Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 02:48AM

I'll get back to you when i have stopped laughing

Cookie_Monster · 27-03-2012 03:02AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I'll get back to you when i have stopped laughing

:rolleyes:
Don't bother, you clearly have no interest in listening to what people are telling you. You just want cyclists off the road out of your way...

BostonB · 27-03-2012 08:56AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its easier to fall off your bike than fall out of your car hence why a helmet is needed. Its not just the helmet but the hi visable clothing in day and especially at night with a light.
If there is no protection if you get hit by a car or a truck at speed then doesnt that make it a good reason that bikes should not be on the roads and proper safe bike lane built and not the red tarmac lanes that we have at the side of the road.

No because there aren't many deaths from cycling.

monument · 27-03-2012 10:57AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Im well aware the diffrence between a car and a bike, there is no need to be silly about that.
Both are road users and are bound by the same rules of the road. What part of that dont you get?

There clearly is a need to be silly about it with you because you're still asking silly questions and making silly statements.

No, both are not bound by the same laws, for example motorists are supose to not block cyclist advance stop boxes, or cycle lanes, and motorists should have a licence, have to get their cars tested, and are covered by points.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats absurd and you know it. You arent making much sense now to be honest.

No, it's now the law works. It's quite simple.

To be clear: Cyclists are legally allowed on the road. Cyclists legally do not have to use an off road cycle path. Thus if something happens on the road then legally the off road cycle path is not a factor at all.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I'll get back to you when i have stopped laughing

Again showing not only do you not have a clue, but that you can't take in anything anybody says. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything people say, but it might be worth hearing people out.

dave_o_brien · 27-03-2012 10:57AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I'll get back to you when i have stopped laughing

This attitude reminds me of two Gardaí who were doing spot checks on cars on the B'rock bypass the other day, when they stopped me to check I had my back lights on, which I had. One of them offered me a hi-viz jacket, and acted confused when I declined. He said, "but sure all you have between you and death is that rear light, surely you'd want one?" To which the other Garda sais "WHAT?! All he has between him and death is the fact that his bike has good brakes, he has a bright rear light, he seems to be able to cycle correctly, he's cycling on the right part of the road and in all my years as a guard, I've yet to meet a driver who is genuinely homicidal!"

I laughed all the way home.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 03:23PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Don't bother, you clearly have no interest in listening to what people are telling you. You just want cyclists off the road out of your way...

I listen to the posts that make sense no matter if i agree with it or not.
I just want idiots off the road no matter what they ride or drive.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 03:29PM

BostonB wrote: »

No because there aren't many deaths from cycling.

You sure about that? If you are riding a bike on a busy road wouldnt you want to give yourself a better chance of reaching your destination safely.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 03:32PM

monument wrote: »

There clearly is a need to be silly about it with you because you're still asking silly questions and making silly statements.

No, both are not bound by the same laws, for example motorists are supose to not block cyclist advance stop boxes, or cycle lanes, and motorists should have a licence, have to get their cars tested, and are covered by points.

No, it's now the law works. It's quite simple.

To be clear: Cyclists are legally allowed on the road. Cyclists legally do not have to use an off road cycle path. Thus if something happens on the road then legally the off road cycle path is not a factor at all.

Again showing not only do you not have a clue, but that you can't take in anything anybody says. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything people say, but it might be worth hearing people out.

You will disagree or see fault just for the sake of it at this stage.

BostonB · 27-03-2012 03:59PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You sure about that? If you are riding a bike on a busy road wouldnt you want to give yourself a better chance of reaching your destination safely.

Its a fact. There aren't many deaths. The whole premise of your argument is flawed. By your logic, you have better chance of not being killed in a car, if you don't drive. Have you decided not to drive?

You're basing your argument on your assumption based on what you see. Not on cycling yourself, or on any stats. Which is entirely flawed. You need to clear your mind and look at the stats.

I wouldn't confuse the issue talking about helmets and lights and hi viz as its a complex argument to which you've not looked at the available data and studies, and tbh its has no bearing on cycle paths at all. Its just muddies the water.

BostonB · 27-03-2012 04:11PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You will disagree or see fault just for the sake of it at this stage.

I think the problem is people are throwing complex arguments which they have learned from cycling or looking at the data and studies. They've been discussed Ad nauseam on cycling forums. If you haven't done that, they'll make no sense to you and you'll find they jar with what you see with your own eye. Of course what your eye see's is misleading. But it takes an adjustment to realise that.

AltAccount · 27-03-2012 06:20PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

BostonB wrote: »

No because there aren't many deaths from cycling.

You sure about that? If you are riding a bike on a busy road wouldnt you want to give yourself a better chance of reaching your destination safely.

Have a play with this and you'll see how sure BostonB is/could be.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

And bear in mind that these road deaths occurred in cars with miltiple airbags, ABS, crumple zones and other safety features that, frankly, make a mockery of a putting a polystyrene hat on...

galwaycyclist · 27-03-2012 08:47PM

I am feeling lazy so I'll just quote

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok rather than jump straight into statistics on cycle lanes/paths its better to start from first principles.

Most collisions, including car/bicycle, collisions happen at junctions.

The patterns in this diagram are taken from this paper: Layout and Design Factors Affecting Cycle Safety at T-Junctions, Henson R. and Whelan N., Traffic Engineering and Control, October 1992

If we look at the top three situations involving failure to yield by turning motorists, we have
1) Motor driver pull out from near side. 30%
2) Motor driver turns across path of cyclist from offside. 12%
3) Motor driver overtakes cyclist and turns into nearside junction. 6.5%

In terms of avoiding these types of collision, the recomended advice for cyclists is to adopt a prominent road position in the vicinity of this type of junction. (Having first had regard for the nature and speed of following traffic.) If traffic conditions allow, you want to be out where the motorists are looking.

We can infer from these crash types that, for the cyclist, staying too far to the left might put them at increased risk. Therefore road features that encourage cyclists to keep too far left (cycle lanes) or which take cyclists completely out of the "zone of attention" of other drivers (roadside cycle paths) might tend to increase the likelihood of such collisions occurring.

galwaycyclist · 27-03-2012 08:48PM

And to continue the general laziness

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok the following graphic has been put together from these sources.
Sweden: Leif Linderholm: Signalreglerade korsningars funktion och olycksrisk för oskyddade trafikanter - Delrapport 1: Cyklister. Institutionen för trafikteknik, LTH: Bulletin 55, Lund 1984, In: »Russian Roulette« turns spotlight of criticism on cycleways, Proceedings of conference »Sicherheit rund ums Radfahren«, Vienna 1991.

USA: A. Wachtel and D. Lewiston: Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections, Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, pp 30-35, September, 1994.

Denmark: S.U. Jensen, K.V. Andersen and E.D. Nielsen: Junctions and Cyclists, Velo-city ‘97 Barcelona, Spain .

Finland: M Rasanen and H. Summala: The safety effect of sight obstacles and road markings at bicycle crossings, Traffic Engineering and Control, pp 98-101, February, 1998.

It is not intended to be indicative of any particular design although all the figures relate to footpath/footway roadside cycle-path type structures. (Cycle lanes marked on the carriageway appear to be less conflict prone - but still a source of increased risk at junctions) It is the findings like this that are behind the use of differentiated surface colours at crossing points -red,blue,green etc. This was the original purpose of such treatments: to highlight the conflict points at the crossings - not as a general treatment. In countries like the Netherlands, you will also see so called "elephants footprints" or "sharks teeth" road markings, which further highlight the crossing area. The crossing area may also be built up into a speed ramp.

To get back to the OPs original post. The collision rates are substantially higher for cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road. Motorists are simply not acclimatised to looking for cyclists coming from that quadrant.

Cookie_Monster · 27-03-2012 09:02PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I just want idiots off the road no matter what they ride or drive.

Might want to start with yourself so.

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 11:00PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Might want to start with yourself so.

I always listen to myself, it helps

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 11:08PM

BostonB wrote: »

Its a fact. There aren't many deaths. The whole premise of your argument is flawed. By your logic, you have better chance of not being killed in a car, if you don't drive. Have you decided not to drive?

You're basing your argument on your assumption based on what you see. Not on cycling yourself, or on any stats. Which is entirely flawed. You need to clear your mind and look at the stats.

I wouldn't confuse the issue talking about helmets and lights and hi viz as its a complex argument to which you've not looked at the available data and studies, and tbh its has no bearing on cycle paths at all. Its just muddies the water.

No offence but thats nonsense. Im only saying that if you fall off your bike for whatever reason and bang your head then you have a better chance of not gaining a serious head injury if you was wearing a helmet as opposed to not wearing one. Same with the hi-viz clothing, you have a better chance to be seen whilst wearing them especially at night.

By your logic, you have better chance of not being killed in a car, if you don't drive. Have you decided not to drive?
What are you on about?

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 11:21PM

AltAccount wrote: »

Have a play with this and you'll see how sure BostonB is/could be.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

And bear in mind that these road deaths occurred in cars with miltiple airbags, ABS, crumple zones and other safety features that, frankly, make a mockery of a putting a polystyrene hat on...

Whos talking about death in cars? Its not a car are better than bikes thread.
The figures doesnt matter only the fact cyclists have been killed or injured on the road which means if there is a cycle lane that cars cant use then cyclists should use them for their own safety. Im only talking about when they have a choice.

Kintarō Hattori · 27-03-2012 11:28PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its easier to fall off your bike than fall out of your car hence why a helmet is needed. Its not just the helmet but the hi visable clothing in day and especially at night with a light.
If there is no protection if you get hit by a car or a truck at speed then doesnt that make it a good reason that bikes should not be on the roads and proper safe bike lane built and not the red tarmac lanes that we have at the side of the road.

The law, which you seem to want cyclists to follow doesn't make wearing protective clothing while cycling mandatory. Do you think this might be for a reason?

Hilly Bill · 27-03-2012 11:37PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The law, which you seem to want cyclists to follow doesn't make wearing protective clothing while cycling mandatory. Do you think this might be for a reason?

Its Ireland.

I personally dont care if cyclists wear helmets or not thats their choice, im more on about the rules of the road regarding direction of travel , weaving in and out of traffic and breaking red lights etc.

monument · 27-03-2012 11:40PM

It's time to relax, get a hobby and stop worrying about cyclists.

Kintarō Hattori · 27-03-2012 11:48PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I personally dont care if cyclists wear helmets or not thats their choice, im more on about the rules of the road regarding direction of travel , weaving in and out of traffic and breaking red lights etc.

And they are very valid points for you to be concerned about. As a cyclist nothing annoys me more than a bad fellow cyclist. However all types of road users are just as bad as each other. Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists all behave badly on the road. Not all of them of course but some. However it is unfair to attack one group of road users without acknowledging that the other road users can be just as dangerous and careless.

Hilly Bill · 28-03-2012 12:00AM

monument wrote: »

It's time to relax, get a hobby and stop worrying about cyclists.

Trust me i am relaxed and im far from worried about cyclists

Hilly Bill · 28-03-2012 12:01AM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

And they are very valid points for you to be concerned about. As a cyclist nothing annoys me more than a bad fellow cyclist. However all types of road users are just as bad as each other. Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists all behave badly on the road. Not all of them of course but some. However it is unfair to attack one group of road users without acknowledging that the other road users can be just as dangerous and careless.

I agree, and i have mentioned other road users.

Kintarō Hattori · 28-03-2012 12:10AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I agree, and i have mentioned other road users.

Excellent. I haven't had time to read through the whole thread so I'm sorry if I'm repeating ground that may have been covered.

Cyclists who don't cycle with consideration are a major pain in the backside to everyone but surprisingly perhaps to other cyclists most of all. They get the decent cyclists among us a bad name. While there may be a legal standing for cyclists to use cycle lanes I hope you've come to understand from the various posts in this thread why it's not always possible or indeed safe for cyclists to use them- even if they appear A-OK to the motorist.

monument · 28-03-2012 12:16AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

...and im far from worried about cyclists

This thread kind of proves otherwise.

BostonB · 28-03-2012 12:49AM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No offence but thats nonsense. Im only saying that if you fall off your bike for whatever reason and bang your head then you have a better chance of not gaining a serious head injury if you was wearing a helmet as opposed to not wearing one. Same with the hi-viz clothing, you have a better chance to be seen whilst wearing them especially at night.

By your logic, you have better chance of not being killed in a car, if you don't drive. Have you decided not to drive?
What are you on about?

How about I do what you just did. Ignore whats written and just post off topic at random.

BostonB · 28-03-2012 01:03AM

BostonB wrote: »

...I wouldn't confuse the issue talking about helmets and lights ...its has no bearing on cycle paths at all. ...

Hilly Bill wrote: »

...for whatever reason and bang your head then you have a better chance of not gaining a serious head injury if you was wearing a helmet as opposed to not wearing one. ...

Hilly Bill wrote: »

...I personally dont care if cyclists wear helmets or not ....

Just lol. Its just a rant about cyclists. End of.

Hilly Bill · 28-03-2012 09:50AM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Excellent. I haven't had time to read through the whole thread so I'm sorry if I'm repeating ground that may have been covered.

Cyclists who don't cycle with consideration are a major pain in the backside to everyone but surprisingly perhaps to other cyclists most of all. They get the decent cyclists among us a bad name. While there may be a legal standing for cyclists to use cycle lanes I hope you've come to understand from the various posts in this thread why it's not always possible or indeed safe for cyclists to use them- even if they appear A-OK to the motorist.

Agreed.

Hilly Bill · 28-03-2012 09:52AM

monument wrote: »

This thread kind of proves otherwise.

No it doesnt, it just proves ive an opinion. Its not something that i lose sleep over .

Hilly Bill · 28-03-2012 09:54AM

BostonB wrote: »

How about I do what you just did. Ignore whats written and just post off topic at random.

You already do.

Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Comments