Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

John_Rambo · 11-07-2011 7:53pm

seamus wrote: »

But we also go crazy about peds stepping off the kerb & crossing through traffic, cyclists breaking red lights and cycling the wrong way, and taxis pulling in wherever they like

I think you might be talking about a different Dublin than me!! I drive, cycle and walk around the city centre and I rarely see people go crazy considering the amount of jwalking, cycling wrong way, people pulling in and out of traffic... in fact you don't even hear horns being beeped that often.

Dublin is very relaxed for commuters.

The only time I see people going crazy at other road users is on the internet.

Hermy · 11-07-2011 7:59pm

Goose81 wrote: »

...the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

The cyclists do no such thing. The driver of the car does this all by him/ herself.

Dermot Illogical · 11-07-2011 8:06pm

Goose81 wrote: »

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

Drivers do not overcompensate. Many have a fear of the white line and will come within inches of a cyclist rather than cross it on an otherwise empty road. And cyclists who don't stay close to the curb are acting out of self-preservation. The part of the road nearest the curb is the part in worst condition and is very often dangerous. Staying beside the curb means the only direction available to avoid a hazard is out into the line of traffic.
You and your enormous sense of entitlement will just have to take second place to the safety of the cyclist in a lot of cases, so best just learn to live with it.

Bunnyhopper · 11-07-2011 8:17pm

The advice of cycling instructors is that staying too close to the kerb is more dangerous for the cyclist and tends to encourage drivers to pass when there really isn't room to do so safely. In my experience it is simply not the case that drivers always overcompensate to give cyclists plenty of room.

If overtaking puts you far too close to oncoming traffic then you shouldn't be overtaking. A little patience goes a long way. No-one is forcing you to overtake dangerously. In fact, that sort of dangerous overtaking is probably why cyclists tend to leave themselves a margin for error on their left. That road position also discourages dangerous overtakes, particularly on bends. The likelihood is that if drivers have a little patience they will get an opportunity to pass safely.

Cycling on the footpath is illegal.

A driver who can't drive safely around cyclists really shouldn't be driving. We share the roads. The only exceptions to that are motorways.

toby08 · 11-07-2011 9:10pm

I have been cycling and driving cars ,trucks and riding motor cycles for 33 yrs. while not excusing it there will always be a level of bad road manners as i like to call it but it does appear to be getting worse.I will not cycle at night time now no matter how much lighting i have.
However there are a large amount of factors at play in our current road environment . Speed (of cars cycles motorcycles trucks) road conditions,eg the large amount of roundabouts with nearby ped crossings.before someone flys off the handle these are just a small amount of issues just to explain my point.
The only solution as I see apart from all road users being less uptight behind a wheel is for separation...I know that this was in the pipeline before the bubble burst we have beautiful cycle routes just dead ending,
I travel in excess of 70k miles a year and while not a cure all, i find that leaving 15 mins early works almost every time.everyone will make a mistake not everyone is perfect so if a cyclist or another driver cuts you off whats the big deal if you have plenty of time its only your own blood pressure that is effected the other person probably didnt even realize anything occurred .and remember that if you are late well then you are late driving at excessive speeds will not help an awful lot.
so whatever method you use safe road usage and remember when that kid wobbles on the bike it could be your kid some day, when that idiot pulls out in front of you it could be you rushing to a hospital, and when that o a p slows you down if your heart does not give out from all the tension it could be you some day . just be safe out there...

toby08 · 11-07-2011 9:14pm

RT66 wrote: »

Drivers do not overcompensate. Many have a fear of the white line and will come within inches of a cyclist rather than cross it on an otherwise empty road. And cyclists who don't stay close to the curb are acting out of self-preservation. The part of the road nearest the curb is the part in worst condition and is very often dangerous. Staying beside the curb means the only direction available to avoid a hazard is out into the line of traffic.
You and your enormous sense of entitlement will just have to take second place to the safety of the cyclist in a lot of cases, so best just learn to live with it.

a quick note on these comments In my opinion it is not safe in most cases to pass a cyclist when there is on coming traffic !!!!!!!:mad

Dermot Illogical · 11-07-2011 9:17pm

toby08 wrote: »

a quick note on these comments In my opinion it is not safe in most cases to pass a cyclist when there is on coming traffic !!!!!!!:mad

I didn't say it was.

monument · 11-07-2011 9:50pm

Goose81 wrote: »

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

Urban cycling is quite different than long distance cycling on a racer.

Goose81 wrote: »

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.

Cyclecraft -- based on the UK National Cycle Training Standard and endorsed by their Department of Transport -- states that road positioning is one primary things that urban cyclists should learn. It says to normally take up position away from the kerb and where needed "take the lane". Our Department of Transport also issued advice to cyclists last year to keep well away from the kerb.

Goose81 wrote: »

A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

It's very clear from this that you do not cycle in urban areas. While many drivers are great, you have to allow for the poorer and poorest ones.

Goose81 wrote: »

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Cyclists do not force motorists to do any such thing, if a motorist moves out "far too close" to imcomming traffic that's the choice and fault of the motorist alone. No road users -- including cyclists -- can blame others for their wrong doings.

Goose81 wrote: »

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths.

Goose81 wrote: »

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

One of the pillars of our road traffic laws is that all road uses have the right to use the road.

Goose81 wrote: »

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

Bull****. Footpaths are for people walking, cyclists belong on cycle paths or on roads.

coolbeans · 11-07-2011 9:55pm

Goose81 wrote: »

As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

Common sense needs to be used, if the road is busy and there is nobody on the footpath and you are clearly holding up traffic then go on the bloody path or if the road is narrow and you are holding up traffic then pull in and let them pass.

Many roads in this country were not made for cyclists and cars to be on and on these roads cars should take priority and cyclists take caution.

As for breaking the law, most do it but it can be done using common sense, I dont mind breaking the law because sometimes it is the safest thing to do. Going on an empty footpath is an obvious example as I said above.

A very dismaying post betraying an almost wilful ignorance of road safety and the rights of other road users.

toby08 · 11-07-2011 10:05pm

RT66 wrote: »

I didn't say it was.

sorry got quotes mixed up was a little annoyed by lack of consideration shown to other road users cyclists pedestrians etc this was the one i was replying to
"Originally Posted by Goose81
As someone who cycled racers long distance for years and who now drives imo the majority of cyclists are an absolute joke when it comes to cycling on the road.

My main issue is not staying close enough to the footpath to allow cars to safely pass.A driver is allways going to overcompensate to just make sure he doesnt come close to the cyclists, so those cyclists who do not stay close to the curb mean it is almost impossible for a car driver to safely overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

This is not a problem when there is no oncoming traffic but when there is non stop cars both directions it means the cyclists force the driver far too close to the car coming in the opposite direction.

galwaycyclist · 12-07-2011 10:40am

monument wrote: »

One of the pillars of our road traffic laws is that all road uses have the right to use the road.

Apologies if this is old news but this is not strictly true. My understanding of the legal situation is as follows. Motorists have no "right" to use any public roads. To my knowledge the only people who have a general right in common law to use public roads are people on foot, people on bicycles and people riding horses.

The use of motorised vehicles is constrained by the provisions of the Motor Car Act of 1903 and its successor acts. This sets out the principle that using a car, like owning a gun, is something that is done under a licence from the state. In Ireland, you don't have a "right" to use a car on a public road. In fact by default it is illegal unless you get a permit first.

du Maurier · 12-07-2011 10:52am

Persons who cycle on the footpath rankles with me. I will concede, they generally seem to be the fair-weather cyclist looking for the route that suits them best, meandering in and out to get from A to B in whatever fashion they please.

I will throttle the next one that thinks they'll pass me through the smallest sliver of space on the path!:pac: (actually I won't really - I'll just grumble loudly and wait for the next cyclist to do the same)

Look whos talking · 12-07-2011 10:55am

Ahh i think we should lay off the cyclists a bit ...at least there not contributing to greenhouse gases ..... there is a silver lining to everything ...

Hermy · 12-07-2011 1:19pm

Look whos talking wrote: »

Ahh i think we should lay off the cyclists a bit ...at least there not contributing to greenhouse gases ..... there is a silver lining to everything ...

Lumen wrote: »

When people say "hard to digest", they usually mean "makes me fart like a trooper".

:rolleyes:

Keep_Her_Lit · 12-07-2011 1:25pm

Hope things aren't going to escalate with all this motorist vs. cyclist hostility. I passed a lad cycling along the Grand Canal this morning and wondered if he'd been reading this thread. He was carrying an axe in his backpack.

Paco Rodriguez · 12-07-2011 2:53pm

doozerie wrote: »

Certainly the implications of being hit by a truck versus a bicycle are potentially very different, but as you say the penalties imposed by law already reflect that. The topic of this thread seems to mainly be about applying (what I consider to be) a meaningless ranking system though where some user group is nominated as being representative of the "worst offenders" end of the scale (or more specifically this thread is about putting cyclists somewhere on the scale other than the top, which means some other group presumably takes the top slot in their place). I don't think its a constructive angle on the whole debate about road safety.

At the very least, this kind of discussion risks going down the well-worn path of arguments along the lines of "as a cyclist I pose less risk than a car so I see nothing wrong with breaking a light. Cars kill, I simply hug!". Which is clearly a nonsense argument (for one thing, I suspect such people wouldn't submit to the tables been turned and having to stand still while a cyclist aimed their bike at them, and with good reason), but before you know it you'll have motorists ringing up Joe Duffy arguing with equal conviction that their breaking a red light is at least not as risky as an articulated lorry breaking a red light thereby making it acceptable. And once Joe is on the case we'll never hear the end of it!

Can we make the quoted text a sticky for people to read before posting threads on this argument?

doozerie · 12-07-2011 4:11pm

monument wrote:

The argument isn't that cyclists as a group don't break laws (they do), the argument is that cyclists are hardly different than others.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that in this thread. You are bothered by the poor perception of cyclists in the eyes of the public, that's fair enough so am I and so are many people I'd imagine, but in my view you'll not be able to change that view until people on bikes stop casually ignoring the rules of the road. In the meantime, whether you wish it or not, threads like this can pander to the martyr complex of those cyclists who already believe they have a right to make up their own rules since they deem pedestrians and motorists as some kind of hate-filled enemy.

Or, if you wait long enough then people will simply take it for granted that cyclists will break red lights, cycle the wrong way up one-way streets, etc., and it'll stop being such a notable event and perhaps cyclists won't be moaned about as much - much like many people already barely react when a motorist runs a red light, breaks the speed limit, etc. Personally I find that a very unappealing future though and I think that energy is better spent on discouraging things going that route rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

galwaycyclist · 12-07-2011 5:48pm

doozerie wrote: »

Or, if you wait long enough then people will simply take it for granted that cyclists will break red lights, cycle the wrong way up one-way streets, etc., and it'll stop being such a notable event and perhaps cyclists won't be moaned about as much - much like many people already barely react when a motorist runs a red light, breaks the speed limit, etc. Personally I find that a very unappealing future though and I think that energy is better spent on discouraging things going that route rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

This is partly the problem. Why is it illegal to cycle both ways on a one way street? In Brussels, provided the road meets defined conditions, the policy is that all one-way streets are two-way for cyclists by default. The German city of Bremen started making one-way streets two-way for cyclists over thrity years ago. German research indicates that in their experience making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a fall in the total number of accidents. To my knowledge, the issue of doing this for Irish cyclists was first raised in a Foras Forbartha report from 1979.

In Northern Europe, the Irish approach to traffic management seems uniquely, and pathologically, car obsessed. Some of the stuff Irish cyclists get attacked for is only illegal because Ireland is thirty or forty years behind the times in terms of traffic management policies.

In this situation. How is anyone supposed to get "buy in" from the wider cycling community on the idea of following "the rules"?

ednwireland · 12-07-2011 6:41pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In Northern Europe, the Irish approach to traffic management seems uniquely, and pathologically, car obsessed.

there's an approach to traffic management ? coulda fooled me

seems haphazard and piecemeal to me (which is where theproblem lies imo)

duckysauce · 12-07-2011 7:48pm

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Hope things aren't going to escalate with all this motorist vs. cyclist hostility. I passed a lad cycling along the Grand Canal this morning and wondered if he'd been reading this thread. He was carrying an axe in his backpack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14127823

monument · 12-07-2011 10:25pm

doozerie wrote: »

You are bothered by the poor perception of cyclists in the eyes of the public, that's fair enough so am I and so are many people I'd imagine, but in my view you'll not be able to change that view until people on bikes stop casually ignoring the rules of the road.

I would not be bothered if it was only the case that there was a poor perception of cyclists (such is justified). It's not that alone that bothers me, it's that people (including many cyclist) think that cyclists are adnomral in their law breaking.

Casually ignoring the rules of the road is a general problem among all road users.

doozerie wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing against that in this thread... ...rather than being spent on a "you smell worse than me" argument.

Somewhere, maybe just in the back of your mind, are you sure you don't have the mindset that cyclists are worse?

...Again, the argument isn't "you smell worse than me," it's that (as groups of road users) "we all smell as bad as each other."

doozerie wrote: »

In the meantime, whether you wish it or not, threads like this can pander to the martyr complex of those cyclists who already believe they have a right to make up their own rules since they deem pedestrians and motorists as some kind of hate-filled enemy.

I don't buy that argument. I don't get it at all.

How does this thread "pander to the martyr complex" of those cyclists?

doozerie · 12-07-2011 11:43pm

monument wrote: »

How does this thread "pander to the martyr complex" of those cyclists?

I've had some cyclists say to me, and I've read cyclist write, that they ignore rules of the road because motorists have it "in for them". No, I don't understand it either, it seems to be the stereotypical Irish mammy "poor me" attitude. Any discussion that seems to support the theory that cyclists are despised will likely feed their complex.

All of this is now moot though, as of this evening. On my way home I overtook another cyclist only to notice a third cyclist undertaking her at the same time. I held back to leave space for the under-taker to avoid colliding with a parked car ahead (for public enemy no.1 I'm actually fookin' sound, me). Further on he overtook another woman on a bike to swing an immediate left in front of her, despite not going fast enough to give her much space. All public enemy no.3 type stuff really, but that's not the real story.

At the next set of lights I had the opportunity, or misfortune, to, er, "appreciate" this guy. He was wearing an eclectic set of cycling kit. Most strikingly he was wearing a TT helmet, one aspiring to be the real deal, with a long pointy bit and everything. I looked for his tri-bars. None. I looked at his shoes - cycling shoes with no cleats whatsoever, he had toe clips on his pedals but no straps. Wha? I looked at his gearing - a triple chainset on the front. Fair enough. But his chain spanned the biggest chainring and biggest rear sprocket - the angles on the chain were something fierce. I'm not ashamed to say that I wept openly and had to be helped to the recovery position at the side of the road by some passers-by. That guy is now officially enemy no.1, an enemy even to cyclists, relegating the rest of us to enemy no.2 at most. Progress then, of sorts.

jaqian · 13-07-2011 12:18am

I don't know of any cyclists who think that drivers are out to get them (most cyclists also drive). But being soft and squishy we are at more risk and have to be more vigilant of our neighbours on the road. The infrastructure here isn't good enough to try and integrate cycling lanes, most roads being too narrow but hey they'll try stick one in anyway forcing drivers to enter them. I'm probably going to be flamed for this but I break red lights quite a bit my argument being that you need that extra minute to get ahead of traffic, only by being seen can you be safe (especially in multi-lanes like D'Olier/Westmorland Street). There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

I think this could be fixed by a change to the lights. In the UK traffic lights turn amber before turning red, if implemented here it could be used for cyclist to get a head start. Also having to stop at red lights where there are no pedestrians is just asking to be broken. There are too many lights a better system would be like Kilkenny where zebra crossing rule.

doozerie · 13-07-2011 9:12am

jaqian wrote:

There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

I really think you should find that link because on the face of it that sounds like a ridiculous claim.

There was some analysis done a while back of the statistics of cyclist deaths, in London I think. It concluded that most of the deaths were women cyclists hit by left-turning lorries. Those were the facts but at some point or other a conclusion was drawn from this by someone or other that this somehow clearly showed that the women concerned would have survived if they'd broken the red light and gotten past the lorry before it started to move and therefore breaking red lights is somehow a safer practice than respecting them. Perhaps this is the report, and I use the word "report" very loosely, that you are referring to? As logic goes that conclusion is the equivalent of saying that the majority of road accidents happen on the roads so the solution is for all road users to drive/ride on the footpath instead.

jaqian wrote:

In the UK traffic lights turn amber before turning red, if implemented here it could be used for cyclist to get a head start.

And what about the motorists that go on amber at the same time as the cyclists?

The way to avoid being squished by cars taking off at lights is to occupy the space of a car if the road is not wide enough to position yourself safely to the side of the cars. That, plus observation and awareness. They're not really out to get you, after all (right?), you just have to avoid putting yourself somewhere where under normal circumstances traffic can't see you.

seamus · 13-07-2011 9:41am

jaqian wrote: »

There was a report done by an English cycling group showing that ppl who break the lights are actually safer than those who obey the rules but I cannot find the link.

You're probably referring to the various studies that have found that cyclists who rigidly obey the law are often more at risk than those who don't.

The results in this are kind of skewed because the only area where there was a significant difference was stopping at lights in front of HGVs. Those cyclists who stopped at the white line (either in front of or beside the HGV), were much more likely to be killed by the HGV than cyclists who moved well past the white line and into the HGV drivers' view.

The same studies also indicated that men are far safer cyclists than women, but only because women were more likely to stop in an HGV's blindspot (i.e. behind the white line) than men.

The obvious conclusion here is not that obeying the law is dangerous, but that the road infrastructure is dangerously designed. If the roads were designed correctly, then you should never have to break the law to reduce your risk. But cyclists (and pedestrians) must do this all the time.

When you removed the HGV/white line issue from the statistics, from what I remember they showed that cyclists who ignored the general rules of the road were far more likely to end up with serious injuries than those who didn't. Statistics on deaths are hard to compare because once you remove conflicts between cyclists and HGVs, the number of deaths is so low as to be useless for statistical comparison.

Dermot Illogical · 13-07-2011 10:18am

duckysauce wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14127823

The comments on this page look familiar :rolleyes:

-Chris- · 13-07-2011 10:24am

RT66 wrote: »

The comments on this page look familiar :rolleyes:

Jesus, I had to stop reading after a bit. Very frustrating...

Lumen · 13-07-2011 10:35am

seamus wrote: »

You're probably referring to the various studies that have found that cyclists who rigidly obey the law are often more at risk than those who don't.

The results in this are kind of skewed because the only area where there was a significant difference was stopping at lights in front of HGVs. Those cyclists who stopped at the white line (either in front of or beside the HGV), were much more likely to be killed by the HGV than cyclists who moved well past the white line and into the HGV drivers' view.

The same studies also indicated that men are far safer cyclists than women, but only because women were more likely to stop in an HGV's blindspot (i.e. behind the white line) than men.

The obvious conclusion here is not that obeying the law is dangerous, but that the road infrastructure is dangerously designed. If the roads were designed correctly, then you should never have to break the law to reduce your risk. But cyclists (and pedestrians) must do this all the time.

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

galwaycyclist · 13-07-2011 12:12pm

Lumen wrote: »

It is not necessary to break the lights in order to avoid being squished by a left-turning HGV.

If you're not fast enough to out-accelerate on green you can just stay put until it's gone past, then follow.

At the risk of getting pulled into Devil's advocacy I can see cases where it might be necessary. Bicycles do not have reverse gears. Suppose a HGV or Bus pulls up beside or behind you at a set of lights and it is unclear if the driver can see you, or even knows you are there? (Given that HGVs also have a blind spot in front of the cab.)

In that case the most obvious, fastest, route out of the danger area is to move forward, which may involve passing the near traffic signal and crossing the white line.

Waiting for a HGV to go past and then following appears to assume that it is not going to turn left. Unwise assumption I would say.

Dacelonid · 13-07-2011 12:15pm

The problem I have with cyclists is that they are on the road, but act like they are pedestrians.
Cyclists are supposed to be road users, and as such should follow the same rules of the road as motorists. It would be a lot safer from everyone concerned if cyclists behaved as motorists (or should I say, as motorists are supposed to, because lets face it, most motorists are morons).

Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

Comments