Niner leprauchan wrote: » Your causing a needless obstruction and not staying to the left of the lane. You won't agree with my answer though but that's it, you want the car that's overtaking to give you a safe distance do you not? They can't if it's too narrow. And it could well be a country road / Lane and we both know they can be mighty narrow.
SeanW wrote: » You were ****ting on Irish motorists. I provided context. Yes, you consider context, data and evidence to be irrelevant, but that's just you. Which is not only provably impossible, but the data shows that Irish motorists are actually relatively good at not killing people. Yet you focus solely on speed? No. I don't. For one thing, Ireland has a very strange definition of "urban area" and so the risks you claim from "speeding in urban areas" is severely overstated. For example, according to Irish transport planning, this road is an "urban road" with an urban area speed limit of 60kph. Or how about this, also an "urban area" with a 60kph limit. Or, how about this "core urban street" with its 50kph limit? AFAIK, this crap is unique to Ireland. I don't think that having a large scale clampdown on people driving above 50kph past fields and out-of-town ribbon developments would accomplish a whole lot. Furthermore, I dare say that most sane people would agree. But according to you, anyone who does so is part of your "98%"Try getting a drivers license in Canada. Their system would rival any Byzantine absurdity. It takes many years and a multitude of tests to become fully licensed. If they enforce their laws anything like the way the regulate their Byzantine licensing system, then there should be fewer road deaths per capita/vehicle/km driven than Ireland - and BOTH should be contributing to that. Because according to your kind, regulating motorists more should result in lower road deaths. But as Ireland v. Canada proves, not only is that untrue, but the exact opposite is true. There's a similar dynamic in China where the laws regulating motorists are so severe that you're not even allowed to change the colour of your car. Doesn't stop the drivers from driving like they're trying to kill everyone.
SeanW wrote: » FYP. I stand corrected - some lawbreakers are being held to account with a small fine.
SeanW wrote: » I'm suggesting that you read a dictionary.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t You can argue that a road user contributed to an accident through negligence or error, or took undue risks, does not change the fact that a collision caused without specific intent is - by dictionary definition - accidental. The only reason to use a term like "collision" is if there is suspicion that it may have been intentional, e.g. a vehicular
SeanW wrote: » A better question is why you spend so much time hijacking threads to take a dump on Irish motorists, who - as a general rule - are relatively good, and for the most part, regulated appropriately.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Andrew surely scored the double today, longest post and most quotes. Your on fire young man. Have ye no work to be doing in that cushy golden pensioned number you call a job? Seriously though, cyclists being traffic doesn't stop them delaying traffic. A slow car is traffic too, so are tractors. There's still the offence being committed if they are crawling
cbreeze wrote: » I was walking on a footpath and I heard a bicycle bell behind me. The female cyclist was actually expecting ME to get out of her way! Needless to say I held my ground and did not give way
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Are you suggesting that the parties didn't intentionally walk or cycle in those particular places? I've no knowledge of this incident, but almost all actions on the road and the path and cycle lane are intentional. Drivers speed intentionally, drivers use their phones intentionally, drivers have a few pints intentionally, cyclists cycle on paths intentionally, pedestrians walk on cycle lanes intentionally. RSA don't refer to accidents. Gardai don't refer to accidents. Fire and ambulance service don't refer to accidents.
an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:
Why do you want to let drivers off the hook?
magicbastarder wrote: » My car - an Octavia, so not small but not particularly large - is over 2m wide. A Nissan leaf is 3cm short of 2m, so 2m seems a fair figure to use.
Seth Brundle wrote: » How is a cyclist travelling in the middle of the lane (on anything but a country lane) breaching any of the above?
Niner leprauchan wrote: » 2 meters would be a wide car, your bog standard saloon or city hatchback would be smaller.
magicbastarder wrote: » Do you mean cycle lanes or cycle paths? I.e. both on road and off road, or only off road? Like many cyclists, on about half my commute I use cycle lanes or paths. Some I ignore completely though because they're an insult to the concept of cycling. Leopardstown road, especially westbound, is an example.
magicbastarder wrote: » If I cycle 50cm out from the kerb, and my bike is 50cm wide, and a passing car gives me a 1m gap, and that car is 2m wide, we're already at 4m. The industry standard width for a motorway lane is, IIRC, 3.2 or 3.3m. It's wider than most lanes. So to overtake safely, a car would have to leave the lane regardless, and can only do so if the oncoming lane is clear. If the oncoming lane is clear and available, it doesn't matter if I'm 50cm out or 1.2m out, the motorist can overtake safely by moving briefly into the oncoming lane.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » In regards the cycle Lane, when only in reply to others but I do still hold the personal opinion that they should be used more. The stretch I cycle I can cover about half using a cycle Lane on the path. It's by far the safest I feel when cycling.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » If you were only 2 foot out he would have more space to pass and should, if the driver is being equally responsible, give you enough space when passing. I take your point about being safe, I do and possible 'hugging' was a bad choice on my part. Let's say as the act does, reasonable to the left. In regards the cycle Lane, when only in reply to others but I do still hold the personal opinion that they should be used more. The stretch I cycle I can cover about half using a cycle Lane on the path. It's by far the safest I feel when cycling. Or an example, the cycle lanes going past the airport in old swords road, double lanes, large and smooth, away from the trucks, etc. Why not use them? Same with the ones going along the canal on the ifsc, can't remember the roads name but again, smooth dedicated cycle lanes away from tm built up traffic.
magicbastarder wrote: » I'm not a mod here. I did think that quoting law specific to a context which is so marginal it clearly didn't apply to the context being discussed, seemed distractionary. FWIW, I take the road on the bike when it suits me, and don't hug the kerb in most circumstances because I've seen too many close passes. so if a motorist wants to overtake me, they can do it when it's safe. If it's not safe to overtake when I'm four foot out from the kerb, I sure as **** don't want the motorist overtaking me when I'm two foot out. Granted, I'm a reasonably fast cyclist and in city centre traffic would often be faster than the motorised traffic anyway.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » "Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right."
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I have done so a number of times now. It's above your post. "Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.". That's in statutory instrument 182 / 1997.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I ended up arguing with cyclists because they are the ones frothing at the mouth over my posts and telling me I'm wrong when as you have now admitted, I'm actually correct.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Right, I'm going to give up on you. You don't understand how the law works so there's no point in continuing.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Firstly I quoted your original post, nit your edited version. Anyhow, when asked to cite the law to about giving way to faster vehicles, not causing an obstruction you post the following which refers to contra-flow cycle lanes for some reason and that makes reference to a case involving a tractor six years ago (which is supposedly "proof" that cyclists should get out of the way of motorists)... So, can you please answer my original question and not move the goalposts?
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Are you aware of the law staying you should give way to faster vehicles and not cause an obstruction? How about the law that states you should stay as far to the left as reasonable possible? Disregard, your comments say all I need to hear. Your one of them.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » A, statutory instrument 332 / 12: " A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track." Section 98, road traffic act 1961. "A person shall not do any act (whether of commission or omission) which causes or is likely to cause traffic through any public place to be obstructed." Proof in case law : "A tractor driver in Co. Mayo last year was fined €300 and banned from driving for a year for causing an excessive tailback." (https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/do-farmers-have-to-pull-over-to-let-traffic-pass/)
Niner leprauchan wrote: » What? Are you just changing to try and twist out? I was asked about passing on the left then it was stated that cyclists must pass on the right. What I have quoted clearly shows that's incorrect. I quoted a statutory instrument that shows some cycle lanes are mandatory. Despite the actual wording being quoted you then proceeded to tell me it was never enacted. I then posted a link showing it was. The simple reality here guys is that there's a requirement to stay on the left, yes you need to be safe as well and not scraping the kerb as you go but should be on the left. There's a requirement to allow enough space for cars to safely overtake you. Again there's an obligation on the driver's to also allow space and overtake safely. There's a requirement in some cases, to use cycle lanes and not the road. And again, there's a requirement for cars not to obstruct the cycle Lane in most but not all cases. All this is covered in various acts and statutory instruments. Be you cyclist, pedestrian or driver, there's requirements and expectation on us to behave responsible and with regards to others. And I'm a cyclist most days by the way, again as I stated earlier.
magicbastarder wrote: » Ok, it's mandatory to cycle in some cycle lanes. Can you explain why you're so hung up on arguing this specific point when it's clearly not the context being discussed? The number of such qualifying cycle lanes in Dublin is a *tiny* fraction of all cycle lanes.
Roger the cabin boy wrote: » Still wrong. "If safe and possible to do so" applies to all rules. Or would you have cyclists wait patiently in the lane whilst Bob who has parked in it, returns from picking up his dole money from the post office.... "Excuse me whilst I commit suicide by not breaking the law..."
Roger the cabin boy wrote: » Erm, that just confirms my point? You as a car driver, overtake on the right in normal use, but can undertake in slow lane conditions. The rule applies regardless of where the lane is. For cycling, a clarification is required as noted stop car drivers from getting het-up because bikes pass them on the inside when they are stuck picking their nose in traffic. Read the rules, don't just look at them lol
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Not selective at all. The part I quoted is very clear in what it states. Is it not? Have I misled in some way? Did I not state that?
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Yes, thus I said there's times when it's a legal requirement. I didn't say all times and all lanes. Here's exactly what I said: "As per my above post, there is a legal requirement to use some cycle lanes" Again, SOME CYCLE LANES.
magicbastarder wrote: » Ah. Selective quoting, without saying so. Carry on.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » **** me, you really are all heads in sand aren't you? It takes 20 seconds to Google these. Try it before commenting "A cyclist can overtake a vehicle on the left (or inside of the flow of traffic) if the vehicles to the right are stationary or moving more slowly than the cyclist." (https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html) That's the exact scenario you stated. Here's the part about allowing traffic to pass: "Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.". That's in statutory instrument 182 / 1997. Again, instead of arguing with me and being incorrect, how about a little empathy and consideration all round?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
