Ciaran_B wrote: » I saw a couple of people getting their names takes by a Guard on the Rathmines Rd on Thursday last. I don’t think they were the first cyclists she nabbed that night.
saa wrote: » I In fairness though there is one death every two years in the UK caused by cyclists,and that's not from running red lights, so yeah its pretty innocent compared to a car going through a red light but its a nuisance,
doozerie wrote: » Well you certainly aren't. Don't try to speak for me though.
RT66 wrote: » Dublin? You can't have been there too long so.
Ray Palmer wrote: » 15 cars parked in cycle lanes on the way to work. 7-8 cars driving in the bus lane. At least 20 speeding in a housing estate. No signs of cars obey the rules. I'll break lights if I deem it safe simples.
Ray Palmer wrote: I would take it that you interpret what is a "hard" rule and as such others disagree.
RobertFoster wrote: » When I was learning to drive I believe my instructor told me a stop was defined as going into first gear before proceeding. Obviously working down to first on a bike wouldn't be very efficient for taking off again, so how would you define it there?
swingking wrote: » Born and bred actually.
doozerie wrote: » Try as I might I can't make any sense of that sentence. Nobody adheres to the basic laws of grammar any more. It's shocking but if you can't beat them, then join them so rules the fook says grammar I.
Beasty wrote: » No it's not - it's the safety of the cyclist we are mainly talkng about here. Jump red lights and you're increasing the risk of encountering a motorist coming from the side - this thread is very little to do with deaths of third parties caused by cyclists (although clearly cyclists do put other road users and pedestians at risk, either through direct collision, or causing someone to swerve to avoid a cyclist)
saa wrote: » It's not about deaths but a few folk have said oh yeah red lights its illegal but within that a car breaking a red light is a hazard a cyclist is a nuisance, I've only seen cycling go through red lights parallel to paths so I don't a see a car swerving instance as being a majour threat.
Ray Palmer wrote: You are making a hypocritical statement and doing so with outrage.
RobertFoster wrote: » Obviously working down to first on a bike wouldn't be very efficient for taking off again, so how would you define it there? Unclipping one foot? What about track stands, holding on to a pole, etc.?
monkeybutter wrote: » If only we could somehow combine cyclist breaking red lights with people hogging the middle lane on the m50 we would hit the motherload of moaning michaels. :P
Lumen wrote: » What you talkin'bout Willis?
Wheely GR8 wrote: » If the guards are pulling people like this ,it's probably to be pro-active for the sake of cycling. There must be a considerably higher chance of a cyclist being killed now than ever before and the dublin bikes scheme probably needs all the help it can get.
tomasrojo wrote: » Don't understand your comment about the dublinbikes scheme. The scheme is a phenomenal success.
Wheely GR8 wrote: » Thats what I meant ,we need to protect our investment by promoting safety aswell. Looking at posts on the forum ,theres some loons on the dublin bikes.