Stinicker wrote: » Cyclists are not required by law to have insurance or pay no road taxes despite using the road like every other road user. A cyclist at speed could easily kill a pedestrian especially a child yet they treat the road like it is a free for all on open season.
pickarooney wrote: » I don't there's such a thing as road tax in Ireland, unless it's been introduced recently. I wonder if they brought in compulsory insurance and some nominal cycling tax in direct exchange for setting up proper cycle paths, separated from the road, on all roads above a certain class would cyclists go for it? If I were in that situation I definitely would, and it would make life so much easier for everyone.
Deleted User wrote: » I want you to perform a thought experiment for me. Imagine you are in your car and on the dash is one of those dual stopwatches they use in chess to determine how long each player has taken to take all their turns throughout the game. Run stopwatch A everytime you are stuck behind a group of cyclists, and stopwatch B everytime you are stuck behind other cars in a traffic que. Which do you think will have amassed more time at the end of a days driving?
short circuit wrote: » I bet both of you sit quietly behind a tractor. Why is it that if its a group of cyclists, you start seeing red.
Stinicker wrote: » Don't you dare to judge or criticise my driving.... Cyclists who cycle two+ abreast on any stretch of road deserve to be flattened if you ask me.....
stovelid wrote: » You're just engaging in whataboutery again. Answering every single criticism of cyclists with a denunciation or negative example of motorists (of which there are many). We're discussing the foolish behaviour of cyclists. I would be just as willing to contribute same to a thread on idiot motorists. In the case of your analogy, some cyclists are guilty of "legal/permissible" but discourteous behaviour, not unavoidable delays at lights or traffic jams.
Deleted User wrote: » There are many reasons for riding 2 abreast: Makes it easy to talk to fellow riders, helps the time pass on 4 hour plus rides Allows rotation of riders at the front; the riders at the front have to work significantly harder than the riders behind, because they are exposed to the wind, standard group riding technique is to move up on the right, move over to the left when you get to the front, then the next person that was behind you on the right pulls over to the left in front of you and so on until you are at the back, then cross over to the right again and repeat.
stovelid wrote: » .
Deleted User wrote: » What? Just because it has benefits for the riders doesn't negate the previous 2 points that you so studiously ignored.
stovelid wrote: » I believe that the reasons quoted are the most important to you. Whereas - as a fellow road user - I no more care about your need to chat with your mates on long journeys or what best conveniences your sport than you should care about what CD I play in my car?
Big Steve wrote: » Couldn't agree more. Its about time that cyclists have to start putting licence plates on all bikes by law and/or have some form of 3rd party insurance......Oh by the way I work in insurance.
DirkVoodoo wrote: » I think I read that the cost of "cycle paths" is something along the lines of 70,000 euro per km.
Deleted User wrote: » What!!?! Find that figure a bit suspect, considering most cycle lanes consist of a few stenciled bicycle logos and some red paint.
How much does it cost? The cost will vary greatly depending on whether the cycle lane is on-road or a new shared-use cycle path. The average cost is about £5,000 per km for an on-road shared cycle lane and £65,000 to £75,000 per km for a new off-carriageway shared use path [10].
THE DEPARTMENT of Transport is to spend €10 million next year on a new cycle route linking Rathmines to Fairview Park in Dublin, which will be largely off the road and segregated from traffic. The 7km route will provide a safer environment for commuters accessing the main employment areas of the city, Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey said
EnterNow wrote: » When I see a car barreling up onto the path because of a red light to cross a junction Ill acknowledge the comparison of cars/cyclists. In the meantime however, everyone knows they are the biggest danger to themselves & everyone else on the roads.
Stinicker wrote: » yesterday I came into a narrowish blind turn doing about 75km/h to 80km/h only to encounter two idiot cyclists cycling abreast and there was a car coming against me so I had to stick the car to the road, luckily for the cyclists I had good brakes and was taking it lightly as I had already encountered not two but three abreast cyclists earlier on a slightly wider stretch of road. Had I been going faster I would have had to swerve and crashed into the innocent oncoming car and I'd be in the wrong.
Stinicker wrote: » 100kms; I felt I was driving to suit the conditions as its a narrowish road with no hard shoulder and a fine day brought out the numpty cyclists who haven't clue how to cycle properly.
stovelid wrote: » I really hate the lyrca-brigade - the serious cyclists that cycle two or three-abreast. I actually been told by one that as it's not illegal (assume this is true?) that it's OK, which sums up the attitude of some cyclists perfectly: not a whit of thought to the inconvenience caused - and lack of civility shown - to other road users, just we can get away with it: fuck you.
Stinicker wrote: » Don't you dare to judge or criticise my driving, any driver who would driven this turn would be happy to drive around it much faster as its sight line allows you to see whats in front of you but oncoming traffic can appear very quickly especially when the oncoming car is doing 110km/h. Cyclists who cycle two+ abreast on any stretch of road deserve to be flattened if you ask me; you don't see too many car drivers out for a leisurely drive thinking, ya know what lets drive toghether. There is judgement and their nannyish driving, it is not practical to take every slightly less than perfect turn at very low speed because their is some stupid brain-dead cyclist there cycling three abreast. I can't beleive anyone can condone cyclists cycling two abreast especially a driver himself. Look at it this way, I decide to overtake going into a turn and I go under an oncoming lorry and am killed, the lorry driver is then destroyed and racked with guilt knowing he killed another person, the lorry driver is then told he failed to anticipate etc. What sort of crap would this be me as the hypothetical overtaker in the turn was wrong and caused the whole mess not the lorry driver. Similarly cyclists cycling two or three abreast are causing trouble and should get no protection from the law when they cause an accident.
stovelid wrote: » A tractor blocks the road because of size, not because of an optional travel formation. That said, tractors are often very guilty of selfish behaviour by not pulling in to let a backlog of traffic out. You know, considerate behaviour towards other road users not based on your own needs or the result of an ground axe.
DirkVoodoo wrote: » Nominal? I think I read that the cost of "cycle paths" is something along the lines of 70,000 euro per km. How much of a nominal tax would fund the entire country's requirement for an adequate cycling infrastructure? Roads are not paid for by motor tax alone. Most damage to cycle lanes is also caused not by bikes, but by road works and parked vehicles. Who pays for the repairs? Cycle lanes/paths have to interact with roads at some point, generally at junctions, creating all sorts of hazards. It is impossible to completely isolate bikes from the rest of traffic and it is safer that bikes are ever present rather than a "surprise" appearance at junctions. I'm not sure I follow your logic, how is it easier for everyone? We can barely setup and maintain the crappy, dangerous ones we have already, how can we get these duper dutch highways without immense cost (think "Luas project") and hassle on the roads. I think what is "easier" for everyone is for drivers to respect the rights of cyclists on the road and for cyclists to obey the rules of the road if they want to use them. Simple.
Dean820 wrote: » Why not ban him from cycling instead?
stovelid wrote: » Have to say though - I do admire the team effort from the cyclists. Do you send each other a bat-signal when cyclists are being dissed elsewhere on boards? It's like Mormons-on-wheels: a proper cavalry response.
pickarooney wrote: » I had no idea of the cost per kilometre so I put 'nominal' rather than a senseless figure. Do you reckon for half a billion euros (just over 7000km) you could, at least theoretically, construct a network that would cover the entire country? Or even a scaled-down one for half that? That's about the price of one sports stadium and not an extravagant waste in my opinion. I'm just basing what I'm saying on experience in countries where bicycles are actually considered a valid mode of transport as opposed to an inconvenience, and where the provision of amenities goes hand in hand with duty of care - you will get stopped and find for acting the bollocks at traffic lights, having no lights, cycling on the footpath etc. in Holland or Germany. I'd prefer to have a discussion that doesn't automatically assume that any idea, if put into place, would be automatically screwed up by the government, even if their track record is abysmal, as it defeats the purpose of any kind of proposal.
DirkVoodoo wrote: » Half a billion euro? Divided up amongst how many cyclists? 35,000 people commute by bike in Dublin alone.
The problem is that you are addressing the problem the same way the government does. Cyclists are a nuisance, get them out of sight and out of mind.
This doesn't work. Look at the attempts to overturn the mandatory cycle lane usage, most cycle lanes are either poorly designed or poorly maintained.
Making bus lanes a shared bus/bike space is what most people would like to see, much like the painted on road cycle lane in Donnybrook.
I'm sorry, but if you haven't used a cycle lane in Dublin and attempted, for example, to make a right turn or go around a roundabout, and found that it is almost impossible without getting off and walking, then any debate is pointless.
alwaysadub wrote: » Er...he went through her windscreen,i'd call that squashed! Yeah,wonder did he look like that before he went through the windscreen too:pac:
pickarooney wrote: » Do you mean there are too many or too few cyclists in Ireland currently? The way you've phrased that seems to be a bit contradictory. Anything but. Cars, buses, taxis, pedestrians, are more of a nuisance to cyclists than cyclists are to vehicular traffic. Affording cyclists a designated travel area is not the same as treating them (us) as pariahs. In countries where there is proper provision for cyclists there is a higher level of mutual respect (the fact cyclists and motorists are by and large the exact same group of people notwithstanding) and traffic of all kinds benefits from it. This is, I think, what's called begging the question. Are you saying that we shouldn't invest money into properly constructing and maintaining cycle paths because most cycle paths are improperly constructed and maintained? If so, do you see how that's both counter-productive and actively contributing to the problems of short-sighted commuter planning? Maybe you have good reason to speak for the majority and perhaps this is the case. Personally I hate sharing a cycle lane with buses and taxis as the potential for blind-spot collisions is increased. If you want to dismiss someone's point of view outright because of a traffic manoevre he may or may not have attempted then clearly yes, any debate is pointless.
stovelid wrote: » This would be the best thing, but I doubt it would be enforceable? I assumed (please correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of traffic offenses are not applicable to cyclists.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d2d5c182a42f454338be924e2bdfb8fa.svg)
