Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

13567…11

Comments

  • #62
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,507 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Howdy stranger, you must be new around these parts with your fancy dialect. It IS a footpad, end of.

    Meme reference, for the uninitiated.

    Cyclists, Go use the footpad


  • #63
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,507 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I have a brain, I'm not a sheep.

    Sheep have brains.


  • #64
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    3 - Salmon cyclists. In the city (the only city in Ireland) centre, the cycle lanes are less than a meter wide. They are unidirectional. To help with that, they have a picture of a bike on them. If the picture looks upside-down to a cyclist, he's going the wrong way. It's pretty simple. Nobody wants to be playing sidewalk shuffle at 40kph relative speed. Their bikes should be confiscated, a fine should be imposed, cycling lessons forced on them and they should undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being given back their bikes.

    There are some contra-flow lanes and with at least one of them, the bicycle is the wrong direction (it's painted with traffic flow when it should be against it).

    Also: I would like to take the time to thank the posting of the facepalm -- I have stuff to do.


  • #65
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    Lumen wrote: »
    Sheep have brains.
    :rolleyes:
    ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.


  • #66
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Coronal wrote: »
    A little OT, but why? I don't see the link between mental illness and not obeying rules of the road.

    I was only slightly serious and mostly joking. Then again when I read the post again, it sounded a bit sensible. Regarding the psych evaluation, that was only for salmon cyclists. Most rule-breaking can be rationalised but salmon cycling is somewhere between insane and retarded.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Nanazolie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Nanazolie


    Captain Havoc wrote: »
    I too lived in Paris and Dublin and have to disagree with you. I know now there are more cycle lanes in Paris than there were when I lived there eight years ago but Dublin traffic moves a lot slower. I used to live in the centre of Paris (8th) and Dublin 4. I find cycling in Dublin grand. I wouldn't get sandwiched between two buses because I'd either be infront of or behind one of them, I wouldn't use cycle lanes either because they're full of crap but they are a joy when you get a good one.

    Try the Malahide road for an exciting new experience ;) You can't be either in front or behind the buses because there are so many that eventually you end up between two. The area I lived in Paris had separate cycle lanes, that were protected from the main traffic with raised borders. Not that it stopped cars from parking on them, mind you!


  • #68
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    dearg lady wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.

    But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.


  • #69
    Nanazolie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Nanazolie


    Lumen wrote: »
    Sheep have brains.

    but no bike


  • #70
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I am extremely careful, if there's any pedestrians nearby I won't go through, I always slow down so I can have time to see better whats around me, and I wouldn't ever do it on a busy junction. Now maybe you still see that as wrong, and that's fair enough, it's something we may have to disagree on. I just don't want you thinkin I'm a maniac who ploughs through lights willy nilly!

    But I'm extremely careful when I'm driving while locked.

    I suspect there are very few genuine maniacs on the road. For the most part you've got people who think they're breaking the law in a non-hazardous way.


  • #71
    Captain Havoc
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 11,393 Mod ✭✭✭✭Captain Havoc


    Lumen wrote: »
    Sheep have brains.

    Indeed'n they do. They used to use it in white pudding back in ye olden times. Sheeps brain is delicacy in some middle eastern countries.

    https://ormondelanguagetours.com

    Walking Tours of Kilkenny in English, French or German.



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    monument wrote: »
    There are some contra-flow lanes and with at least one of them, the bicycle is the wrong direction (it's painted with traffic flow when it should be against it).

    Also: I would like to take the time to thank the posting of the facepalm -- I have stuff to do.

    Oh crap! Now how are we to know which direction we should be cycling?

    Best not to bother with cycle lanes I think.


  • #73
    Davyhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭Davyhal


    Lumen wrote: »
    Meme reference, for the uninitiated.

    Cyclists, Go use the footpad

    Bahahaha!!! Never saw this before! I live with Ads_By_Google who started that thread! It's Mocking time!

    And I believe that the point was trying to make earlier is that the guards should not have to crack down on just cyclists, they should crack down on all road users, but more importantly, they shouldn't have to. I am just saying that the rules are there and we should all abide by them, no matter the mode of transport. I know that is optimistic speaking, but there are posters here saying about jumping red lights and ignoring rules when no other traffic about, I'm just saying don't. No excuses, just obey the rules, and I'd say the same to motorists and pedestrians as well


  • #74
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    dearg lady wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.
    coolbeans wrote: »
    But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.

    ^He said it in a far less snarky way than I would, but it's the same point. Law are there for a reason, just because you don't like/agree with them, it's no reason to break them.

    There's civil disobedience, and then there's just being silly. You appear to fall into the second category from your postings.


  • #75
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    coolbeans wrote: »
    But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.

    well tbh on clear roads I do think it's kind of ridiculous, I'd prefer a system like in mainland europe, where cars are allowed to turn right on red.

    I suppose the reason i wouldn't do it in my car, even tho I think it's ridiculous, is self interest, I don't want to have to pay a fine or extra insurance.
    While I say I won't follow a law which makes no sense and has no benefit, I'm not gonna break a law, with only a small benefit to me, where there's a good chance of gettin caught. Again, informed choices! :)


  • #76
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Howdy stranger, you must be new around these parts with your fancy dialect. It IS a footpad, end of.

    Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my sharpening of a large knife as I stare menacingly at your post, contemplating my next move....


  • #77
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Captain Havoc wrote: »
    Indeed'n they do. They used to use it in white pudding back in ye olden times. Sheeps brain is delicacy in some middle eastern countries.

    I did a google on this because I thought it was Indiana Jones that ate them, turns out they were monkey brains, wouldn't think there's too much of a difference.

    However on the first page of the results this bizare quote appears, apparently from a South African site
    Ja, I used to fight my brothers for the sheep's brains, but now when I go to the farm, ... a head on my plate is a bit too "Indiana Jones" for me. ...

    and
    A well cleaned sheep head baked in the Esse Coal Oven is absolutely delicious. The cheek meat, the tounge and even the brains, I cannot eat the eyes.

    Not eating the eyes, what kind of weirdos are out there.

    Apparently it's called a Smiley,
    a sheep's head - teeth (hence smiley), eyes, brain, tongue and all!! Pickled in salt water for 24 hours, then seasoned with salt and pepper and roasted in a roasting bag for 3 hours at 180

    Christ on a bike (there's my obligatory on topic reference).


  • #78
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Davyhal wrote: »
    Bahahaha!!! Never saw this before! I live with Ads_By_Google who started that thread! It's Mocking time!

    Are you sure it's not Aids_By_Google that you live with? They are easily mixed up.


  • #79
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    ^He said it in a far less snarky way than I would, but it's the same point. Law are there for a reason, just because you don't like/agree with them, it's no reason to break them.

    There's civil disobedience, and then there's just being silly. You appear to fall into the second category from your postings.

    and you're basing this on what exactly?
    I will not ever follow rules blindly.
    I do not break rules because I don't like them, I break them when they are of no benefit to anyone.


  • #80
    Davyhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭Davyhal


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Are you sure it's not Aids_By_Google that you live with? They are easily mixed up.

    Live with him too, but he's a dick!


  • #81
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    dearg lady wrote: »
    well tbh on clear roads I do think it's kind of ridiculous, I'd prefer a system like in mainland europe, where cars are allowed to turn right on red.

    I suppose the reason i wouldn't do it in my car, even tho I think it's ridiculous, is self interest, I don't want to have to pay a fine or extra insurance.
    While I say I won't follow a law which makes no sense and has no benefit, I'm not gonna break a law, with only a small benefit to me, where there's a good chance of gettin caught. Again, informed choices! :)

    I just think that if every bugger took your attitude the place would be fcuked. Most people think that they're intelligent, even the stupid ones. Imagine all of them, en masse, applying the rationale that you've just outlined.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    dearg lady wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.
    The reason we have laws is because what you consider to be a rational and informed choice, I might consider to be complete insanity, and vice-versa.

    As el tonto points out, I'm sure the guy who drives home after four pints thinks he's making an "informed choice" with the same amount of conviction that you do.

    Just because you think something is OK, doesn't make it so. The point of the law is that is sets an agreed standard upon which we can all adhere to without making our lives inconvenient. You don't get to choose which laws you do and do not obey. OK, you do. But if you knowingly choose to disobey a law, you should be happy to take any consequences of doing so.

    I do think RLJing has gone down in Dublin city, proportionally so, with the rise in cyclists. There's something of a lemming effect when it comes to red lights - if one guy goes, everyone looks at him and thinks, "Why am I sitting here like an idiot?" and you see five or six people follow him, despite having been stopped at the red light.
    Likewise if there are a lot of bikes and the 2 or 3 people at the top stop for the light (blocking other from going around them), then nobody goes.

    The same effect can be seen in cars. If you have two people at the top of the queue and one decides to go because there's nothing coming, more often than not the other guy will go as well (and the people behind them).

    Peer pressure is possibly a second element in it. Nobody wants to be Buzz Killington, so if you're the guy who stops at an amber rather than speeding up, you're the fag lamer. If you just realise that you don't give a fnck what anyone else thinks of you, these issues evaporate. I'll happily sit at a set of lights while the other cyclists all go ahead, then smugly freewheel by them 100m down the road. Likewise, I am the fag lamer who stops my car when the light goes amber, because I really don't give a **** if I get there 120 seconds sooner.


  • #83
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    coolbeans wrote: »
    I just think that if every bugger took your attitude the place would be fcuked. Most people think that they're intelligent, even the stupid ones. Imagine all of them, en masse, applying the rationale that you've just outlined.
    :) that;s what the powers that be want you to believe! :P but, bein serious, I think it would be a lot less chaotic than you suggest. On a personal level, I simpely couldn't go through life blindly following rules just co they're there.


  • #84
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    seamus wrote: »
    The reason we have laws is because what you consider to be a rational and informed choice, I might consider to be complete insanity, and vice-versa.

    As el tonto points out, I'm sure the guy who drives home after four pints thinks he's making an "informed choice" with the same amount of conviction that you do.

    Just because you think something is OK, doesn't make it so. The point of the law is that is sets an agreed standard upon which we can all adhere to without making our lives inconvenient. You don't get to choose which laws you do and do not obey. OK, you do. But if you knowingly choose to disobey a law, you should be happy to take any consequences of doing so.

    I do think RLJing has gone down in Dublin city, proportionally so, with the rise in cyclists. There's something of a lemming effect when it comes to red lights - if one guy goes, everyone looks at him and thinks, "Why am I sitting here like an idiot?" and you see five or six people follow him, despite having been stopped at the red light.
    Likewise if there are a lot of bikes and the 2 or 3 people at the top stop for the light (blocking other from going around them), then nobody goes.

    The same effect can be seen in cars. If you have two people at the top of the queue and one decides to go because there's nothing coming, more often than not the other guy will go as well (and the people behind them).

    Peer pressure is possibly a second element in it. Nobody wants to be Buzz Killington, so if you're the guy who stops at an amber rather than speeding up, you're the fag lamer. If you just realise that you don't give a fnck what anyone else thinks of you, these issues evaporate. I'll happily sit at a set of lights while the other cyclists all go ahead, then smugly freewheel by them 100m down the road. Likewise, I am the fag lamer who stops my car when the light goes amber, because I really don't give a **** if I get there 120 seconds sooner.

    Ya, what he said.


  • #85
    godihatedehills
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭godihatedehills


    Apologies for veering back on topic but I'm sick to the back teeth of all the RLJing. On my commute it's rare to find one single other cyclist who will stop for the lights.

    I cycled in New Zealand last year and found that motorists had real disdain for cyclists on the roads and treated them as such. If we keep on like this it won't be long till it's like that here and if that happens there'll be no going back. I think people should have a bit more respect for the rules of the road if they want to be able to keep cycling in peace.

    As it is cyclists are getting a terrible reputation and a lot of it is justified. I'd like to see a crackdown on red light jumping but I think it's sad that's the only way people would behave better.


  • #86
    Undercover Elephant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭Undercover Elephant


    Davyhal wrote: »
    Is it not a bit of a childish arguments to say "Well motorists break more laws than we do!".
    No. The gardai have limited resources to deal with lawbreaking. It's perfectly sensible to argue about where those resources are best deployed.


  • #87
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    dearg lady wrote: »
    and you're basing this on what exactly?
    I will not ever follow rules blindly.
    I do not break rules because I don't like them, I break them when they are of no benefit to anyone.

    Basing it on your posts, where you come out with things like:
    dearg lady wrote: »
    :) that;s what the powers that be want you to believe! :P but, bein serious, I think it would be a lot less chaotic than you suggest. On a personal level, I simpely couldn't go through life blindly following rules just co they're there.

    Maybe it's just how you are phrasing things, but it's a terrible attitude to have that you are putting across, and there's other posters who have illustrated it already, so no need really for me to repeat it, other than to say that laws are there for a reason, and you should follow them (if you disagree strongly about one, then do something constructive about it like write to your TD, or challenge it in court, or start some campaign, don't just ignore it because it doesn't suit)


  • #88
    Piercemeear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭Piercemeear


    My position would be that there's a case to be made for obeying the law even when you can break that law without really endangering anyone. It's about predictability. The system works, not because people are afraid of retribution or injuring someone, but because when everyone obeys it makes it possible to predict how everyone will behave. We all get places quicker. This is basically just civilisation 101.

    So the ubiquitous two cars who skip through the red after amber make life difficult for everyone because peds, drivers from other directions, and cyclists can no longer predict what will happen. Cyclists continuing through a red light to merge with right-turning traffic may not be actually risking collision with that traffic, but they are forcing every driver to do a small double-take when a vehicle comes into her space from an area no vehicle should be coming from.

    Road laws give a framework for predictability. Bad cyclists (and obviously bad car drivers) chip away at that predictability, generally exhausting everyone, and breeding resentment.

    Three end-points:
    1. The law-breaking become so frequent that people's expectations adjust. i.e. a system of sorts exist but it is not beholden to the road laws and as such will be a more fluid, changeable thing.
    2. The law is changed, and people's expectations go through a short-term adjustment until balance is one again achieved.
    3. Gardai crack down on law-breaking to pull us back towards law abidance.

    I'm all in favour of people petitioning to change the law. I'm not in favour of people just ignoring the rules of the road because they think they're smarter than the system. It's not about that.


  • #89
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Is it Friday. It sure feels like Friday but my screen says otherwise.


  • #90
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Basing it on your posts, where you come out with things like:



    Maybe it's just how you are phrasing things, but it's a terrible attitude to have that you are putting across, and there's other posters who have illustrated it already, so no need really for me to repeat it, other than to say that laws are there for a reason, and you should follow them (if you disagree strongly about one, then do something constructive about it like write to your TD, or challenge it in court, or start some campaign, don't just ignore it because it doesn't suit)

    maybe I amn't very good at gettin my point across, I think you might be right there, but it's something I stand by and have discussed at length with people who do agree with me. I know there's none on this thread but that's life!
    I do protest re laws I disagree with and will continue to do so. For the time being I'll continue to live as before. Just to be clear, my not complying with laws hasn't ever endangered or infringed on anyone else. It's a personal choice.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Davyhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭Davyhal


    Undercover Elephant wrote: »
    No. The gardai have limited resources to deal with lawbreaking. It's perfectly sensible to argue about where those resources are best deployed.


    And there are plenty of crimes in the country more serious than traffic/road related crimes that they could be dealing with as well, I just think that everyone should obey the rules of the road, no excuses of "ah, its not that bad in this situation" sort of attitude. The law is there, follow it!


Advertisement