Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

J Mysterio wrote: »

Just not true for Dublin though, maybe the rest of the country.

Not sure about that - many peoplein Dublin who cycle own cars, its just faster, cheaper and less stressful to cycle.

antix80

bobbyss wrote: »

The cyclist may be liable for damage but what's to stop the cyclist continuing on? If another car scraped you in these circumstances at least you can get reg number etc.

Seriously.. why are you telling me this? Maybe I'm missing something. Think I'll unfollow this crap thread.

The Enbalmer

magicbastarder wrote:

One of the more startling stats about cycling is that more female secondary School students drive to school than cycle.

School kids driving to school now?

The Enbalmer

beauf wrote:

Even if we are not lots of people get a licence but then don't buy a car for many years later.

I've never heard of anybody getting a driving licence and then waiting "many years" to get a car...its the opposite of how it works.

You're just making stuff up now.

The Enbalmer wrote: »

I've never heard of anybody getting a driving licence and then waiting "many years" to get a car...its the opposite of how it works.

You're just making stuff up now.

People drive their parents cars for years. Or use car sharing like GoCar. Very common in big cities. People don't bother having a car. Just hire one when needed.

magicbastarder

I got my licence in 1999, and bought my first car in 2012.

The Enbalmer

magicbastarder wrote:

I got my licence in 1999, and bought my first car in 2012.

Of course you did.

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Of course you did.

Lot of people would learn to drive on parents cars and pass their test, go away to college, never need a car for years.

In many big cities having a car is a bit of a pain.

Chiparus wrote: »

Lot of people would learn to drive on parents cars and pass their test, go away to college, never need a car for years.

In many big cities having a car is a bit of a pain.

As I said, holding a drivers license doesn't mean that you do drive though, or even that you know how to drive! Most people would agree that learning to drive is an on going experience and if you don't do it you don't learn.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said, holding a drivers license doesn't mean that you do drive though, or even that you know how to drive! Most people would agree that learning to drive is an on going experience and if you don't do it you don't learn.

Why are taxi drivers so bad then?

Chiparus wrote: »

Why are taxi drivers so bad then?

Not all of them, just like any other road users some are worse than others. I suppose you'd be complaining if I'd said it about cyclists though. Which kind of proves that cyclists are just as bad as anyone else.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not all of them, just like any other road users some are worse than others. I suppose you'd be complaining if I'd said it about cyclists though. Which kind of proves that cyclists are just as bad as anyone else.

Except they dont kill .

magicbastarder

I lived a 25 minute walk from O'Connell bridge from 2003 to 2012. I'd have been an idiot to own a car when I'd specifically bought a house in a location without the need for one.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said, holding a drivers license doesn't mean that you do drive though, or even that you know how to drive! Most people would agree that learning to drive is an on going experience and if you don't do it you don't learn.

Kinda hard to have a full licence (ignoring the amnesty 40yrs ago) and not have learnt how to drive and the rules of the road and have done some training at some point. Even if was just from someone you know.

This all started from the idea, that cyclists (sweeping generalisation) do not know the rules of the road or have done any training. Which you do (well as much as any driver has ) if you have a full license. Studies have shown a lot of cyclists are also drivers. That means people who also drive. That didn't mean people who haven't driven in years.

Really doesn't matter what you say to a flat earther though.

beauf wrote: »

Kinda hard to have a full licence (ignoring the amnesty 40yrs ago) and not have learnt how to drive and the rules of the road and have done some training at some point. Even if was just from someone you know.

This all started from the idea, that cyclists (sweeping generalisation) do not know the rules of the road or have done any training. Which you do (well as much as any driver has ) if you have a full license. Studies have shown a lot of cyclists are also drivers. That means people who also drive. That didn't mean people who haven't driven in years.

Really doesn't matter what you say to a flat earther though.

Well maybe the fact that so many drivers and cyclists don't know the difference between RRM022 and 023 or have even heard of the 2012 Statutory Instrument would seem to blow that theory out of the water.

Quite often the road markings and signs are not to any standard anyway or contradictory.
One I used to pass by a lot was lane marked as a bicycle lane, with a sign for buses only.

Also even where people know the rules. They choose to ignore them anyway.
Its not like many of them are enforced either.

So any discussion about rules, experience or training, is complete red herring.
This should be a discussion about how to deal with left turning cyclists in a safe and practical way.
Instead we've 14 pages of now mostly whataboutery.

Duckjob

beauf wrote: »

Quite often the road markings and signs are not to any standard anyway or contradictory.
One I used to pass by a lot was lane marked as a bicycle lane, with a sign for buses only.

Also even where people know the rules. They choose to ignore them anyway.
Its not like many of them are enforced either.

So any discussion about rules, experience or training, is complete red herring.
This should be a discussion about how to deal with left turning cyclists in a safe and practical way.
Instead we've 14 pages of now mostly whataboutery.

Unfortunately some people are so bitter and untrenched in their views that they are pathologically unable to contribute to a discussion without dragging it off topic down the same tired old pathways. It's pretty sad.

Duckjob wrote: »

Unfortunately some people are so bitter and untrenched in their views that they are pathologically unable to contribute to a discussion without dragging it off topic down the same tired old pathways. It's pretty sad.

In fairness it's both sides. I wonder how many times similar terms like metal killing machines were used. Once hysterical language is used you will get hysterical discussion.

Tombo2001

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness it's both sides. I wonder how many times similar terms like metal killing machines were used. Once hysterical language is used you will get hysterical discussion.

That's entirely fair at the aggregate level.

In any individual conversation, there is a point where discussion about the subject matter ends and mud slinging starts - that's an individual choice by the person who kicks it off - once that happens its very difficult to go back.

meeeeh wrote: »

In fairness it's both sides. I wonder how many times similar terms like metal killing machines were used. Once hysterical language is used you will get hysterical discussion.

Usually threads are balanced until one person comes in with the intention to derail the subject, and if unchecked they will continue to bait and troll. People are just responding to that one person. Again if they see it's unchecked will also continue.

Some people constantly do it.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well maybe the fact that so many drivers and cyclists don't know the difference between RRM022 and 023 or have even heard of the 2012 Statutory Instrument would seem to blow that theory out of the water.

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

One point and I also know its nit picking :

The driving test - from what I remember - is primarily a test of driving.

Can you parallel park
Can you turn right
Can you operate the steering wheel correctly
Do you look in the mirror appropriately

The oral test mainly relates to cars and parking:
When do you dip your lights
When do you use the hard shoulder
What is the minimum thread depth

http://erneschoolofmotoring.com/driving-test-cavan.html

Banging on about cyclists 'not knowing the rules of the road'

I think most people know at this point that a red light means stop.

What are these complex obscure rules that cyclists are not aware of.

Give an example of one.

The are rules that are routinely breach by cyclists, by drivers, by pedestrians:

Such as this one (Drivers) -
Some cycle tracks are bordered by a continuous white line on the right-hand
side. These are only for bicycles and motorised wheelchairs, so no other drivers
may use them or park in them.

Or indeed this one (Cyclists) -
At night you must carry a lamp showing a white or yellow light to the
front and a lamp showing a red light to the back. These are the minimum
lighting requirements laid down by law.

But that's ignoring the rules, rather than not knowing the rules.

magicbastarder wrote: »

I know it's kinda nitpicking but it's also not - knowing the ROTR and knowing specific SIs are two separate things. You're tested on the ROTR, not on knowledge of legal instruments.

The rules of the road are taken from the SIs, the rules of the road do include knowledge of road markings, RSA needs to update the RotR to include new legislation, failing to do so is an abdication of their responsibilities.

I don't drive often in Dublin (I don't need to) but I was to Mater a few times in last few months. I actually saw some of the worst driving and parking behaviour on roads in a long time there. There was some pretty poor cyclist and driver behaviour. That was not done by people not knowing ror it was people driving dangerously. Revant for this thread a driver just suddenly decided to turn left, didn't look or indicate, cut on the cycling track and completely squeezed the cyclist in their blind spot. Also everyone knows cycling track is not for parking and yet every one does it. All you need is tickets for parking in wrong spot to be issued to the whole row of cars and it will eventually stop.

No one knows all the minuscule rules but if people just stuck to most obvious ones you could avoid many of the incidents.

evolving_doors

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

Besides that I'd still let the cyclist undertake me if they were going too fast. But I'm not waiting all flipping day just to be nice. It's like holding the door for someone when you go in first, if they're a certain distance away then that's your cut off point.
Everyone's cut off point is different.

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

Stark

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

:rolleyes:

So if I was to swerve in front of you while you were driving without looking or indicating, it would be "your fault" for driving too fast? Get real.

evolving_doors wrote:

Also I've seen a cyclist zoom up the inside left and go flying because a passenger opened the door to get out. Sure it's probably the passengers fault but that's little comfort to the cyclist with a broken collar bone.

Correct, it's the passenger's fault.

evolving_doors wrote: »

If a cyclist isnt able to stop in time then they're going too fast. Whether the car even indicated or not.

That's like saying the car in the other lane was going too fast and that's why you crashed into them changing lane. It's up to the driver turning to check if someone is in their blind spot, not just look into the mirrors, that is basic requirement when driving (and one of main reasons why people failed driving test when I was learning to drive.)

And by the way the cyclist was going very slowly and was able to stop but that was seriously bad and dangerous driving.

evolving_doors

Stark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So if I was to swerve in front of you while you were driving without indicating, it would be "your fault" for driving too fast? Get real.

Dunno what your saying here so you'll need to clarify.

What would it matter to you or me if you were in front and I wasnt indicating? What's the outcome of this imaginary scenario, has someone been injured?
If you go in front of me then grand, drive on!