where they are going safer and possibly faster.

That won't happen though.

You are spot on re attitude adjustment. I remember getting a horrified reaction in Germany when i crossed the road on a red man. Thought twice about doing it again - over there..... not here. Its the norm, and in all walks of life.....(forgive the pun).

However, one can only really start with ones-self when it comes to attitude adjustment.

bigar

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You are spot on re attitude adjustment. I remember getting a horrified reaction in Germany when i crossed the road on a red man. Thought twice about doing it again - over there..... not here. Its the norm, and in all walks of life.....(forgive the pun).

However, one can only really start with ones-self when it comes to attitude adjustment.

Completely agree. If everyone would just follow the rules that are the same for everyone, there would be little need for enforcement.

Unfortunately in Ireland there is no inclination at all to follow the rules (and not just on the road). There is also an attitude the "he can do this without being caught, so then so can I". No matter how much enforcement they throw at it, it will never be enough as long as no one's attitude changes.

LeoB

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

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?

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

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.

It is common for primary schools to have cycle classes for kids who maybe are to start cycling to school. It is not knowing the rules of the road but about staying safe and helping them to make decisions at junctions or crossings.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

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.

People generalise bit like all bus drivers splash you. I hear so many complaints about cyclists (and van drivers). You will see and meet people who see red when they see cyclists on the road, Im not one but having observed what I did.........
This thread started about the junction at Lissenhall where I pointed out what was very dangerous behaviour by cyclists. NOT AN ANTI-CYCLIST THING.

While only 2 cyclists have caused deaths in last 20 years how many have caused accidents by swerving to miss a pothole, or like some motorists turn without any signal.

The more people cycling or jogging the better but a little more common sense and kop on would be nice from every road user.

LeoB

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

A 17 page thread about cyclists' poor behaviour, based on an OP complaining that cyclists were actually following RSA advice.

Actually quite representative of media discourse.

Or not following RSA advice. I want them to use the tunnel to stay safe. Was surprised to see this has gone to 18 pages now.

Danjamin1 wrote: »

How did an OP about cyclist position & presence on roundabouts get to this? We’re nearly at the usual licence em, tax em & insure em point.

Some cyclists are ****e. This doesn’t mean all cyclists are ****e. Ditto for motorists & pedestrians. There’s knobs using all and multiple modes of transport. It’s not a reason to ban one mode from a route unless it’s a purpose built route such as a motorway or off-road cycle track.

We have some right knobs on all modes ok.

Tombo2001

LeoB wrote: »

It is common for primary schools to have cycle classes for kids who maybe are to start cycling to school. It is not knowing the rules of the road but about staying safe and helping them to make decisions at junctions or crossings.



People generalise bit like all bus drivers splash you. I hear so many complaints about cyclists (and van drivers). You will see and meet people who see red when they see cyclists on the road, Im not one but having observed what I did.........
This thread started about the junction at Lissenhall where I pointed out what was very dangerous behaviour by cyclists. NOT AN ANTI-CYCLIST THING.

While only 2 cyclists have caused deaths in last 20 years how many have caused accidents by swerving to miss a pothole, or like some motorists turn without any signal.

The more people cycling or jogging the better but a little more common sense and kop on would be nice from every road user.

You might say that, but that wont stop cyclists from feeling that its an anti-cyclist thing.

The fact of the matter, as has been discussed ad nauseum, drivers pedestrians and cyclists are all culpable of breaking the rules. But by only identifying a problem with cyclists, you give the impression that its a cyclist issue, rather than wider issue with irish people's attitude to traffic laws.

There is a key difference however between cyclists and the other two groups.

Everyone has a perspective on being a pedestrian.

Most commuting cyclists have a perspective on being a cyclist and on being a driver.

Most commuting drivers do not have a perspective of what its like to be a cyclist.

Therefore, a hell of a lot of drivers are simply not interested in the problems that cyclists have with drivers. Its all the cyclists fault, in their eyes. They are only interested - as you have done - in pointing out the things that cyclists do wrong. They dont see themselves as part of the problem. Drivers will never start a thread on driver breaking lights, because they all do it themselves.

In particular, that extends to the media. There is a long list of media commentators that have gone on a rant about cyclists - Ryan Tubridy recently on the Late Late show is a notable example, George Hook regularly, Ivan Yates regularly, Ian O'Doherty regularly, Pat Kenny regularly, Fintan O'Toole I could go on and on and on....all middle aged men who drive and who dont cycle. there is a whole thread on this in the cycling thread. Even the Garda twitter account got in on the act.

Which in turn feeds into driver perceptions that the problem is all with cyclists.

Danjamin1

On my drive home this evening I spotted a woman driving her Nissan quashqai through a red light while starting at her phone held at her steering wheel then proceed to join the private traffic all using the bus lane illegally. Do you think anyone will start a thread about it though? Think about the implications there - a person performing multiple illegal, unsafe & distracting acts while in control of a ton of metal and nobody will bat an eyelid about it. That’s the most frustrating thing as a cyclist (a law abiding one at that).

No poor cyclist behaviour encountered on the journey funnily enough, thought I saw a woman cycling on a path but she was on an off-road cycle track. But yeah, all cyclists blah blah blah.

amcalester

Danjamin1 wrote: »

On my drive home this evening I spotted a woman driving her Nissan quashqai through a red light while starting at her phone held at her steering wheel then proceed to join the private traffic all using the bus lane illegally. Do you think anyone will start a thread about it though? Think about the implications there - a person performing multiple illegal, unsafe & distracting acts while in control of a ton of metal and nobody will bat an eyelid about it. That’s the most frustrating thing as a cyclist (a law abiding one at that).

No poor cyclist behaviour encountered on the journey funnily enough, thought I saw a woman cycling on a path but she was on an off-road cycle track. But yeah, all cyclists blah blah blah.

It’s willfull blindness. People don’t have to acknowledge their own lawbreaking if they ignore others doing the same.

Danjamin1

amcalester wrote: »

It’s willfull blindness. People don’t have to acknowledge their own lawbreaking if they ignore others doing the same.

I actually had a driver pull out in front of me on a roundabout too so in the interest of this thread perhaps we should find an alternate route for all drivers as they’re a danger to themselves performing such careless actions?

amcalester

Just ban roundabouts and replace them with 4 way stops.

John_Rambo

It's gas that this happened today on my way home. I'm teaching my six year old basic road skills on his bike by cycling on the road in a small estate on our way home with very little traffic. He's getting good, confidence was building. He's been cycling every day (more or less) since he was three and probably has better cycling skills than most drivers on this thread.

I was coming to a T-junction with him on my left on his little mountain bike, there was a car (illegally) parked on the opposite side of the road about 6 metres from the junction. We were turning left.

A motorist in a Ford Fiesta overtook us right before the T-junction but was obstructed by the parked car and pulled in on top of us with one hand on the horn, the other hand had a phone in it. She then overtook us whilst we were executing our turn left, she was on the wrong side of the road slowly drifting in to cut us off, hand still on the horn pushing me right up against my boy. (small roads built before large multiple car ownership in the area)

Ford Fiesta driver pulled in to a driveway 20 metres up the road. She hadn't even got out of the car by the time we went by. No rush, but full of impatience and malice, shaking her head from side to side at us.

Both of us had bright flashing rear lights and were clearly signaling.

Six year old now insisting on cycling on the footpath after getting a pretty bad noise scare. He brought it up twice tonight when I was reading him his story.

AndrewJRenko

LeoB wrote: »

While only 2 cyclists have caused deaths in last 20 years how many have caused accidents by swerving to miss a pothole, or like some motorists turn without any signal.

If swerving for a pothole causes a collision, that's a pretty good sign that the driver didn't leave anything near enough room to overtake safely. But regardless, why don't you answer your own question about how many cyclists have caused collisions (not accidents).

Tombo2001 wrote: »

However, one can only really start with ones-self when it comes to attitude adjustment.

I have to disagree. Certainly it is important to start with one's self - but we can all go beyond that too. Imagine if every driver with a phone in their hand got a beep from the neighbouring driver or a knock on the window from the neighbouring cyclist with a hand signal to tell them to put down the phone. Just imagine how effective we could be as a community as giving a clear response to this anti-social behaviour.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I pointed out that the imbecile who hit me sped off and there was no way to identify them. If that was a car at least there was a number plate.

They got away scot free.

The car containing the passenger who leaned out the window and hit me while passing had a number plate, but the car was an unregistered write-off, so the driver got away scot free.

tedpan wrote: »

One from last week
Wish the recording didn't stop in the middle. He literally did not look either way.

Pretty crap cycling for sure, but just for the record, I don't see that he endangered anyone other than himself.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Any thread about bad behaviour by cyclists is met with "de motorist is worse!". Now this may well be true but that's not the subject of the thread. Why can't the issue of naughty cyclists be discussed in isolation?

Because we only have one Dept Transport, one Road Safety Authority, one An Garda Siochana. Any changes to laws or enforcement for cyclist means less focus on the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week on the roads.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But the random breaking of traffic lights is so endemic both amongst cyclists and amongst motorists that the gardai really arent putting a dent into it. And also pedestrians, lets not forget.

Its impossible to police every single traffic light at all moments of the day.

Automatic red light cameras would go a long way down the road of enforcing.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I have been injured by a cyclist breaking the law. Because he didn't kill me, does that mean it is okay ?

Could you point to one particular post where anyone said it was OK that a cyclist knocked you or anyone over? Just one would be great....

PeterParker957 wrote: »

If for one second you could take off the blinkers and admit that cyclists break the traffic laws on a daily basis then people would have more respect for your position but sadly all that you get is deflection, after deflection and "but cars are worse".

I admit that cyclists break the traffic laws on a daily basis. Now can we get to prioritise the real danger on the roads - the motorists who kill 3 or 4 people each week on the roads.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

A cyclist was killed near me, completely and utterly their own fault - was on CCTV. The driver was pilloried in the local press and online yet he had followed every single rule correctly.

I don't recall any cases of cyclist deaths being caught on TV. Could you point to some of this pillorying in the local press and online please?

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I wouldn't say every cyclist is a menace, I don't know all cyclists - but I can say that in nearly 11 years of being a Dublin pedestrian I have seen several infractions daily, many that have the potential to cause loss of life.

And yet, all that potential has come to nowt. In those 11 years, no cyclist has killed a pedestrian in Dublin. Do you think that perhaps your ability to judge 'infractions that have the potential to cause loss of life' could be slightly flawed?

doolox wrote: »

A cop car was parked up on the left half up on the footpath ( as one does when you cannot be pulled by fellow cops, gives great example to the ordinary road-using peasants...). They did nothing to pull over the cyclist and just ignored the whole scene.

If every cop car dealt with every motorist they see breaking the speed limit or breaking a red light, they'd never get more than 1km from the station.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

So what, we don't try it with cyclists ?

Something like this maybe?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nearly-600-cyclists-fined-under-new-penalty-regime-1.2631593

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I take your points definitely, and I am certain a decent proportion of commuting cyclists are fine and dandy. HOWEVER, there are posters on here -
some with mod privileges - perhaps elsewhere - who will denounce ANY criticism of cyclists, no matter how warranted and belittle the poster.

The reality is actually the reverse. You can't brook any questioning, clarification, querying or putting in context of your posts. The problem is yours.

monument

@PeterParker957:

Read the charter before posting again. You’ve already been warned and told to read it but you seem to be unable to follow it.

There’s enough here for a permanent ban, but we’ll see if you’re able to change at all....

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Every single post the cycle mafia EVER post.

Name calling like this is against the C&T charter in at least two different ways.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

If for one second you could take off the blinkers and admit that cyclists break the traffic laws on a daily basis then people would have more respect for your position but sadly all that you get is deflection, after deflection and "but cars are worse".

nobody is claiming cyclists don’t break the traffic laws on a daily basis — so, you’re trolling.

—
Moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Don't forget to use tram platforms and pavements because "their(sic) better"!!

Attacking a poster / claiming they break the law just because other cyclist do — the jokey tone doesn’t excuse this.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

In reverse order yes, I have and you really don't think there's a pro cycling bias in the moderation ??? Always has been and always will be.

Discussing moderation.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Is my injury somehow meaningless because I luckily wasn't killed ??

Where has anybody said that? Please let me know by using the report a post feature and I’ll sanction them, otherwise stop putting words in other poster’s mouths.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Whataboutery 101.

Unproductive and non-engaging 101.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Cycling mafia, right there.

You’ve already been warned — you’re on your very last chance.

— moderator

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Cycling mafia, right there.

Trolling 101.

— moderator

Danjamin1

@PeterParker You’re not exactly interested in engaging in discussion are you? All you keep mentioning is how you consider dangerous cyclists a menace and you seem to consider them more of a menace than any other road user. No one has condoned bad cyclist behaviour. No one has claimed it doesn’t happen. No one has belittled your accidents with cyclists. And yet when people express an opinion different to your own you just start going on about the “cyclist mafia” as though cyclists interested in representing a different point of view to your own are blankly ignoring the conversation. I’ve seen some articulate & reasoned responses to you but you’re doing yourself a disservice with responses like this one.

Lord Glentoran

Curious how things change. Back in the early 1970s the peer pressure at school was "only cissy babies cycle on the pavement". Me and my friends took pride that we were learning the Rules of the Road and applying them. It is appaling that some cyclists feel that the road is not for them.

John_Rambo

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I did not "link" a hit and run to the fact that there was no ID carried. Try to read.

I pointed out that the imbecile who hit me sped off and there was no way to identify them. If that was a car at least there was a number plate.

They got away scot free.

I can’t help but question how you managed to get in to these situations so often.

Speaking as someone who’s worked and lived in the city for most of my life and never even had a near miss with a cyclist I find it amazing that you’ve had numerous accidents and injuries with cyclists where the cyclists have been unharmed and the bikes undamaged enableling them to “zoom” and “speed" off.

I suspect you're making stuff up to make cyclist look worse than they actually are.