Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Turning left in car with cyclist behind you

1…5791011

Comments

  • #182
    Chiparus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    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.


  • #183
    antix80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭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.


  • #184
    The Enbalmer
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭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?


  • #185
    The Enbalmer
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭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.


  • #186
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,321 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


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


  • #188
    The Enbalmer
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭The Enbalmer


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


    Of course you did.


  • #189
    Chiparus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    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.


  • #190
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.


  • #191
    Chiparus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.


  • #193
    Chiparus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    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 .


  • #194
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,321 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #195
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    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.


  • #196
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.


  • #197
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    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.


  • #198
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭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.


  • #199
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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.


  • #200
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,743 ✭✭✭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.


  • #201
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,321 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #203
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,743 ✭✭✭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.


  • #204
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.


  • #205
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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.


  • #206
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #207
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,174 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #208
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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.


  • #209
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #210
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    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!

    What you are advocating here is just bad driving. You are supposed to indicate well in advance, not assume people will read your mind and check you mirrors and blind spots.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,174 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    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!

    Try reading the post you replied to again. You wouldn't consider it okay to change lanes without looking or indicating on a motorway and nearly causing a crash so why is it okay to do it to a cyclist?


Advertisement