Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
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.

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

1…6791112…37

Comments

  • #242
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    shed head wrote: »
    bad motorists far outweigh bad cyclists! check out the m50, morons everywhere!

    Well on the M50 you'd expect bad motorists to outweigh bad cyclists!


  • #243
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Duck Soup wrote: »
    What tends to happen is that cyclists, as you say, get used to going through reds where there is no cross traffic or pedestrian crossing. This behaviour then filters into crossroads and T-junctions where there are pedestrian crossings. Cyclists either bowl through the red if they can't see the pedestrians - who can often be obscured by cars stopped at the lights - or they will weave through the gaps between pedestrians as they cross at the green man light. Now that's unsafe. As a pedestrian, I don't get used to it.

    I think we need to establish what we mean by 'unsafe'.

    I am aware that many cyclists go through red lights when they feel it is safe to do so. I am also aware that some (very few though) do the same when pedestrians are crossing.

    In the latter case there's no question it is ignorant behaviour, but is it actually dangerous? Does anyone have statistics as to pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists? Anyone?

    47 pedestrians were killed on Irish roads and pavements in 2011. How many were killed by cyclists? I am guessing none, but stand to be corrected.

    And yet it is cyclists who are turning our cities into a 'living hell' and in a time of stretched Garda resources it is dangerous cycling that we need to be targeting. Is that really sensible?

    BTW I cycled through the 'living hell' this morning and couldn't help but be amused at the sight of bikes, cars and pedestrians all going about their business peacefully without a problem between them. No sign of an anorak with a clipboard taking notes though.


  • #244
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Re the red lights. It would be better just to have lights as a "yield" for cyclists like they do in Paris. It would simplify things and keep the traffic moving.


  • #245
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MrCreosote wrote: »
    Re the red lights. It would be better just to have lights as a "yield" for cyclists like they do in Paris. It would simplify things and keep the traffic moving.

    Didn't know they did that. It's a great idea.

    I've now said it a few times but it needs to be said again. Traffic lights in urban areas are almost always to control traffic flow.

    They are NOT for safety, in fact there's good research that says it would be safer to remove them all and force road users to use their wits.

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    If they had been allowed to filter left when safe to do so everyone's journey would be a lot easier.


  • #246
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Didn't know they did that. It's a great idea.

    I've now said it a few times but it needs to be said again. Traffic lights in urban areas are almost always to control traffic flow.

    They are NOT for safety, in fact there's good research that says it would be safer to remove them all and force road users to use their wits.

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    If they had been allowed to filter left when safe to do so everyone's journey would be a lot easier.

    I stopped at the junction of Parliament street and Dame Street today (turning left onto the latter). There were TEN cyclists stopped at the lights, they ended up forming a barrier across the front of the cars. That means that when the lights go green it takes a good while for them to sort themselves out into single file so that a car can overtake.

    Get rid of the cyclists boxes then, cyclists should be made to Q in turn rather than bully their way in front of motorists

    As cyclists are not really a part of the traffic flow, they should be allowed to treat lights as a yield. The argument that they won't be able to do this is nonsense - yield signs work perfectly well for everyone on the roads in cases where there are no traffic lights present.

    Funny how cyclists want to be part of the traffic when it suits them but not when it doesn't, you are either part of the traffic or not, which would you prefer?

    At dangerous junctions you just stick up a 'cyclists obey lights' sign.

    Would be a smart way to encourage cycling, reduce congestion and motorists would actually find they prefer it.

    Why not just obey lights full stop


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    The other reason cyclists would treat the "yield on red" properly is because if they get it wrong the major consequences would directly affect them.

    Throw in a punitive congestion charge for private vehicles inside the M50 and you're on a winner.


  • #248
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Get rid of the cyclists boxes then, cyclists should be made to Q in turn rather than bully their way in front of motorists
    I'm curious as to how an 80kg cyclist can "bully" their way in front of a 1,500kg car.
    Maybe you're referring to the perfectly legal and worldwide common practice of filtering to the front?


  • #249
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Spook_ie wrote: »

    Why not just obey lights full stop

    Because changing the rule for cyclists would make things better for everyone.

    Of course if you'd prefer to be a sheep, slavishly obeying the rules without questioning whether there's better way, then be my guest


  • #250
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how an 80kg cyclist can "bully" their way in front of a 1,500kg car.
    Maybe you're referring to the perfectly legal and worldwide common practice of filtering to the front?

    Perhaps bully may be the wrong choice of words but you get the gist, remove the cycle boxes, restrict cyclists to having to Q and voila problem solved, except that cyclists would then have to learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.

    Far easier just to go all George Owellian on them like Animal Farm except it would be 4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad rather than legs


  • #251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Funny how cyclists want to be part of the traffic when it suits them but not when it doesn't, you are either part of the traffic or not, which would you prefer?

    Poor phrasing on my part - they are obviously part of the traffic flow, but in congestion, traffic management terms etc they are effectively an irrelevance.

    Or to put it another way, they don't have any impact on the problem that traffic lights are intended to solve.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,237 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Perhaps bully may be the wrong choice of words but you get the gist, remove the cycle boxes, restrict cyclists to having to Q and voila problem solved, except that cyclists would then have to learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.

    Cyclists are speeding now?


  • #253
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Poor phrasing on my part - they are obviously part of the traffic flow, but in congestion, traffic management terms etc they are effectively an irrelevance.

    Or to put it another way, they don't have any impact on the problem that traffic lights are intended to solve.

    I'd have to disagree with you there, how many times would you see a vehicle waiting to exit from a side turning whose only hope of doing so is when the traffic lights break up the traffic flow? Remove the break in traffic flow by allowing cyclists to ignore the lights and then the vehicle is forced to exit when cyclists are there or stay put for ever.


  • #254
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Stark wrote: »
    Cyclists are speeding now?
    learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.


    Do please take reading lessons, I believe you can get them at cheaper prices than driving lessons


  • #255
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,237 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.


    Do please take reading lessons, I believe you can get them at cheaper prices than driving lessons

    You're not being clear at all. So every cyclist has to travel at exactly the same speed regardless of fitness/bike etc.? (in your opinion). Perhaps we should apply the rule to motorists too, so you're not allowed overtake anytime, anywhere even if it's a granny going to mass doing 40km/hr in the 80km/hr zone.


  • #256
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Get rid of the cyclists boxes then, cyclists should be made to Q in turn rather than bully their way in front of motorists

    Massive LOLS at this, especially when it comes from a taxi driver. The irony is just too much.


  • #257
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I'd have to disagree with you there, how many times would you see a vehicle waiting to exit from a side turning whose only hope of doing so is when the traffic lights break up the traffic flow? Remove the break in traffic flow by allowing cyclists to ignore the lights and then the vehicle is forced to exit when cyclists are there or stay put for ever.

    YIELD ON RED.

    The light would go red for the cyclist and green for the motorist. The cyclist would stop as he no longer has right of way.

    The suggestion isn't that cyclists can ignore red lights, it's that they treat them as a yield.


  • #258
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    except that cyclists would then have to learn NOT to speed relative to other cyclists.


    So, what? Everyone has to travel at the speed of the slowest cyclist?

    Rubbish


  • #259
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Stark wrote: »
    You're not being clear at all. So every cyclist has to travel at exactly the same speed regardless of fitness/bike etc.? (in your opinion). Perhaps we should apply the rule to motorists too, so you're not allowed overtake anytime, anywhere even if it's a granny going to mass doing 40km/hr in the 80km/hr zone.


    No not so, there is no rule prohibiting overtaking Grannie on her way to mass, however there are rules that provide it should be done in a safe manner, perhaps cyclists who would prefer to be on a race track should be looked at in the same manner, and be allowed to overtake Grannie on the Dublin Rental Bike with the same circumspect that a motorist should be giving Grannie.

    Fail to see how much clearer a single sentence could have been.


  • #260
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Deleted User wrote: »
    YIELD ON RED.

    The light would go red for the cyclist and green for the motorist. The cyclist would stop as he no longer has right of way.

    The suggestion isn't that cyclists can ignore red lights, it's that they treat them as a yield.


    The motorist isn't at the junction of the lights he may well be some 25-50 meters away at the next junction, no break in the traffic because cyclists ( even the good ones ) would no longer be obliged to stop on red. You need to be looking at other things than the traffic flow just at the one junction


  • #261
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    MrCreosote wrote: »
    So, what? Everyone has to travel at the speed of the slowest cyclist?

    Rubbish

    No but there should be some correlation between the two, yes you get the odd dick in a car who will travel at 2x the speed limit at all times, similarly you get dicks on cycles who think the road is a race track ( news for you, it isn't )

    I'm just suggesting that people need to be aware of speed differentials and not go bull at a gate all the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Spook_ie wrote: »

    Funny how cyclists want to be part of the traffic when it suits them but not when it doesn't, you are either part of the traffic or not, which would you prefer?

    Whatever works best for cyclists. Cars are the problem, bikes are the solution. The more bikes we can get on the road the better it will be for everyone, including the remaining motorists as every cyclist on the road removes one more car and makes all those traffic jams shorter.


  • #263
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,237 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The motorist isn't at the junction of the lights he may well be some 25-50 meters away at the next junction, no break in the traffic because cyclists ( even the good ones ) would no longer be obliged to stop on red. You need to be looking at other things than the traffic flow just at the one junction

    Now you're the one not reading clearly. YIELD on red means you give way to other traffic.

    It's nothing novel. Turning left (or right depending on which side of the road you drive on) on red while yielding is done for both cyclists and motorists in lots of countries and it works well.


  • #264
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The motorist isn't at the junction of the lights he may well be some 25-50 meters away at the next junction, no break in the traffic because cyclists ( even the good ones ) would no longer be obliged to stop on red. You need to be looking at other things than the traffic flow just at the one junction

    I am not following you at all. Is the motorist waiting at the junction or not?

    In whatever case, when the car arrives at the junction and the light is green, he has right of way and can proceed.

    The cyclist has a red light, which he understand means 'yield' and so he stops as a car is coming through the green light.


  • #265
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how an 80kg cyclist can "bully" their way in front of a 1,500kg car.
    Maybe you're referring to the perfectly legal and worldwide common practice of filtering to the front?

    Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. You don't have to be big, or bigger to be a bully.

    Cyclists bullying motorists does happen, it's less obvious though.

    If a cyclist is overtaking or undertaking you and moves into your lane forcing you to break, cuts across your path, runs a red, etc etc. You're going to break.

    I'm not talking about a cyclist indicating or merging to your lane with courtesy.


  • #266
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Stark wrote: »
    Now you're the one not reading clearly. YIELD on red means you give way to other traffic.

    It's nothing novel. Turning left (or right depending on which side of the road you drive on) on red while yielding is done for both cyclists and motorists in lots of countries and it works well.


    No you're still looking at the wrong junction, you're thinking ONLY of the light controlled junction, I'm looking at the poor sod at the next non light controlled junction, whose trying to exit when he gets a break in the traffic provided by the light controlled junction.

    Difference between a cyclist and a driver is how far forward they look and (hopefully) anticipate


  • #267
    lima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    MrCreosote wrote: »
    Because changing the rule for cyclists would make things better for everyone.

    Of course if you'd prefer to be a sheep, slavishly obeying the rules without questioning whether there's better way, then be my guest

    Such Irish mentality - you are a 'sheep' if you are obeying the law :rolleyes:

    Why not obey the rules whilst questioning whether there's better way.


  • #268
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    Adriana Tasteless Spaghetti wrote: »
    Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. You don't have to be big, or bigger to be a bully.

    Cyclists bullying motorists does happen, it's less obvious though.

    If a cyclist is overtaking or undertaking you and moves into your lane forcing you to break, cuts across your path, runs a red, etc etc. You're going to break.

    I'm not talking about a cyclist indicating or merging to your lane with courtesy.

    Holy persecution complex Batman! Just because a cyclist is being assertive doesn't make it "bullying"
    lima wrote: »

    Why not obey the rules whilst questioning whether there's better way.

    Er...that is what I do.


  • #269
    lima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    MrCreosote wrote: »

    Er...that is what I do.

    Good then. Cyclists should obey the Red Lights as per the law.

    I was stopped at red lights at a pedestrian crossing yesterday morning whilst little children were walking across with parents and some guy raced through, missing them by about a metre. Made me sick. I'm going to chase and punch the next person I see doing that.


  • #270
    MrCreosote
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    lima wrote: »
    missing them by about a metre.

    Right, so he was nowhere near them.

    Your car pumping out toxins is doing more harm to those kids than that cyclist ever will.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lima wrote: »
    Good then. Cyclists should obey the Red Lights as per the law.

    I was stopped at red lights at a pedestrian crossing yesterday morning whilst little children were walking across with parents and some guy raced through, missing them by about a metre. Made me sick. I'm going to chase and punch the next person I see doing that.

    Given you have previously thanked a post in this thread that looked forward to running over a cyclist with great satisfaction, I'll take your concern for humanity with a pinch of salt.

    And yet again - anecdote. Give me some statistics on the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists in Ireland.

    Cars - one of which you are smugly sat inside - killed 46 in 2011.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement