Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

03-06-2020 12:12am

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

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.

03-06-2020 12:14am

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..."

Right, I'm going to give up on you. You don't understand how the law works so there's no point in continuing.

03-06-2020 12:15am

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.

I'm not hung up, are you a moderator here? Surely you have read all my posts? All I have called for is mutual consideration on all fronts. 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.

I have been correct in each stage and have, if you read my comments, condemned asshole drivers as well but again, no drivers then went for my jugular.

Roger the cabin boy · 03-06-2020 12:18am

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.

I think you look at the words of the law too much and understand the intent too little.

Which brings me back to my first comment.

Cycling to the letter of the law is a dangerous exercise for all road and path users.

It's the indoctrination into modern society of the car as the primary mode of transport which is the underlying problem to all these ills.

Seth Brundle · 03-06-2020 12:19am

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.

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)...

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/)

So, can you please answer my original question and not move the goalposts?

03-06-2020 12:21am

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?

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.

Roger the cabin boy · 03-06-2020 12:23am

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.

I do.

Because I use that road regularly and that post isn't the only post or obstacle to occupy that stretch of cycleway.

Look at the broken surface in the photo. You wouldn't drive a car on that, so why risk your neck on it cycling?

You don't. Which is perfectly legal...

magicbastarder · 03-06-2020 12:25am

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.

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.

Seth Brundle · 03-06-2020 12:28am

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.

How is a cyclist travelling in the middle of the lane (on anything but a country lane) breaching any of the above?

magicbastarder · 03-06-2020 12:32am

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."

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.

03-06-2020 12:33am

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.

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.

Roger the cabin boy · 03-06-2020 12:38am

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.

I would dearly love to have good cycling lanes.
I abhor the token pavement painting exercise I showed above. It an insult to all .
Good cycle lanes are great and I use good ones when available.

I avoid the bad and dangerous ones regardless

magicbastarder · 03-06-2020 12:41am

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.

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.

03-06-2020 12:42am

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.

Maybe but that's what the law states. Again, I was asked to quote the law and I have. I also showed case law backing my point up.

2 meters would be a wide car, your bog standard saloon or city hatchback would be smaller.

Again however, as per my original comment, if we all just stuck to our sections, followed the rules, showed some courtesy and didn't behave like ignorant Dick's, our journeys would be a lot nicer. Would you not agree? Would you not like to be able to use the cycle Lane without constantly going around parked cars or asshats that just randomly stop? Or my favorite driver peev, blindly swinging the ****ing door open.

cbreeze · 03-06-2020 12:43am

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

03-06-2020 12:48am

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.

I mean both. I don't know leopardstown so can't comment and yes I agree, some of them are blatantly just to satisfy some requirement in paper or to tick a box. Obviously you need to use common sense in those scenarios. If it's obviously not fit for purpose and can't be used, then so be it.

Part of mine it's obviously been painted into an already small path so now the actual pedestrian section is less than a foot wide. I can still use just of it though as it's not common to encounter pedestrians.

03-06-2020 12:49am

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

Are you sure it's not a shared path? If not then I completely agree with you.

magicbastarder · 03-06-2020 12:50am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

2 meters would be a wide car, your bog standard saloon or city hatchback would be smaller.

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.

03-06-2020 12:53am

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?

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.

03-06-2020 12:56am

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.

Including mirrors I guess so. Fair enough, it's not worth arguing over.

beauf · 03-06-2020 1:12am

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.

It's not needless to the cyclist.

If you were driving and everytime a faster car came up behind you, you wouldn't immediately pull in. You pull in where its convenient.

SeanW · 03-06-2020 2:09am

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.

I'm suggesting that you read a dictionary.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t

an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:

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 suicide or an act of terrorism.

Why do you want to let drivers off the hook?

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.

Thelonious Monk · 03-06-2020 7:02am

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

Tough guy. Why not just move over? I still can't get my head around why this annoys people so much, the nice weather has had tonnes of new cyclists out, some on footpaths, it's not causing any problems unless you want it to.
Anyway weather is sh*te again, you can all relax, most bikes will be gathering dust now till the next spell of good weather.

07Lapierre · 03-06-2020 7:34am

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

What offence are you referring to? What law is being broken by a cyclist (s) cycling on the road? Any motorist that can’t or doesn’t have the confidence/experience to overtake a cyclist(s) is the one delaying traffic.

AndrewJRenko · 03-06-2020 7:40am

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

You are willfully ignoring the professional context here, the fact that the professionals who work in the area, the people who pick up the pieces and wash the blood and brains off the road after these collisions, see the value in moving away from a PR-generated term 'accident', explicitly created by the PR teams for the motor industry in the 1930s, to the more accurate terms of 'crash' or 'collision'.

Drivers don't accidentally speed, or pick up their phones, or drink drive. Cyclists don't accidentally decide to cycle on the path. Pedestrians don't accidentally decide to walk on the cycle section of the path. These are all deliberate actions, intentional actions.

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.

Because Irish motorists continue to kill two or three people each week on our roads.

Now, here's another question for you to avoid - which of your family members would you choose to sacrifice to be killed for the greater good of the convenience of motorists not having to obey traffic laws - a parent perhaps, or the sibling you had a fight with, or the difficult child? Which one of your family will the the chosen one for the 'greater good'?

AndrewJRenko · 03-06-2020 7:49am

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.

What is 'needless' about my cycling journey? What is needless about taking the space I need to cycle safely?

If they're no room to overtake safely, then there's no room to overtake - hugging the gutter isn't going to change that.

And again, do you pull over when you're driving in heavy traffic in town when a faster cyclist comes up behind you?

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.

I don't focus solely on speed. I've mentioned mobile phone use, I've mentioned drink/drug driving, I've mentioned fatigue driving - all the deliberate actions of Irish motorists that result in two or three deaths each week on Irish roads.

And enough with the Canada stories. It would be hard to pick a country LESS like Ireland in terms of geography, weather and culture. It's just of no relevance here, and if it was in any way relevant, you'd need to provide a much deeper analysis that you've shown here to prove anything.

SeanW wrote: »

FYP. I stand corrected - some lawbreakers are being held to account with a small fine.

Just like motorists then...

Montage of Feck · 03-06-2020 8:38am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Cycling has turned into a quasi religion/cult activity, any transgressions by them are quickly turned into an exercise of whataboutery.

True members of the cycling cult would never cycle on the footpath, and look down on those who do

.

AndrewJRenko · 03-06-2020 8:57am

Montage of Feck wrote: »

True members of the cycling cult would never cycle on the footpath, and look down on those who do .

Ssssshhhhhh - the first rule of cycling cult is you don't talk about cycling cult.

Seth Brundle · 03-06-2020 9:30am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Maybe but that's what the law states. Again, I was asked to quote the law and I have. I also showed case law backing my point up.

Firstly the law does not state what you're asserting. You're misinterpreting the law which is actually fairly clear.
Secondly your case law was not relevant. What charge was the tractor driver charged under because your blog post "case law" example doesn't mention it.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

2 meters would be a wide car, your bog standard saloon or city hatchback would be smaller.

Again however, as per my original comment, if we all just stuck to our sections, followed the rules, showed some courtesy and didn't behave like ignorant Dick's, our journeys would be a lot nicer. Would you not agree? Would you not like to be able to use the cycle Lane without constantly going around parked cars or asshats that just randomly stop? Or my favorite driver peev, blindly swinging the ****ing door open.

What are "our sections" and where is this defined?

Seth Brundle · 03-06-2020 9:30am

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.

Seriously, you're trolling now! :rolleyes:

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments