Bus Eireann driver stands against the cyclists!

kenmc · 02-03-2005 09:34PM

ColHol wrote:

I once knew a guy who cycled to work once, and ten years later, BAM.....herpes

must've been riding the office bike. badoom tsch!

Victor · 02-03-2005 09:47PM

ChRoMe wrote:

Oh and while your at it. Its a good idea to wear some hi-vis gear at night otherwise its your own fault.

How about?

All cars should be lemon / canary yellow.

All cars should have **two** working headlights.

Indicators are used before turning, not when illegally parked.

If you have a 4WD vehicle, you should know how to use the 4WD.

02-03-2005 10:24PM

If this is gonna turn into a thread of motorists giving out about cyclists i think it's only fair for opinions of both pedestrians and cyclists of motorists to be heard too.
1 - As a cyclist i expect that all motorists should know how to use their indicators, just in the same way they we must indicate every turn, i have almost been seriously injured many times by idiot drivers turning left with no indicators on.
2 - The Road tax issue, what is road tax? it is tax that is used in the upkeep of roads, the average bicycle and cyclist weigh less than an american and cause no damage to roads, that is why we don't pay road tax.
3 - For those drivers who roll along too close to the kerb, think of this, what would you do if a skip was parked in the middle of the road, and you couldn't get by it, you couldn't move it, this is almost exactly what we have to deal with, the only option we have is to go onto the path, which is illegal!

There are far many more complaints that cyclists can lodge against bad drivers than drivers can lodge against poor cyclists!

Stephen · 02-03-2005 11:06PM

Its not like the motorist can get a registration number or something off a bicycle to use when lodging said complaint is it?
So what can you do short of demanding the guy's name and address? I don't see most people going that far to complain about some wanker who believes traffic lights don't apply to him.

(Before any of the all-motorists-are-inconsiderate-bastards fascists blow up at me: I see this from a few different perspectives - I cycled for years, then had a motorbike for a few years - cars are just as lethal, if not more so to motorcyclists - and now I drive a car)

Boggle · 03-03-2005 11:41AM

There are far many more complaints that cyclists can lodge against bad drivers than drivers can lodge against poor cyclists!

:rolleyes: In who's opinion?

I see alot of cyclists giving out about drivers but the thing is: at one stage or another a motorist is likely to HAVE to show they are capable of driving a car in town - cyclists never do.

I lived in Belgium for 3 years when I was younger and there when we were in school we were brought down to a mockup of road junctions, let cycle around it, and then thought how to act on the roads. That never happens here with the effect that alot of (supposedly) good cyclists are infact quite dangerous to themselves.

case_sensitive · 03-03-2005 12:04PM

Yeah, I remember that, they took us to a driving school in primary school, cycled bikes and go-karts round a track and they taught us how to indicate, turn, do round-abouts etc. And that was in Clontarf somewhere,free, something run in conjunction with Dublin Bus as far as I remember.

The go-karts were cool, no one wanted to be critiqued on their cycling, we mostly rammed into each other in our dodgems/go-karts.

pickarooney · 03-03-2005 12:43PM

I actually miss the rush of dodging City Imps, road-craters, NTL engineers and rogue taxis. Cycle lanes are all very well, but they're not much fun.

Ciaran_Dub · 03-03-2005 01:00PM

1 - I have been driving for a good number of years now and I canm remember the last time a cyclist gave a hand signal at a junction, you do realise that a cyclist should indicate if they are going straight through a junction, I have neve seen it happen.

2 - Road tax is paid not only for the up keep of roads but also for the privelege(SP) of actually driving on the road and use of roads. Regardless of wether or not a cyclist causes any damage to a road they still use it and should in my opinion be taxed for it

3 - Cyclists using cycle lanes joining roads need to slow down joining the road. It should be treated as a Junction like any other and that is too proceed only when it is safe to do so.

4 - Breaking lights sorry but who ever said "Whats the difference with cycling through a red light or dismounting and walking through" there is none you are still breaking the law and shouldnt do it. If you are walking through you will go through slower then cycling thus giving a driver who has the right of way more chance to take action against your idiotic move.

It might seem like I am taking the side of a motorists but I have had my fair share of run ins and arguements with idiotic drivers aswell. Fact is there is just as many idiotic cyclists as there are drivers. And there is just as many complaints to make about both parties.

The biggest issue is the lack of knowledge and rules of the roads by all parties that needs to be seriously addressed. Can anyone tell me is it not now illegal for a cyclist to use his/her bicycle without a helmet?? something else that the majority of cyclists dont do.

Also (last point I swear), the fuc*ing fool who said that he cycles home after being in the pub I hope you havent been drinking, this might sound pathic but you can just as easily get done for cycling your bike drunk as you can for drink driving. Most Gaurds dont inforce it but it is the letter of the law.

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 01:18PM

funnily enough i got in an argurument with a driver yesterday, i gave a hand signal i was going straight she thought i was turning left i gave a very clear "going straight ahead" hand signal with my right hand -she didnt know what it meant!!
this is the only hand signal i ever use, its far too dangerous to take my hand off the handlebars for any lenghth of time given the state of some of the roads & the sh_ite that is never cleaned out of the cycle lanes especially when nobody pays any attention to them anyway.
btw i think the breaking red lights thing was in the context of pedestrian lights on a straight road as opposed to at a junction/interchange in which case its suicide to try & run a red light.
im sure road tax is actually a motor tax i.e. you pay it for the privelidge of driving a car not using the road(in the same way the tv licence is for the tv itself not for what you watch).
motorists are advised to give a cyclist as much room as a small car when does this ever happen??
Lastly & more importantly bad cyclists exist & they are an annoyance bad motorists however are a threat to life.if the gardai want to target people breaking the rules of the road they should start shooting fish in a barrel & prosecute the large amount of learner drivers/prvisional licence holders driving unnaccompanied.

Ciaran_Dub · 03-03-2005 01:37PM

Kingsize wrote:

....this is the only hand signal i ever use, its far too dangerous to take my hand off the handlebars for any lenghth of time given the state of some of the roads & the sh_ite that is never cleaned out of the cycle lanes especially when nobody pays any attention to them anyway.

Thats where observation comes in, the same could be said for a motorist is afraid to move their hands on the steering wheel because somebody might walk out infront of them or drive in front of them.

....btw i think the breaking red lights thing was in the context of pedestrian lights on a straight road as opposed to at a junction/interchange in which case its suicide to try & run a red light.

It doesnt actually matter what type of lights they are, a cyclist is still bound by the same rules of the road as a motorist and they shouldnt break a red light.

....im sure road tax is actually a motor tax i.e. you pay it for the priveige of driving a car not using the road(in the same way the tv licence is for the tv itself not what you watch).

I believe your right, the phrase 'Road Tax' isnt used anymore it is now 'Motor Tax'

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 01:54PM

1: not saying its right but i value my life more than telling any driverswho care that im slowing down etc etc i know its against the law not to signal but pot holes are a real threat to a cyclist staying upright why would a driver have to take his hands off the wheel anyway?its not really the same thing anyway you can sit in a car motionless with your hands off the wheel you cant do that on a bike ( for long)

2: I agree that at a junction its lunacy but again its different - a driver cant get off walk up on the path & walk back on the road after the lights a cyclist can & as far as i know its legal.

seamus · 03-03-2005 01:56PM

Ciaran_Dub wrote:

you do realise that a cyclist should indicate if they are going straight through a junction, I have neve seen it happen.

Nope. Cyclists need to indicate going straight no more than any other road users. Perhaps you're confusing the signals you should give to other roads users with the signals you should give to a Garda directing traffic?

Road tax is paid not only for the up keep of roads but also for the privelege(SP) of actually driving on the road and use of roads. Regardless of wether or not a cyclist causes any damage to a road they still use it and should in my opinion be taxed for it

Perhaps we should impose an arbitrary tax on every person in the country. After all, we all walk on the paths and cross the roads. Privilege of having the road and upkeep on the road are the same thing IMO. If you didn't pay upkeep on the road, you wouldn't have the priviledge of the road. The only ironic difference being that if nobody but cyclists used the roads, the upkeep would be minimal, and even a completely destroyed road could be passable by cyclists and pedestrians but not by any other vehicle. Environmental factors are also a big account. The bigger the engine, the bigger your road tax.
TBH, I wouldn't have a problem taxing cyclists minimally, it might teach people that a bicycle is a priviledge not a right, but in the long run it could discourage people from moving to bicycles, particularly young people, just causing more vehicular traffic.

4 - Breaking lights sorry but who ever said "Whats the difference with cycling through a red light or dismounting and walking through" there is none you are still breaking the law and shouldnt do it.

Actually, it's perfectly legal for a cyclist to dismount, get up on the path, walk past the lights and join the other road.

The biggest issue is the lack of knowledge and rules of the roads by all parties that needs to be seriously addressed. Can anyone tell me is it not now illegal for a cyclist to use his/her bicycle without a helmet?? something else that the majority of cyclists dont do.

It's not illegal to not wear a helmet. But I agree on the ROTR. We need zero tolerance on the roads in this country if/when the Traffic Corps comes to life.

kenmc · 03-03-2005 01:58PM

Ciaran_Dub wrote:

4 - Breaking lights sorry but who ever said "Whats the difference with cycling through a red light or dismounting and walking through" there is none you are still breaking the law and shouldnt do it. If you are walking through you will go through slower then cycling thus giving a driver who has the right of way more chance to take action against your idiotic move.

Well for one, I said it, and I quote "And yes, if there is red lights and there is definitely nothing coming the other way I will go through them - the logic being how is it any different than me jumping off the bike, running across the road and back on the bike - cept it's faster than dismounting and running. " Note the phrase "and there is definitely nothing coming the other way". I.e. if I was walking and I would cross the road at that particular instant, then I will cross the road when cycling as well. again, how is it any different to me getting off the bike and wheeling it across the road as I would when I was walking. except that I would be faster cycling through than walking across.
that said I have seen people cycling straight through busy cross roads when there was loads of cars going through against them. fcuking nutters....

SteM · 03-03-2005 02:05PM

Ciaran_Dub wrote:

Thats where observation comes in, the same could be said for a motorist is afraid to move their hands on the steering wheel because somebody might walk out infront of them or drive in front of them.

Drivers regularly need to takes their hands off a wheel to change gears etc. Brakes are controlled by a drivers foot where as cyclists breakes are on the stearing wheels. Potholes effect bicycles much more than cars too and that needs to be considered given the shocking state of Dublin roads at the moment. BTW, cars don't indicate if they are going straight so why do you feel that cyclists should?

A.S.H. · 03-03-2005 02:08PM

I am mainly a pedestrian but ocasional cyclist, and when I cycle I will sometimes signal but mainly I won't because I have to keep my eye on the road ahead and if a pothole or sudden turn is need I will fall over into the path of a car which will cause me pain and also annoy the driver and hold up the traffic, in this sense I consider myself a considerate cyclist. I wouldn't have a problem with paying a minor tax if and I strongly stress the if the roads were kept in a good condition. Bike paths when they go onto the road can be filled with holes and bumps and if someone thinks that I will risk my life to stick my hand out they can go do something rude to themselves. it is in part due tothe terrible condition of the roads and the drivers on them that I now mainly walk or use a bus.

Ciaran_Dub · 03-03-2005 02:09PM

seamus wrote:

Actually, it's perfectly legal for a cyclist to dismount, get up on the path, walk past the lights and join the other road.

Nobody said anything about mounting the path to walk around the lights, it was implied walk through the lights, that is still illegal, the red light has been broken.

[QUOTE=kenmc
]And yes, if there is red lights and there is definitely nothing coming the other way I will go through them - the logic being how is it any different than me jumping off the bike, running across the road and back on the bike - cept it's faster than dismounting and running. " Note the phrase "and there is definitely nothing coming the other way"[/QUOTE]

but its still illegal regardless of whether there is something coming or not. What if more motorists did what you are doing? and you will notice I say more becuase I know they do it now that is how so many of the crashes with LUAS is happening.

seamus · 03-03-2005 02:09PM

kenmc wrote:

again, how is it any different to me getting off the bike and wheeling it across the road as I would when I was walking. except that I would be faster cycling through than walking across.

One is illegal and one isn't. You can't choose which laws to obey because you think you know better.

By the same token, what's the difference between a car driver getting out of his car, pushing it onto the path and across the road, and just driving through the lights if there's nothing coming? The second one is faster.

The same argument can be applied to motorbikes - and it's actually legal for me to dismount my motorbike and push it onto the path. Why shouldn't I start just ignoring lights because you choose to?

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 02:17PM

its more serious if a motorist breaks a red light in this way a car is far more dangerous
a guard will probably give a cyclist a telling off & prosecute a driver.
the high cost of motor insurance in this country is not caused by cyclists breaking the rules it is a direct result of the injuries / damaged caused by hundreds of poor drivers currently using our roads.
try cycling or driving up oconnell street DUblin & watch the pedestrians break the lights under the watchful eye of the garda

Ciaran_Dub · 03-03-2005 02:19PM

Kingsize wrote:

its more serious if a motorist breaks a red light in this way a car is far more dangerous
a guard will probably give a cyclist a telling off & prosecute a driver.
the high cost of motor insurance in this country is not caused by cyclists breaking the rules it is a direct result of the injuries / damaged caused by hundreds of poor drivers currently using our roads.

Well thats pretty much implied because a cyclist doesnt have to pay insurance!!!!!

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 02:22PM

my point is that most accidents dont involve bicycles at all they involve motor vehicles hitting each other & in each case brought at least one person is deemed to be negligent.As far as i'm aware the majority of accidents involving cars & bikes or cars & motorbikes are caused by the motorist (car driver.)

SteM · 03-03-2005 02:23PM

Kingsize wrote:

its more serious if a motorist breaks a red light in this way a car is far more dangerous

This is only true in the case of cyclists actually slowing down to see if anyone is crossing the road. I've seen far to many cyclists (and I'm one myself) go through lights way to quickly to stop if someone does actually step out onto a pedestrian crossing. It happens at the bottom of the hill on St Patrick's Street an awful lot.

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage.

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 02:25PM

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage

agreed but i rather take my chances there than with someone in a car if given the choice

Ciaran_Dub · 03-03-2005 02:27PM

Kingsize wrote:

my point is that most accidents dont involve bicycles at all they involve motor vehicles hitting each other & in each case brought at least one person is deemed to be negligent.As far as i'm aware the majority of accidents involving cars & bikes or cars & motorbikes are caused by the driver.

And you have the stats to back that up then?

Is1ldur · 03-03-2005 02:29PM

kenmc wrote:

I .....give them loads of room when overtaking and always make sure that there's none up the inside of me when turning....

Do I even need to say anything....

kenmc · 03-03-2005 02:30PM

I never said that it wasn't illegal. My argument is that they both amount to one and the same thing.

A.S.H. · 03-03-2005 02:41PM

AM slightly comnfused by the dismounting from bike and walking part of this. In this situation is that you are at a crossroads and you want to go straight ahead and the pedestrian lights for straight ahead are green? if so then the traffic lights are also green. so the way I am taking it is that you want to go ahead and the lights are red but there is no traffic coming across your path. if you were a pedestrian you would just walk across so why wouldn't you just cycle? I think. In that situation it is illegal to walk across the road as it is jaywalking however people do it anyway and so do cyclists. Yes it is wrong but there is still a major difference between cycling across and driving. for one you are generally closer to turn and so can see further. Unlike a driver who at the very least has the front of his car in front of him limiting his view somewhat. Also due to the mass of a bicycle

Sorry Started typing this much earlier and got called away from desk so by the time I got back finished and hit post it had been answere Oh well

kenmc · 03-03-2005 02:48PM

ASH,
yeah it's when at a cross roads or a t junction or whatever and straight through lights are red, but cross traffic is green but there's none coming for about a week. In that case if I was on foot I would think nothing of crossing the road, just like every other punter in Ireland, as jaywalking is not something that I have ever heard of a copper taking someone to task on. So the argument is that I could get off the bike push it through like someone crossing with a buggy and get back on the other side. And from there it's not too hard to imagine forgeting the dismounting and walking bit, the end result is exactly the same - I have transported myself to the other side of the junction without having to wait for the lights.

In fact i'd argue that it's possibly safer to do this if it's safe to do so than to wait for the lights to green and the driver beside you decides that he wants to go left without looking to see if there's a bike alongside him - at least by going through the lights there's no risk of being clobbered like this. Again I will state that this is only something I will do if I am 100% confident that there is nothing coming up the road. I have no desire to die, I'm having too much fun here.

Victor · 03-03-2005 03:43PM

SteM wrote:

A bicycle hitting a pedestrian at pace can do an AWFUL lot of damage

Typical bicycle: 15kg
Typical small car 750kg

Number of deaths from cyclists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 1
Number of deaths from motorists hitting pedestrians in the last five years: 500+?

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 03:44PM

for statistics try
http://www.nsc.ie/RoadSafety/Statistics/Name,145,en.html
Its not that difficult to work out really,even when you work out the main causes of car on car accidents
heres a quote from " Motorcyclists & Motorists – Sharing the Road Safely" also a national safety council publication

"It is estimated that in over 70% of crashes involving a motorcycle and a car, the car driver is at fault. The reason is that the driver failed to anticipate the presence of the motorcycle. Most crashes occur when a vehicle emerges from a junction into the path of the motorcyclist."

Kingsize · 03-03-2005 03:45PM

victor apologies i was quoting somebody else but omitted the quotation marks read back a few posts & youll see i was actually making the same point as you.

Bus Eireann driver stands against the cyclists!

Comments