Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823888#Comment_120823888

The court is 20 years ago before we had a bicycle craze in Ireland (which i agree with as i cycle abit) where would i get that info. I agree with your bicycle/truck even though it doesn't really make sense.

This is what the case i mention was based on, that the car was entitled to half of the available road space and the jujdge agreed.

Flinty997

...

Flinty997

...

monument

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823571#Comment_120823571

You have mentioned this. precedent a few times now and people are non the wiser as to what you're referring to, so, post a news article or legal judgement or something similar on this or don't post the claim again.

Do not respond directly to this message other than to providing evidence of the precedent.

-- moderator

monument

Just a reminded that I'm handing out infraction like confetti to anybody trolling or bring abusive etc and that applies to both sides.

Sorry to say that if you're abusive to trolls, you'll get it too even if I might agree personally with the sentiment.

-- moderator

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823949#Comment_120823949

i like to know things.

I would confidently dispute that claim!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824023#Comment_120824023

The court is 20 years ago before we had a bicycle craze in Ireland (which i agree with as i cycle abit) where would i get that info. I agree with your bicycle/truck even though it doesn't really make sense.

You claim to cycle yet describe a craze. Honestly, these are the hallmarks of the bullshitters who know everything best for people who cycle but in reality know nothing!

As for it not making sense, if you actually cycled, you would understand how it makes absolutely perfect sense. It is for safety reasons for a clear and obvious purpose. If you have ever been close passed, you will know the fear instilled because of the recklessness of someone who sees your life as worth less than their opportunity to get to a red traffic light one second quicker.

Your posts here today clearly show that your understanding of driving safely is a vacuum. You've passed a group of cyclists while admitting there was not enough space. You then proceed to tell us how you think think they were the ones behaving dangerously and should be banned from some roads. You really need a reality check. You really make it sound like your licence should be ripped up! Or else you're simply trolling - surely it is one or the other!

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120821967#Comment_120821967

But is that not the same attitude rampant among sectors of the cycling community, in particular, it seems to raise it's head often enough on the s2s cycle route with reports of cyclists intimidating pedestrians and other cyclists to 'GET OUT OF THE WAY'

Spook_ie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120823843#Comment_120823843

No the motorised traffic would not normally be causing an obstruction ( unless they were blocking a mandatory cycle lane ) as you are allowed to pass/filter on either side

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824073#Comment_120824073

I have had the close passes and am well aware of what yoi are saying which is the sole reason i am on this thread. People cycling two abreast on unsuitable roads are endangering themselves, read the heading of this thread and it asks what cyclists can do for their own safety. i am giving my views based on an actual event.`

I got warned for having an opinion.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824331#Comment_120824331

@apogee87 People cycling two abreast on unsuitable roads are endangering themselves

You've repeated this claim multiple times, and been asked to clarify why you think this is dangerous, but we're still none the wiser.

What is the specific danger that arises? And how does switching from riding two abreast to riding single file ameliorate this danger?

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824570#Comment_120824570

Do you think it is possible to safely pass a group of bicycles riding two abreast on a road 3 metres wide?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824592#Comment_120824592

You've already agreed that it was unsafe to pass then in single file yet were happy for the person driving your car to do it (and then come on here posting nonsense about the cyclists)

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824592#Comment_120824592

Still declining to answer the question, I see.

Passing anything on a 3m wide road; whether it's people on bikes (either single file or two abreast), a tractor, people on horses, people walking etc.; requires slowing down, evaluating the road ahead, and waiting for a straight section if you can't see far enough ahead to be sure you can complete the overtaking manoeuvre without finding yourself on the wrong side of the road facing an oncoming vehicle.

So I don't see the specific danger you are attributing to riding two abreast unless that danger comes from:

a) drivers wanting to travel narrow roads at a speed that does not allow them to stop safely if they come up behind another road user, which is illegal.

b) drivers want to overtake any 'obstruction' (your word to describe fellow road users) as soon as they encounter them, without taking the time to do a safe overtaking manoeuvre, which is also illegal.

Third request, what specifically is the danger you see from riding two abreast that could be ameliorated by riding single file?

I've explained in detail further up this thread why my many decades of experience both driving and cycling lead me to conclude that riding in primary position when alone, or two abreast when in a group, can be safer in many road situations. Please show the courtesy of explaining how and why you disagree if you're going to keep parroting this statement about cyclists endangering themselves.

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824653#Comment_120824653

Do you think the car should have turned around?

What i said from the outset of this conversation is in my opinion this road is unsuitably for a group of bicycles so we agree on that so why are they on it if it is unsafe. I am not talking nonsense this thread is about cyclists personal safety. I am well fimaliar with cyclists and a group passed here 20 mins ago, the road is wider so two abreast is fine. I did obtain some useful knowledge i did not know.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824235#Comment_120824235

Having spent much of my life living very close to it, and having walked and cycled it many many times, not once have i heard or seen intimidation of anyone. Now maybe it has happened and the reports you heard weren't made up but as they say "one swallow doesn't make a summer". To say that it is rampant is (as you know) nonsense which you're using to excuse the dangerous behaviour that actually.is rampant on our roads (speeding, phone usage, etc.)

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824677#Comment_120824677

Do you think the car should have turned around?

What? Why? You told us that the car passed the group (from behind). Are you now trying tontellnus that the cyclists were oncoming?

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824682#Comment_120824682

your confused?

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824658#Comment_120824658

its clear to me from some of the replies here that some cyclists are a danger to themselves, thanks for all he helpful info..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824760#Comment_120824760

Just assume that then and stay well back and take the 30 second delay to your important errands on the chin next time so.

apogee87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824786#Comment_120824786

I don't need advise but some cyclists does and also some people on here. I will toot as i found out here that the cyclists need to obey rules as well.

Its a pity i didnt take a pic/video clip as it may never happen again.

monument

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824331#Comment_120824331

For the record:

Discussion moderation is not allowed in-thread and this poster was already warned for such.

They also were never given a warning for having an opinion, they were warned for claiming something was a fact repeatedly without backing it up.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE.

-- moderator

monument

There seems to be a concerted effort by some people to get this thread closed. It likely will be closed again. In the meanwhile, some of you really need to unsubscribe and get over it. If you don't like cycling, go for a walk or even a drive or something.

-- Moderator

I was driving into town a few months ago at night. Dark and raining and I was faced with 2 guys on the same bike cycling towards me with not a light, reflector or bright set of clothes to be seen. Only the house light on the country road caught them I wouldn't have seen them, hit them and it would have been my fault for not being able to see a dark object in the darkness . Absolute lunacy .

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824760#Comment_120824760

16 = Number of times @apogee87 demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the rules of the road and motor traffic laws.

6 = Number of times @apogee87 responded with a schoolyard taunt rather than trying to address points raised.

5 = Number of claims by @apogee87 that people on bikes shouldn't be cycling two abreast or that they were putting themselves in danger by doing so.

4 = Number of times @apogee87 responded to requests to clarify the source of this danger either with clumsy attempts at changing the subject or just not responded at all.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) @apogee87 does not have any valid reason for believing people on bikes are putting themselves in danger by riding 2 abreast but is sore that it physically impedes him from driving illegally, and putting other road users at risk, just to make his journey time a few seconds shorter.

2) @apogee87 has no interest in actually understanding his legal obligations on the roads we have to share with him, only on distorting misunderstood half-facts to convince himself that being behind the wheel of a car somehow gives him priority over 'lesser' road users.

3) there is no point in engaging further as you might as well be trying to explain the finer points of particle physics to a 3 year old.

EDITED to correct typo

07Lapierre

I was cycling into Dublin last week. It was 7:45am.. it was bright and sunny. An 11 reg Audi approached me from behind and even though there was no oncoming traffic, he proceeded to pass me within millimetres of my right elbow!

I was wearing a white helmet, red Jacket, black shorts and white shoes.

I have no doubt that if he had hit me, i would have been at fault because I was not wearing a hi- viz jacket! Absolute lunacy!

SeanW

There's a difference between being at fault if you don't do something, and it just being a good idea. For example, my car predates the EU rules on Daytime Running Lights. Therefore, I am under no legal obligation to have running lights during the daytime (beyond brake, reversing and indicator lights). However, I usually turn on my low-beams, especially during inclement weather, even though there absolutely no law requiring me to do this. Why? Because it's a good idea.

And as a motorist, I certainly would be blamed if I were in an accident caused by not having legally required lights, e.g. non-functional lights at night time.

monument

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120831551#Comment_120831551

Cyclists are blamed for things that are not a legal requirement all the time and, similarly, cyclists are claimed to be breaking the law when they aren't (that's not to say that cyclists don't break the law).

magicbastarder

i did raise my eyebrows at seeing a family on an e-bike on clare island - both parents and two kids - on one bike.

then again, none of the cars on clare island seem to be taxed, NCTed or insured.

Seth Brundle

Going back to the part of the discussion about cyclists wearing dark clothes, an evaluation of stats in Scotland has shown.

The data, collated by Cycling Scotland, shows that 54 cyclists were killed and a further 1,836 seriously injured in road collisions throughout Scotland between 2015 and 2021.

Analysing the “contributory factors” assigned by Police Scotland to all collisions, Cycling Scotland found that over 70 percent of crashes involving motorists and cyclists were the fault of the driver. For both drivers and cyclists, the most common cause of a collision is a failure to look – though of the 512 “failure to look” incidents, 374 were assigned to the motorist.

“Aggressive driving” and “vehicle door opened or closed negligently” were also in the top 10 reasons for collisions, Cycling Scotland found.

However, in the incidents where the cyclist was deemed to be at fault, “wearing dark clothing at night” was assigned to only 19 collisions between 2015 and 2021, the ninth most common cause of crashes where the cyclist was at fault.

So dark clothing was assigned to about 1% of the incidents!

https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-fault-almost-three-quarters-all-collisions-302565

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120857626#Comment_120857626

Island vehicles are exempt from NCT and are 100 euro to tax, but yeah you rarely see even that being paid.

"Exemptions from NCT,Cars permanently based on islands that are not connected to the mainland by road do not have to be tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel-and-recreation/vehicle-standards/national-car-test/#:~:text=Exemptions%20from%20NCT,-Vehicles%20registered%20before&text=Cars%20permanently%20based%20on%20islands,not%20subject%20to%20mandatory%20testing.