Cyclists, Go use the footpad.

hot2def · 05-12-2008 11:09am

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Cyclists are road users too. .

great.

in that case - they need a licencing (sp?) system and a number plate so they as road users can be held accountable for some of the ridiculous and illegal stuff they do.

Doodee · 05-12-2008 11:25am

hot2def wrote: »

great.

in that case - they need a licencing (sp?) system and a number plate so they as road users can be held accountable for some of the ridiculous and illegal stuff they do.

I agree with this in some form.

I have gotten stuck behind a cyclist that was roughly 4-6ft away from the inner footpath and had no care to move in. Who can i complain to about that? It is the same as a car driving in the middle of the road.

Also in the mornings I have seen Cyclists cycle in parallel, 2's and 3's. Simply because they wanted to chat whilst cycling, that is improper use of the road AND cycle-lanes!

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some terrible drivers in this country (unfortunately a large portion are seen when traveling home to the west

) but Cyclist can also be very ignorant and selfish when it comes to road use.

Its a mentality in this country that people are always trying to get one over on us that is resulting in ignorance and selfishness and it really needs to stop!

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 05-12-2008 11:32am

Doodee wrote: »

I agree with this in some form.
I have gotten stuck behind a cyclist that was roughly 4-6ft away from the inner footpath and had no care to move in. Who can i complain to about that? It is the same as a car driving in the middle of the road.

The cyclists is not doing anything wrong. They have every right to cycle within their lane. If you want to overtake, do so as you would any other vehicle on the road.

Often the area at the side of the road is heavily potholed. You wouldn't drive somewhere if you knew it was going to damage your car so why should we cycle in such a way as to damage our bikes.

Doodee wrote: »

Also in the mornings I have seen Cyclists cycle in parallel, 2's and 3's. Simply because they wanted to chat whilst cycling, that is improper use of the road AND cycle-lanes!

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some terrible drivers in this country (unfortunately a large portion are seen when traveling home to the west ) but Cyclist can also be very ignorant and selfish when it comes to road use.

Cycling in 2s is allowed, in fact advisable especially in country roads. It makes them a lot more visible and it means a driver has to think about overtaking them. They're just trying to protect themselves.

Ciaran500 · 05-12-2008 11:34am

Doodee wrote: »

I have gotten stuck behind a cyclist that was roughly 4-6ft away from the inner footpath and had no care to move in. Who can i complain to about that? It is the same as a car driving in the middle of the road.

Also in the mornings I have seen Cyclists cycle in parallel, 2's and 3's. Simply because they wanted to chat whilst cycling, that is improper use of the road AND cycle-lanes!

Normally these things are done on purpose to stop people squeezing by them when overtaking is going to endanger them.

Doodee · 05-12-2008 11:41am

Sean_K wrote: »

The cyclists is not doing anything wrong. They have every right to cycle within their lane. If you want to overtake, do so as you would any other vehicle on the road.

Often the area at the side of the road is heavily potholed. You wouldn't drive somewhere if you knew it was going to damage your car so why should we cycle in such a way as to damage our bikes.

Cycling in 2s is allowed, in fact advisable especially in country roads. It makes them a lot more visible and it means a driver has to think about overtaking them. They're just trying to protect themselves.

I'm afraid i disagree, your saying that its ok for them to use the entire road yet they could easily avoid the potholes etc seeing as how maneuverable they are?
That might be a bit of a perfect world scenario but when this has occured to me there did not appear to be any hazards in the cycle lane.
When learning to drive you are taught to check your blind spots just in-case, I seldom see cyclists do this, instead they just maneuver.

Since most of my driving is in the city of Dublin I fail to see why there is a need to cycle in 2's and 3's when there is a cycle lane provided.

It's all well and good saying that Cars should squeeze past etc yet thats showing ignorance on the cyclists part, since they should respects other road users the same as they wish to be respected themselves.

Gran Hermano · 05-12-2008 11:46am

Whilst there are good cyclists and bad cyclists, just like there are good
motorists and bad motorists, the main difference is bad motorists will
eventually loose their license and get put off the road.

Bad cyclists don't have any real repercussions to fear.
They don't get penalty points.
They don't really have to worry about getting stopped or fined.
They have no registration number so others can identify them.
They have no certification/license to prove they can cycle without
causing danger to other road-users.

Hmmm, maybe the bad cyclists are bad motorists who can no longer drive.

Bring on compulsory testing and registration numbers for cyclists.
Those who are proficient at cycling and obey the laws should have
nothing to worry about.

I'm off to mail my TD. If the Green Party are going to try and increase the
number of cyclists they can at least ensure they are accountable and responsible.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 05-12-2008 11:46am

Doodee wrote: »

I'm afraid i disagree, your saying that its ok for them to use the entire road yet they could easily avoid the potholes etc seeing as how maneuverable they are?

Frankly I don't trust motorists to leave me enough room to maneuver around pot-holes so I have to make sure I always have enough room.

Doodee wrote: »

When learning to drive you are taught to check your blind spots just in-case, I seldom see cyclists do this, instead they just maneuver.

As a cyclist, you are not enclosed in a big metal box. You develop good peripheral vision and can normally tell where cars are by the sound of them. Most cyclists will still take a look over their shoulder before cornering or changing lane.

Doodee wrote: »

Since most of my driving is in the city of Dublin I fail to see why there is a need to cycle in 2's and 3's when there is a cycle lane provided.

Treat them like you would a slow moving car.

Dragan · 05-12-2008 11:49am

Rabble rabble anyone?

First off, it's not a "drivers" versus "cyclists" debate. Some drivers are bad, some cyclists are bad, that is the real issue here.

I can fully understand why people would be a bit pissed off at a whole group of people based off the behaviour of a small subsection, it happens.

I have been on both sides of the fence, the person in the car dodging the idiot cyclists and the person on the bike who is trying to deal with the traffic.

With regard to cycle paths, in some area's these can often be in pretty bad nick and generally very little though is put into them. There is a large section of the "cycle path" along the N11 into town that you simply could not cycle on if you wish to stay on your bike.

I can also understand why a cyclist might be about 2 foot in from the path, potholes are more common in that area they are avoiding in my experience.

There are no issues in this thread that cannot be covered off by people seem being a bit more concious of each other and agreeing to share the road.

It should be noted that i have been taken out of it TWICE at traffic lights by cyclists who feel they do not need to follow the rules of the road.

I have yet to be hit by a car in this manner, so i can fully understand why people get pissed off at cyclists.

Mr. Presentable · 05-12-2008 11:50am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you want cyclists to cycle on 19th century thieves specialising in pedestrian victims? to teach them a lesson like?

I've just realised, the OP has a cold!

dade · 05-12-2008 11:51am

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Don't blame the cyclists, the vast majority are safe competent cyclists..

Not in my experience as a driver. every day I see cyclists with high viz jackets covered with backpacks, I see more with no lights than with lights, I see more run red lights than stop for them. I see more fail to signal than signal, I see more weave in and out of traffic than stay in the designated cycle lane when they are present. Now I'm not tarring anyone with the same brush and I admit some cyclists that do behave in a responsible manner on the roads but from my experiences they are few and far between.

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Now that we're in recession we're stuck with shit road and no cycle lane..

Well they've recently taken away a chunk of the Malahide road to put a cycle lane in. Which I think is honestly a waste. See they put the cycle lane in place between the Oscar Traynor road and the Artane roundabout making the Car lane smaller. Even though there are two side roads running parallel to this stretch of road that they could have easily put the cycle lane into and keep the cyclists off the busy stretch of road and maybe make it safer for them.

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Also why should cyclists pay tax? There's no carbon emissions from a bike so their not polluting the atmosphere. And they do basically zero damage to the roads, not like the soccer moms driving their fat SUV's 50 yards down the road to drop their fat kids to school

motor tax had nothing to do with carbon emissions (this is only a recent thing) it was for the use of the road and the maintenance and upkeep of them IIRC. We use the road we pay to maintain it. Seems fair that if a cyclist wants a cycle lane then he/she should contribute to its maintenance and upkeep of it. Likewise if more and more bus lanes are put in place I believe motor tax should drop coz there's less road to be used

mp1972 wrote: »

2. Cycle lanes are lanes on the road like any other. If we are on it, it is NOT OK to turn left and cut us out so we have to jam on our breaks and nearly kill ourselves. .

agreed but if we have our indicator on and are ahead of the cyclist does the driver not have right of way to turn once it is safe to do so? On the same note if we are turning don’t zoom up the inside, cars have blind spots and the driver may not actually be able to see you

mp1972 wrote: »

7. Roads without cycle lanes are usually wide enough for both of us, stop hugging the curb so that we can't get by. Move the f**k over, if we hit your mirror because we can't slow down on time, tough s**t. .

open your eyes, learn to anticipate the danger and you should have no problem seeing the danger before it becomes too late to be able to stop. but if we hit your bike coz we can’t slow down in time tough s**t too

mp1972 wrote: »

11. Most of us try to be as safe as possible, .

Not in my experiences with cyclists. Not saying you are not safe but from my experience most cyclists I have encountered are not

mp1972 wrote: »

You lot REALLY need to learn the rules of the road.
.

Agreed there are a lot of drivers that think Amber means speed up and red means there’s room for three more cars but cyclists also need to realise these things too.

I also acknowledge that a lot of the cycle lanes are poorly thought out making the cyclist mount the footpath and back into the flow of traffic etc. My mother was struck by a bus in Dublin as the cycle lane came from the path onto the road. the blame I believe is two fold in this case firstly she should have looked behind her to ensure it was safe for her to come off the path, but the bus driver should have see her and the fact that the cycle lane had merged with the road.

Deleted User wrote: »

i don't know where this me being a bad driver thing came from.

Probably coz you said you had to dangerously overtake the cyclists. You should never have to do that. Thus if you find yourself constantly “having” to dangerously overtake then you probably are a bad driver because you can’t see that you shouldn’t be overtaking at that point and wait until it is actually safe to overtake.

Doc · 05-12-2008 11:56am

I would like to make the point that a cyclist that cycles like an idiot and hits / is hit by a car will likely be injured or at worst die. The guy in the car won’t, at worst he will have to repair slight damage to his car.

If the guy in the car drives like an idiot and hits a bike he could kill the cyclist easily.

A cyclist that hits a pedestrian would be very unlikely to kill the pedestrian and would more then likely be also injured.

My point is that while cyclist who cycle badly and brake the rules of the road are a danger and a nuisance it is mainly to themselves they are a danger and not to other road users.

Dragan · 05-12-2008 11:59am

dade wrote: »

Not in my experience as a driver.

Thats perspective, as a driver you are watching for the things that might cause an accident and ensuring that you drive safely, i hope.

To change that perspective, as a pedestrian i see plenty of terrible drivers every day. People who change lanes without indicating, come off roundabouts without indicating etc etc.

Ciaran500 · 05-12-2008 11:59am

dade wrote: »

agreed but if we have our indicator on and are ahead of the cyclist does the driver not have right of way to turn once it is safe to do so?

Then it is not safe to do so. If you were turning right and crossing the oncoming lane is it ok to pull out infront of a car cause you got their first?

Gran Hermano · 05-12-2008 12:04pm

It's the 99% of all cyclists that act dangerously and recklessly that give the other 1% a bad name.

Doodee · 05-12-2008 12:14pm

Doc wrote: »

I would like to make the point that a cyclist that cycles like an idiot and hits / is hit by a car will likely be injured or at worst die. The guy in the car won’t, at worst he will have to repair slight damage to his car.

If the guy in the car drives like an idiot and hits a bike he could kill the cyclist easily.

A cyclist that hits a pedestrian would be very unlikely to kill the pedestrian and would more then likely be also injured.

My point is that while cyclist who cycle badly and brake the rules of the road are a danger and a nuisance it is mainly to themselves they are a danger and not to other road users.

So because they are more vulnerable they are allowed to be ignorant?!?!
That is the exact logic that add to the fire.

I agree that conditions for cyclists in this country are shameful, but instead of blaming all those drivers you should be bringing to the Dail. If there was a curb between the cycle lane as seen in Amsterdam then I'd imagine cyclists would feel safer.

It really is time for people to actually take a stand and be heard by our government rather than arguing in Pubs and on message boards.

DeBeere · 05-12-2008 12:15pm

I cant understand the negativity towards the op.

Nearly all the drivers I know have some sort of gripe about cyclists! The cycle lane system is by no means perfect and the op is just suggesting a solution, even if it is a flawed one.

Please stop suggesting he take the Bus,train etc. as a lot of people cant.

Mushy · 05-12-2008 12:22pm

Sometimes when walking down to the bus to go to college, I'd be listening to music, and then all of a sudden this kid is right behind me...on the footpath, and cant hear him cos I've music playing. Now I know the road isn't the safest to be cycling(cpountry road), but footpath isn't wide, so I'm pushed out onto the road for him to pass. Might have a word with him sometime:P So thats a pedestrian perspective of why cyclists shouldn't use footpaths.

I remember quite often cycling from UCD to town when I lived there, it'd be dangerous to on the road. Through Donnybrook, the cycle lanes are potholed on the inside of a bus lane, so you'd be forced onto the footpath, with heavy traffic in the lanes that are barely wide enough for bikes, buses and cars. But when no buses there, it meant forcing out a bit. And meant good times in heavy traffic when cars would use the bus lane to skip the traffic, just stay in front of them not allowing them to pass. They get annoyed and even more delayed...teach them a lesson too, despite being dangerous for me.

And before ye car users get on your high horses, I always wore a helmet and always stopped at red lights!!!

Stark · 05-12-2008 12:27pm

DeBeere wrote: »

Nearly all the drivers I know have some sort of gripe about cyclists! The cycle lane system is by no means perfect and the op is just suggesting a solution, even if it is a flawed one.

Most kids I know get upset over having to share their toys. Doesn't mean they're in the right.

dade · 05-12-2008 12:32pm

Dragan wrote: »

Thats perspective, as a driver you are watching for the things that might cause an accident and ensuring that you drive safely, i hope..

Should a cyclist not also be doing the same?

Dragan wrote: »

i see plenty of terrible drivers every day. People who change lanes without indicating, come off roundabouts without indicating etc etc.

as a driver i see it too and it wrecks my head. I'm know angel on the roads I'm sure and I'm sure i probable fracture the odd rule hear and there, but I always indicate when changing lanes, always check my blind spots and mirrors when changing lanes, always maintain lane discipline, never overtake when it is unsafe, will endeavor to keep the cycle lane free if possible, unfortunately in some situations this is not always possible because the left turning lane and the cycle lane are one etc.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Then it is not safe to do so. If you were turning right and crossing the oncoming lane is it ok to pull out infront of a car cause you got their first?

Where did you get the notion that i was turning right from? my post was in relation to this comment.

mp1972 wrote:

2. Cycle lanes are lanes on the road like any other. If we are on it, it is NOT OK to turn left and cut us out so we have to jam on our breaks and nearly kill ourselves. .

so I'll ask it again. I am turning left, there is a bike behind me, the cyclist is a good distance behind me and i deem it as safe to turn (safe for me and safe for them) do i have the right of way or should i have to stop for the cyclist and allow them past first?

likewise I'm at a red light and and turning left and am at the light ahead of the cyclist when the light goes green who has right of way? the cyclist that has now come up behind me but is still a distance behind me or me? IMO i have right of way as i would if it was a car behind me. but I'm open to correction coz it's one area i don't recall ever being covered in driving lessons or on the test.

DOC wrote:

cyclist that hits a pedestrian would be very unlikely to kill the pedestrian and would more then likely be also injured

was there not a case over the last year or so where some cyclist was on the footpath and shouted "move or I'll run you over" to a pedestrian and then ended up hitting the pedestrian and causing them sever damage. if memory serves they may have actually killed them.

Doc · 05-12-2008 12:33pm

Doodee wrote: »

So because they are more vulnerable they are allowed to be ignorant?!?!
That is the exact logic that add to the fire.

That’s not what I said now is it. I was saying that the consequences of there ignorance are less sever to others and more to themselves as apposed to the consequences of an ignorant driver. I believe that cyclist should obey the rules of the road but that bad cycling has less of an impact on others as bad driving.

Doc · 05-12-2008 12:36pm

dade wrote: »

was there not a case over the last year or so where some cyclist was on the footpath and shouted "move or I'll run you over" to a pedestrian and then ended up hitting the pedestrian and causing them sever damage. if memory serves they may have actually killed them.

EDIT

yep here's one http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/cyclist_kills_pedestrian_article_157946.html

That’s fair enough but I don’t think I would have to search hard to find a case for bad driving killing someone. My point was that bad cyclists are far less likely to cause a fatality to anyone (besides themselves) then bad drivers.

Edit: Just read your link and it says this:
"This is only the second incident of a cyclist killing a pedestrian on the pavement since 1999, compared with the 80 pedestrians who are killed each year by motorists."

dade · 05-12-2008 12:38pm

Doc wrote: »

That’s fair enough but I don’t think I would have to search hard to find a case for bad driving killing someone. My point was that bad cyclists are far less likely to cause a fatality to anyone (besides themselves) then bad drivers.

true but a quick google will show that it happes more regularly than we would think.

Dragan · 05-12-2008 12:40pm

dade wrote: »

Should a cyclist not also be doing the same?

Of course, and i never said they shouldn't. But from the cyclists point of view a bus, car or truck is far more physical threat than another cyclists, so they may be less inclined to spot dangerous behaviour in fellow cyclists.

quad_red · 05-12-2008 12:41pm

fletch... wrote: »

But roads are built for cars, cycle lanes for cyclists and fields for horses.
Hows about if i drive my car up the cycle lanes to avoid traffic?

Ive been knocked on my motor bike, had cyclsts damage mirrors ect on my bike and car and they dont bother to stop and apologies or offer to pay for damage so naturally im a bit bitter against them, now if i was to bump into or over a cyclist in my gigantic 4x4 while on a road which is made for cars it would be a different story alltogether.

in other words STAY OUT OF MY WAY!!!!

Laughable. You've never cycled on the quays in Dublin and had incredulous motor cyclists go crazy because a cyclist is blocking their undertaking lane/the cycle lane.

How dare cyclists even step onto the 'road which is made for cars' :rolleyes:

And as both a driver and a cyclist, I think a motor cyclist generally accusing any other group of road users as being discourteous or downright law breaking is hilarious.

Ciaran500 · 05-12-2008 12:46pm

dade wrote: »

Where did you get the notion that i was turning right from? my post was in relation to this comment.

Notice the word if at the start of my sentence? I was comparing it to a situation where you were crossing a traffic lane, why should it be any different for a cycle lane.

dade wrote: »

so I'll ask it again. I am turning left, there is a bike behind me, the cyclist is a good distance behind me and i deem it as safe to turn (safe for me and safe for them) do i have the right of way or should i have to stop for the cyclist and allow them past first?

If you have to cause the cyclist to brake so you can cross his lane then you should wait for the cyclist to pass before doing so.

Stark · 05-12-2008 12:56pm

fletch... wrote: »

But roads are built for cars, cycle lanes for cyclists and fields for horses.
Hows about if i drive my car up the cycle lanes to avoid traffic?

Ive been knocked on my motor bike...

Well you shouldn't have been driving your motorbike on a road that was built for cars, should you?

Terry · 05-12-2008 1:06pm

I got to half way through page 2 and came to the conclusion that this is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most retarded thread to ever appear in After Hours.

dade · 05-12-2008 1:07pm

Dragan wrote: »

so they may be less inclined to spot dangerous behaviour in fellow cyclists.

ok i see where you're coming from

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I was comparing it to a situation where you were crossing a traffic lane, why should it be any different for a cycle lane..

because in general the vehicle in front of you if in your lane has the right of way. so if the left lane and the cycle lane are one as it is in a lot of cases when the car wants to turn should the cyclist not yield to the car that is turning?

it goes without saying that the lane you are crossing has right of way unless this right of way has been removed in some way. or at least it should but teh way some people pull out i may be wrong

Ciaran500 wrote: »

If you have to cause the cyclist to brake so you can cross his lane then you should wait for the cyclist to pass before doing so.

right so I am right in thinking that if the cyclist is a distance behind me and i deem it safe for both parties then i can make the left turn.

RoosterIllusion · 05-12-2008 1:11pm

I was told by three separate Gardaí to get off the footpath and use the road. That varies between the city centre and the suburbs.

I doubt there's enough cyclists out there to annoy you enough to have a problem with this. try cycling, you'll see that cycling on the footpath is, for the most part, far better than cycling on the road but the law is the law and the road is for them too.

Ciaran500 · 05-12-2008 1:11pm

dade wrote: »

because in general the vehicle in front of you if in your lane has the right of way. so if the left lane and the cycle lane are one as it is in a lot of cases when the car wants to turn should the cyclist not yield to the car that is turning?

it goes without saying that the lane you are crossing has right of way unless this right of way has been removed in some way. or at least it should but teh way some people pull out i may be wrong

But isn't the cycle lane the left most lane so you should be giving right of way.

dade wrote: »

right so I am right in thinking that if the cyclist is a distance behind me and i deem it safe for both parties then i can make the left turn.

Of course, but the original post was complaining about the very common scenario were a motorists goes past a cyclist then takes a left turn, cutting the cyclist up.

Cyclists, Go use the footpad.

Comments