Legal obligation to use cycle paths

AltAccount · 24-03-2012 03:52PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How is it draconian when its in force for motor vehicles? Its called the penalty points system.
The same sytem should apply to cyclists who break red lights , cycling the wrong direction towards oncoming traffic etc and just ignoring the rules of the road.
Do you prefer all road users to ignore the rules of the road and just do what they want? Its that attitude thats the cause of a lot of accidents on the roads. A bit of cop on can keep you safe.

I support fixed penalty notices for cyclists. I'm not sure how a penalty points system would work.

Again, I fail to see how this relates to whether cyclists should be compelled to use cycling lanes, the topic of the thread.

Seems like you're just using a thread about a specific cyclist issue to vent your general cycling prejudices tbh.

nomdeboardie · 24-03-2012 04:15PM

AltAccount wrote: »

It's been asked jokingly, but let's just clarify your stance - are you saying the punishment for all vehicle operators who disobey the rules of the road should be for them to be put off the road until they can (somehow) prove they'll obey the rules from now on? ...

http://www.movies-wallpapers.net/Movies/Minority%20Report/Minority%20Report-10.jpg

monument · 24-03-2012 04:18PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How is it draconian when its in force for motor vehicles? Its called the penalty points system.
The same sytem should apply to cyclists who break red lights , cycling the wrong direction towards oncoming traffic etc and just ignoring the rules of the road.
Do you prefer all road users to ignore the rules of the road and just do what they want? Its that attitude thats the cause of a lot of accidents on the roads. A bit of cop on can keep you safe.

I also support on-the-spot fines for cyclists, a penalty points system for cyclists however is unworkable and would not be worth it.

I'd also take issue that you think cycling is the same as driving. Generally drivers are in control of a car which is at least a few tons, far larger, can hold at least four passengers, can crush people without moving much, can do 0-60mph (or nearly 100km/h) in a matter of seconds, and the driver is insulated in a large way from his or her surroundings and actions.

A bicycle on the other hand can generally only weighs little over the weight of a person, is little more than the size of a person, holds max another person, is close to zero danger when starting off from been stopped, most travel under 30km/h, usually requires the effort of the cyclist to go faster, and a cyclist is very exposed to his or her surroundings and actions.

Hilly Bill · 24-03-2012 05:19PM

AltAccount wrote: »

I support fixed penalty notices for cyclists. I'm not sure how a penalty points system would work.

Again, I fail to see how this relates to whether cyclists should be compelled to use cycling lanes, the topic of the thread.

Seems like you're just using a thread about a specific cyclist issue to vent your general cycling prejudices tbh.

Just replying to previous posts thats all.

If there is a cycle lane provided then it should be used if safe to do so.
Prejudices?

Now you are just being silly

Hilly Bill · 24-03-2012 05:28PM

monument wrote: »

I also support on-the-spot fines for cyclists, a penalty points system for cyclists however is unworkable and would not be worth it.

I'd also take issue that you think cycling is the same as driving. Generally drivers are in control of a car which is at least a few tons, far larger, can hold at least four passengers, can crush people without moving much, can do 0-60mph (or nearly 100km/h) in a matter of seconds, and the driver is insulated in a large way from his or her surroundings and actions.

A bicycle on the other hand can generally only weighs little over the weight of a person, is little more than the size of a person, holds max another person, is close to zero danger when starting off from been stopped, most travel under 30km/h, usually requires the effort of the cyclist to go faster, and a cyclist is very exposed to his or her surroundings and actions.

I havent said that cycling is the same as driving but the rules of the road apply to both. cyclist are more vunerable on the road hence why they should take more caution than what they are hence why they should use the cycle lanes when possible and its the reason i dont drive in them or stop in them at junctions.
In who's favour would the courts rule if a cyclists swerved into the path of a car or vice versa by accident and the cyclist wasnt using the cycle lane and the lane was safe to use? Would the court rule against the cyclist saying that he/she should have been in the cycle lane?

dave_o_brien · 24-03-2012 05:37PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

All cyclists should be kept off the road for their own good.

Prejudices? What prejudices?

monument · 24-03-2012 05:51PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Just reply to previous posts thats all.

If there is a cycle lane provided then it should be used if safe to do so.
Prejudices? Now you are just being silly

No, it should not be for many reason as already outlined and there no legal requirement to always use cycle lanes.

I'm dealing with your reply to me as septate parts, as you have strung unrelated things altogether for some strange reason...

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I havent said that cycling is the same as driving but the rules of the road apply to both.

Sure, the road traffic law applies to all users: motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc. It does not not change the fact that [a] penalty points for cyclists is unworkable and there is no legal requirement to always use cycle lanes.

And while you did not directly say "cycling is the same as driving", you said you wanted the penalty points system extended to cyclists -- this is you treating cyclists the same as motorists when they are not the same. What would be next after cyclists? Penalty points for children walking home from school?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

cyclist are more vunerable on the road hence why they should take more caution than what they

Sure, cyclists should take caution, but motorists should take far more caution as they are far more likely to kill others, them self and their passengers.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

are hence why they should use the cycle lanes when possible and its the reason i dont drive in them or stop in them at junctions.

None of this makes any sense -- you don't know what you are talking about and you're simply not listening to people: Cycle lanes are often not safer than the rest of the road and cycles need to use the rest of the road to travel around the place, cycle lanes simply don't go everywhere and they are often obstructed by people and cars.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

In who's favour would the courts rule if a cyclists swerved into the path of a car or vice versa by accident and the cyclist wasnt using the cycle lane and the lane was safe to use? Would the court rule against the cyclist saying that he/she should have been in the cycle lane?

The "swerved" part of this is key. Any body who "swerves" on front of another person is likely to be the one mostly at fault. If a cyclist/motorist "swerves" it hardly matters what lane was where.

Now, if the person

SHOVELLER · 25-03-2012 01:46AM

On thursday morning the Grand Canal cycle route was officially opened near the Patrick Kavanagh statue.

To sum up the whole mess they had blocked off the cycle lane with everyone milling around getting photos taken etc!

Someone mentioned cycling in Amsterdam. Well for anyone who has been to the Netherlands they have an ingrained and well established cycling culture and the cyclist is king there. Pointless making comparisons. A bit like football really in that we dont have a culture here.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 11:58AM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Prejudices? What prejudices?

Thats not prejudice its common sense given the danger of cycling on a busy road.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 12:07PM

monument wrote: »

No, it should not be for many reason as already outlined and there no legal requirement to always use cycle lanes.

I'm dealing with your reply to me as septate parts, as you have strung unrelated things altogether for some strange reason...

Sure, the road traffic law applies to all users: motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc. It does not not change the fact that [a] penalty points for cyclists is unworkable and there is no legal requirement to always use cycle lanes.

And while you did not directly say "cycling is the same as driving", you said you wanted the penalty points system extended to cyclists -- this is you treating cyclists the same as motorists when they are not the same. What would be next after cyclists? Penalty points for children walking home from school?

Sure, cyclists should take caution, but motorists should take far more caution as they are far more likely to kill others, them self and their passengers.

None of this makes any sense -- you don't know what you are talking about and you're simply not listening to people: Cycle lanes are often not safer than the rest of the road and cycles need to use the rest of the road to travel around the place, cycle lanes simply don't go everywhere and they are often obstructed by people and cars.

The "swerved" part of this is key. Any body who "swerves" on front of another person is likely to be the one mostly at fault. If a cyclist/motorist "swerves" it hardly matters what lane was where.

Now, if the person

And while you did not directly say "cycling is the same as driving", you said you wanted the penalty points system extended to cyclists -- this is you treating cyclists the same as motorists when they are not the same. What would be next after cyclists? Penalty points for children walking home from school?
How are they not the same? They are both road users . Now you are just being silly with the children thing.

None of this makes any sense -- you don't know what you are talking about and you're simply not listening to people: Cycle lanes are often not safer than the rest of the road and cycles need to use the rest of the road to travel around the place, cycle lanes simply don't go everywhere and they are often obstructed by people and cars.

Did you bother reading the part where i said "When its safe to do so? " I take it you didnt .

The "swerved" part of this is key. Any body who "swerves" on front of another person is likely to be the one mostly at fault. If a cyclist/motorist "swerves" it hardly matters what lane was where.

You missed the accidently bit. Point was would the court rule against a cyclist regardless of who hit who if there was a safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident?

SleepDoc · 25-03-2012 12:51PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You missed the accidently bit. Point was would the court rule against a cyclist regardless of who hit who if there was a safer bike lane off the road that the cyclist could have used and avoided the accident?

Swerving and other instances of poor driving does not happen by "accident". It is always caused by human error.

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 02:33PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats not prejudice its common sense given the danger of cycling on a busy road.

You are applying a draconian rule to every user of a particular vehicle based on the behaviour of a small number of people. Add to that that the bicycle is an extremely safe vehicle, and your heavy handed opinion that "all" be punished despite the good behaviour of most and you have a prejudice.

I saw a driver recently break a red light, and another recently display classic road rage. This is bad. All drivers should be banned from the road for their own safety. And when you say that that is a generalised prejudice, I'll roll my eyes and say "typical drivers attitude: why do they have this sense of entitlement that just because they buy a car that they can go around on our roads doing whatever they like?"

What you said was deeply prejudiced. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be inflexible, incapable of listening to logical arguments, and to have a sort of belief that the roads are the property of car owners, which is so fundamentally wrong that it makes me worried about how many people like you are out there.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 02:50PM

SleepDoc wrote: »

Swerving and other instances of poor driving does not happen by "accident". It is always caused by human error.

Agreed but a car or a bike could also swerve to avoid a collision or in the case of the bike,a parked car or an open gutter etc.

SleepDoc · 25-03-2012 03:00PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Agreed but a car or a bike could also swerve to avoid a collision or in the case of the bike,a parked car or an open gutter etc.

In which case, the driver, obeying the 30 kph speed limit and giving the cyclist as much room as they would another car should have no problem.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:01PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

You are applying a draconian rule to every user of a particular vehicle based on the behaviour of a small number of people. Add to that that the bicycle is an extremely safe vehicle, and your heavy handed opinion that "all" be punished despite the good behaviour of most and you have a prejudice.

I saw a driver recently break a red light, and another recently display classic road rage. This is bad. All drivers should be banned from the road for their own safety. And when you say that that is a generalised prejudice, I'll roll my eyes and say "typical drivers attitude: why do they have this sense of entitlement that just because they buy a car that they can go around on our roads doing whatever they like?"

What you said was deeply prejudiced. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be inflexible, incapable of listening to logical arguments, and to have a sort of belief that the roads are the property of car owners, which is so fundamentally wrong that it makes me worried about how many people like you are out there.

Its only safe in the hands of someone who has a bit of cop on which is in the minority with cyclists.
In your eyes it seems that all cyclists have a right to do whatever they want and ignore the rules of the road . What come back has a motorist if a cyclists breaks a red light and crashes into a car? On who's insurance can the motorist claim or if its a pedestrian crossing the road at a crossing?
Im sure you will come up with an excuse that it would be the fault of the car or the pedestrian.
Its plain and simple, IF there is a cycle lane that is safe to use then it should be used . If not then ALL cyclists should take sufficient care and attention to make sure they are not in danger to themselves or other road users. The same goes for ALL road users.
Prejudice? you will be calling me a racist next

.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:10PM

SleepDoc wrote: »

In which case, the driver, obeying the 30 kph speed limit and giving the cyclist as much room as they would another car should have no problem.

In an ideal situation yes but it doesnt always happen like that . Cyclists tend to swerve as well for whatever reason and its where the accidents happen no matter what speed or how much room the car gave.

SleepDoc · 25-03-2012 03:13PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

In an ideal situation yes but it doesnt always happen like that . Cyclists tend to swerve as well for whatever reason and its where the accidents happen no matter what speed or how much room the car gave.

That is nonsense. The majority of collisions between cyclists and motorists are the fault of the motorist.

There is no such thing as an accident.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:23PM

Thats rubbish and you now it. Are you seriously saying there is no such thing as an accident?
So if its not an accident then its intentional is that what you are saying?

You say the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists. Any proof?
Im not disputing it but seeing that you are sure of yourself.
By saying the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists and not all you are agreeing then that some are caused by cyclists themselves which is my main point.

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:23PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its only safe in the hands of someone who has a bit of cop on which is in the minority with cyclists.

Likewise the use of any vehicle. I disagree with the "minority of cyclists" part, although I admit that I have no evidence for that except empirical experience.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

In your eyes it seems that all cyclists have a right to do whatever they want and ignore the rules of the road . What come back has a motorist if a cyclists breaks a red light and crashes into a car? On who's insurance can the motorist claim or if its a pedestrian crossing the road at a crossing?

Really? Can you provide me with an example of when I said anything like that? As I did when you claimed you had no prejudice? I believe that cyclists need to obey every rule that the motorist does, and is far from free to do as he or she wishes. I have repeatedly sided with the pedestrian in this discussion. I believe that urban infrastructure should be designed to prioritise the pedestrian ABOVE ALL ELSE. Then the infrastructure for private motor vehicles should be designed to discourage a reliance on them. When have I even slightly suggested that it should be any different? Are you confusing me with some other posters who are certainly more pro-bicycle than I am, as I am pro-pedestrian as my primary stance.

And when a motorist is innocent in a crash with a cyclist, they have the same recourse as if it was an accident with another driver. They claim against the guilty individual. In the event that the individual has not taken out insurance, they will be required by court to cover the costs personally. The reason cyclist insurance is non-existant is because that kind of a collision that cause damages that are outside of the individuals financial capability are statistically tiny. In other words, two cars crash, costs are high, better get insurance. A crash is caused between a cyclist and a motorist, cyclists fault; major costs are likely to be medical, to cover the guilty party's crash, and the costs incurred in terms of damages to the car are unlikely to be more than paint, so why bother insuring for that.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its plain and simple, IF there is a cycle lane that is safe to use then it should be used . If not then ALL cyclists should take sufficient care and attention to make sure they are not in danger to themselves or other road users. The same goes for ALL road users.

Agreed, sadly we have very few safe cycling facilities in this country. They may be unsafe

1:because of the design of how the cycle facility and road network interact (ie, junctions, point of entry and exit, start and finish of cycle lanes, etc),

2:because of poor maintenance (ie, pot holes, poor surface, drainage, debris, etc) or

3:because of how they interact with pedestrians.

This one that we are talking about has elements of one and is heavily guilty of 3. 3 is almost impossible to see from the perspective of a car, but makes it no less real. Many will refuse the use this cycle facility for this reason. Sadly there are few cycle facilities existing in this country that are acceptable, and with the level of investment that has gone into them, it is a sad state of affairs. Wasted money that should have gone into something far more worthwhile.

And yes, all road users should make sure they are not a danger to themselves or others. Aggression and intolerance from a motorist towards a cyclist constitutes a potential danger.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Prejudice? you will be calling me a racist next .

Not unless you give me reason to! You have levelled accusations at me though, which I outlined above, which I'm looking forward to hearing your excuse for. If you have no excuse, I'll look forward to your apology.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:30PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Likewise the use of any vehicle. I disagree with the "minority of cyclists" part, although I admit that I have no evidence for that except empirical experience.

Really? Can you provide me with an example of when I said anything like that? As I did when you claimed you had no prejudice? I believe that cyclists need to obey every rule that the motorist does, and is far from free to do as he or she wishes. I have repeatedly sided with the pedestrian in this discussion. I believe that urban infrastructure should be designed to prioritise the pedestrian ABOVE ALL ELSE. Then the infrastructure for private motor vehicles should be designed to discourage a reliance on them. When have I even slightly suggested that it should be any different? Are you confusing me with some other posters who are certainly more pro-bicycle than I am, as I am pro-pedestrian as my primary stance.

And when a motorist is innocent in a crash with a cyclist, they have the same recourse as if it was an accident with another driver. They claim against the guilty individual. In the event that the individual has not taken out insurance, they will be required by court to cover the costs personally. The reason cyclist insurance is non-existant is because that kind of a collision that cause damages that are outside of the individuals financial capability are statistically tiny. In other words, two cars crash, costs are high, better get insurance. A crash is caused between a cyclist and a motorist, cyclists fault; major costs are likely to be medical, to cover the guilty party's crash, and the costs incurred in terms of damages to the car are unlikely to be more than paint, so why bother insuring for that.

Agreed, sadly we have very few safe cycling facilities in this country. They may be unsafe

1:because of the design of how the cycle facility and road network interact (ie, junctions, point of entry and exit, start and finish of cycle lanes, etc),

2:because of poor maintenance (ie, pot holes, poor surface, drainage, debris, etc) or

3:because of how they interact with pedestrians.

This one that we are talking about has elements of one and is heavily guilty of 3. 3 is almost impossible to see from the perspective of a car, but makes it no less real. Many will refuse the use this cycle facility for this reason. Sadly there are few cycle facilities existing in this country that are acceptable, and with the level of investment that has gone into them, it is a sad state of affairs. Wasted money that should have gone into something far more worthwhile.

And yes, all road users should make sure they are not a danger to themselves or others. Aggression and intolerance from a motorist towards a cyclist constitutes a potential danger.

Not unless you give me reason to! You have levelled accusations at me though, which I outlined above, which I'm looking forward to hearing your excuse for. If you have no excuse, I'll look forward to your apology.

Apology for what?

It is the minority that cycle with care and have all the right protective clothing and obey the rules of the road. Most just jump on a bike and maybe all they have is the helmet and will cycle in any direction they want be it on footpaths or against the flow of traffic including at night whilst wearing dark clothing or even being drunk.

And yes, all road users should make sure they are not a danger to themselves or others. Aggression and intolerance from a motorist towards a cyclist constitutes a potential danger.

That works both ways, cyclists are not innocent of that one.

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:32PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats rubbish and you now it. Are you seriously saying there is no such thing as an accident?
So if its not an accident then its intentional is that what you are saying?

You say the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists. Any proof?
Im not disputing it but seeing that you are sure of yourself.
By saying the majority of the collisions are the fault of the motorists and not all you are agreeing then that some are caused by cyclists themselves which is my main point.

To start with, a study showed 87% of collisions were the fault of the motorist:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242541/

Could you elaborate on your main point a little please?

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:40PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Apology for what?

It is the minority that cycle with care and have all the right protective clothing and obey the rules of the road. Most just jump on a bike and maybe all they have is the helmet and will cycle in any direction they want be it on footpaths or against the flow of traffic including at night whilst wearing dark clothing or even being drunk.

And yes, all road users should make sure they are not a danger to themselves or others. Aggression and intolerance from a motorist towards a cyclist constitutes a potential danger.

That works both ways, cyclists are not innocent of that one.

Apologise for ignorantly accusing me of being pro-bicycle at the expense of all else when all I have been has been pro-pedestrian.

In the link I posted above, 88.9% of cyclists travelled in a safe/legal manner. That would constitute a heavy majority there.

In the bit you quoted me in bold, I was referring to one motorist in particular; you. You're right, cyclists are not innocent of it. I have been saying for a while now that treating them as one consistent body is idiotic, and is the kind of logic that leads to sweeping generalisations. Let's not fall into doing that
again!

For clarification for the last few posts, I have been defending the cyclist because you have been attacking them. While I use my bicycle a lot, I also drive a lot, and walk even more. My main point is that urban infrastructure is guilty of prioritising the motorist at the expense of the pedestrian, which is detrimental to the quality of a city. This particular piece of infrastructure that this thread is about is particularly bad in that regard, and to criticise it based on how cyclists should be using it but aren't is to be distracted from the main flaw in the project; that it is obnoxiously sh*t for pedestrians.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:40PM

That leaves 13% the fault of the cyclists .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU

This was posted a few pages ago and it shows the bad behaviour of cyclists which is widespread.
If a car had ploughed into one of them would you still be blaming the car?

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:44PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

That leaves 13% the fault of the cyclists .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU

This was posted a few pages ago and it shows the bad behaviour of cyclists which is widespread.
If a car had ploughed into one of them would you still be blaming the car?

Blaming the car? Is the car a sentient being that decided to plough through people?!

I want to remind you of something I've already said:

dave_o_brien wrote: »

And when a motorist is innocent in a crash with a cyclist, they have the same recourse as if it was an accident with another driver. They claim against the guilty individual. In the event that the individual has not taken out insurance, they will be required by court to cover the costs personally. The reason cyclist insurance is non-existant is because that kind of a collision that cause damages that are outside of the individuals financial capability are statistically tiny. In other words, two cars crash, costs are high, better get insurance. A crash is caused between a cyclist and a motorist, cyclists fault; major costs are likely to be medical, to cover the guilty party's crash, and the costs incurred in terms of damages to the car are unlikely to be more than paint, so why bother insuring for that.

So if a collision had occurred after a cyclist had broken red lights, the blame would be the cyclists. If you want proof that that would actually be followed through on:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

And yes, 13% are the fault of the cyclist. What we should focus on is preventing collisions that are preventable, not targetting a specific type of preventable collision because it was the fault of a particular party/vehicle user.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:45PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Apologise for ignorantly accusing me of being pro-bicycle at the expense of all else when all I have been has been pro-pedestrian.

In the link I posted above, 88.9% of cyclists travelled in a safe/legal manner. That would constitute a heavy majority there.

In the bit you quoted me in bold, I was referring to one motorist in particular; you. You're right, cyclists are not innocent of it. I have been saying for a while now that treating them as one consistent body is idiotic, and is the kind of logic that leads to sweeping generalisations. Let's not fall into doing that
again!

For clarification for the last few posts, I have been defending the cyclist because you have been attacking them. While I use my bicycle a lot, I also drive a lot, and walk even more. My main point is that urban infrastructure is guilty of prioritising the motorist at the expense of the pedestrian, which is detrimental to the quality of a city. This particular piece of infrastructure that this thread is about is particularly bad in that regard, and to criticise it based on how cyclists should be using it but aren't is to be distracted from the main flaw in the project; that it is obnoxiously sh*t for pedestrians.

You fail to mention that the survey wasnt done in Ireland, why?
I havent been attacking anyone so quit the dramatics.
Its a cycle thread not a pedestrian one. Start a thread about the legal obligations of pedestrians to use the footpath and i will post a rant about how they ignore the traffic lights in the city centre especially at the spire and o'connell bridge.

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:50PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You fail to mention that the survey wasnt done in Ireland, why?
I havent been attacking anyone so quit the dramatics.
Its a cycle thread not a pedestrian one. Start a thread about the legal obligations of pedestrians to use the footpath and i will post a rant about how they ignore the traffic lights in the city centre especially at the spire and o'connell bridge.

You do make things difficult, don't you?!

That is an Australian study. Similar studies have been done in Europe, and trends remain consistent.

This is not a cycle thread, it's a thread about a piece of infrastructure and why a vehicle won't use it. The reason why has been established. It's crap, mostly for pedestrians, but also for cyclists.

Beyond that, it has developed into a discussion on cycling in general, you blaming cyclists for many motorists own failings, and a discussion on how the infrastructural strategies should be implemented, with me saying that in urban areas, they should not prioritise either the car or the bike, but the pedestrian.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:53PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Blaming the car? Is the car a sentient being that decided to plough through people?!

I want to remind you of something I've already said:

So if a collision had occurred after a cyclist had broken red lights, the blame would be the cyclists. If you want proof that that would actually be followed through on:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

And yes, 13% are the fault of the cyclist. What we should focus on is preventing collisions that are preventable, not targetting a specific type of preventable collision because it was the fault of a particular party/vehicle user.

So instead of just exchanging details and sorting it out over the phone, it would have to be taken to court and waste more time .
Preventing collisions that are preventable is getting cyclists that opt not to use the cycle lanes where there is one provided to have insurance to cover them if they are at fault for an accident and to make it easier for them to claim if they are the victim of an accident.

Hilly Bill · 25-03-2012 03:58PM

dave_o_brien wrote: »

You do make things difficult, don't you?!

That is an Australian study. Similar studies have been done in Europe, and trends remain consistent.

This is not a cycle thread, it's a thread about a piece of infrastructure and why a vehicle won't use it. The reason why has been established. It's crap, mostly for pedestrians, but also for cyclists.

Beyond that, it has developed into a discussion on cycling in general, you blaming cyclists for many motorists own failings, and a discussion on how the infrastructural strategies should be implemented, with me saying that in urban areas, they should not prioritise either the car or the bike, but the pedestrian.

The link you posted means nothing unless it was done here. Not a cycle thread? Whats the thread title?
Im not blaming cyclists on many motorists own failings im blaming them on their own failings.
The pedestrian should get the priority on a footpath only simple as but thats for another thread.

dave_o_brien · 25-03-2012 03:59PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So instead of just exchanging details and sorting it out over the phone, it would have to be taken to court and waste more time .
Preventing collisions that are preventable is getting cyclists that opt not to use the cycle lanes where there is one provided to have insurance to cover them if they are at fault for an accident and to make it easier for them to claim if they are the victim of an accident.

As lovely as this has been, I have to go after this response.

It wouldn't have to be taken to court unless one party didn't co-operate. In that case, yes it would be dependant on the garda report and legal action. It would be extremely unlikely to go to court, arbitration being far more likely due to its speed and low cost. Only then if one party did not agree with the resolution of arbitration would it go to court.

Having insurance will prevent collisions? That's a new one to me... How come it doesn't work for motorists?

Cakewheels · 25-03-2012 04:24PM

BX 19 wrote: »

A cycle track is only a cycle track when prescribed by law. You only then have the obligation to use them.

The relevent laws are within the 'Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997, Section 14'

This is the relevent sign

Only when this sign is present along with a segregated track, then it is a cycle track and has standing in law. Only then does a cyclist have an obligation to use it.

There is many other pseudo cycle tracks out there that are sorta marked as cycle tracks but are not true cycle tracks and a cyclist has no obligation to use them.

Have found this and other similar posts on other threads very interesting. Seems logical. However, it might interest some of ye to know that this is the response I got from the Road Safety Authority recently when I asked them about my obligation to use cycle facilities of various types and signage.

"Footpath type cycle tracks which are identified by either; Signage or Road Markings must be used ".

(not claiming that anybody who calls such road markings pavement grafitti with no legal status is wrong or right, just sharing the fact that the opposite is what the RSA are putting out there and what we have to deal with).

Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Comments