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

Spook_ie · 11-02-2013 04:18PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

This nonsense might end today, thank god. Someone started a thread on taxi drivers this morning that might draw Spook away from this one.

Eh no I don't think you'll get away that easy with your constant law breaking habits, I'll input to that thread when it goes way off of tangent, because at the moment there are no regulations preventing double jobbing

opti0nal wrote: »

Now, this is what is called 'minimising', when denial does not work, this is the fallback. It's far more than just 'sometimes' that motorists speed.

And you miss the most important point that the consequences of motorist offending behaviour is far greater than that of cyclists. This is another behaviour of offenders - evasion of responsibility.

Who's evading responsibility, the thread is about cyclists and their need to have some cop on, you want to put out about other drivers, start another thread because you still have given no legitimate excuse for total disregard for the R of the R by the majority of cyclists, 87.5% self admitted in the survey carried out by TCD

kylith wrote: »

I've often thought that it should be a prerequestite of a driving licence to have to cycle for a period of time beforehand, to make you aware of cyclists, how they're likely to behave, and how fragile they are.

Now you might just have started to hit the nail, progressive training, cycling being a part of it, perhaps starting with cyclists and getting them to follow the R of the R, then when they progress onto motorbikes, cars etc. they'll continue to follow the R of the R, of course that still means getting cyclists to be registered, regulated and preferably insured.

Ah no, insurance, but that'll cost a fortune, well no actually if cyclists don't cause as much damage, as you all reckon. Then the insurance risk against paying out for damages is less so the premium is less, unless of course you're all bull****ing about how safe it is ignoring the R of the R

derb12 · 11-02-2013 06:07PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Who's evading responsibility, the thread is about cyclists and their need to have some cop on, ...

Do you find it even a tiny bit ironic that the thread was supposed to be about that but that in fact the cyclist in question was obeying the rules of the road, and it was the driver who started the thread who was flaunting the rules of the road and was oblivious to that fact till it was pointed out to him here?

hardCopy · 11-02-2013 06:13PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

unless of course you're all bull****ing about how safe it is ignoring the R of the R

Yeah, I mean just look at all the people being killed and maimed by cyclists every day, a menace they are.

bruschi · 11-02-2013 06:24PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Eh no I don't think you'll get away that easy with your constant law breaking habits, I'll input to that thread when it goes way off of tangent, because at the moment there are no regulations preventing double jobbing

Who's evading responsibility, the thread is about cyclists and their need to have some cop on, you want to put out about other drivers, start another thread because you still have given no legitimate excuse for total disregard for the R of the R by the majority of cyclists, 87.5% self admitted in the survey carried out by TCD

Now you might just have started to hit the nail, progressive training, cycling being a part of it, perhaps starting with cyclists and getting them to follow the R of the R, then when they progress onto motorbikes, cars etc. they'll continue to follow the R of the R, of course that still means getting cyclists to be registered, regulated and preferably insured.

Ah no, insurance, but that'll cost a fortune, well no actually if cyclists don't cause as much damage, as you all reckon. Then the insurance risk against paying out for damages is less so the premium is less, unless of course you're all bull****ing about how safe it is ignoring the R of the R

you're all about the rules of the road arent you?

can you answer, which has been asked numerous times, why is it considered dangerous in Ireland to go through red lights in certain circumstances, when it is perfectly legal to do so in other countries, and even perfectly legal for vehicles to go through red lights.

I'm not asking if its illegal, I'm asking is it dangerous.

The example being turning left at a crossroads where there is a red light, but no traffic coming.

BostonB · 11-02-2013 06:48PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Who's evading responsibility,......

You. Evading the 71% of red light accidents caused by driver and 4% caused by cyclists.

rubadub · 11-02-2013 06:52PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

7 out of 8 disregarding the R of the R (just because they feel like it ) is still a shocking amount and no I don't think 7 out of 8 motorists disregard the R of the R like cyclists do.

I didn't think it's shocking at all. When the same PERSON is in a car they are far more likely to obey the law when the same PERSON is on a bike, when that person is on foot I would bet they are far more likely to break the law.

If you cannot understand why this is I would be quite worried about your level of common sense, but hopefully you are feigning ignorance as I expect many are. If I had a small child who could not grasp it I would not let them out on the street on their own. I would not like to encounter an adult driving a car who couldn't understand why it would the case.

At least most gardai appear to know why the actual laws were introduced, what they ACTUALLY set out to prevent and when to apply them or not.

CramCycle · 11-02-2013 06:54PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Who's evading responsibility, the thread is about cyclists and their need to have some cop on

Most of us apparently do, particularly if the numbers on the thread are anything to go by but just like any mode of transport, there are always a few users who need a smack of common sense.

Now you might just have started to hit the nail, progressive training, cycling being a part of it, perhaps starting with cyclistseveryoneand getting them to follow the R of the Runderstand the law, why its there, and how to take road position properly for their own safety and the saffety of others, then when they progress onto motorbikes, cars etc.

FYP

they'll continue to follow the R of the R, of course that still means getting cyclists to be registered, regulated and preferably insured.

Why the registration? Make it part of the NS or JC curriculum, not that ignorance of the law is an excuse. The insurance idea is ridiculous though, the admin cost will outweigh the fair price of it, instead leading to another tax. Instead of accepting the fact that the more people cycle, the more money saved by the government in the long run (a hard concept) in terms of the health budget, road wear etc..

Ah no, insurance, but that'll cost a fortune, well no actually if cyclists don't cause as much damage, as you all reckon. Then the insurance risk against paying out for damages is less so the premium is less, unless of course you're all bull****ing about how safe it is ignoring the R of the R

Or the admin, the development of the project, and the initial implementation, it would be thrown out by the Dail, by any parent wanting their child ot cycle and the Gardai would not enforce it unless bored out of their tree as it would be a huge waste of resources to attempt to stop and check a cyclist who had caused no harm or danger to themselves or others.

BostonB · 11-02-2013 07:14PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...Generally you will find cyclist assume drives can't see them. You effectively have cyclists having to second guess cars a lot.

The cyclist in the original post didn't.

Ray Palmer · 11-02-2013 07:28PM

BostonB wrote: »

The cyclist in the original post didn't.

A lot doesn't mean you are going to see everything. Since the driver didn't see him you could assume the cyclist didn't see the car either. The cyclist was in the right with the driver saying he didn't pay enough attention while crossing traffic.

You are just trolling at this point.

Knasher · 11-02-2013 07:32PM

BostonB wrote: »

The cyclist in the original post didn't.

The cyclist in the original post did. As the OP stated, he managed to stop short of slamming into the side of the car. An impressive feat, because the OP also accused him of not looking ahead at all.

Beasty · 11-02-2013 07:36PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

the thread is about cyclists and their need to have some cop on,

No it's not - it's about an OP having a rant about a cyclist who he claimed failed to follow the rules of the road. When the hypocrisy of that motorist who clearly failed to follow the rules of the road himself was highlighted you and one or two others decided to try and turn it into a general anti-cyclist rant. When your own hypocrisy is highlighted you simply try and divert attention by claiming this thread is specific to cyclists.

Now how about you trying to reclaim a small bit of credibilty by answering the following question honestly (I suspect you won't but I'll try anyway):

Do you ever break the rules of the road when driving? eg going over an unbroken white line, failing to stop at a stop sign perhaps because you can see there's nothing coming, speeding, stopping when it's not safe to do so, failing to use your indicators when turning or moving lane, etc.?

You don't have to admit to what you've done, a simple "Yes I do" or "No I don't" will do

And as a 2nd question, given I don't think it's actually part of the rules of the road:

Do you always give cyclists the minimimum recommended 1.5m clearance when overtaking?

BostonB · 11-02-2013 10:07PM

Knasher wrote: »

The cyclist in the original post did. As the OP stated, he managed to stop short of slamming into the side of the car. An impressive feat, because the OP also accused him of not looking ahead at all.

My comment was he didn't second guess the car. While he saw the car he saw it almost too late. The reason the cyclist was so incensed was because they were going too fast in the cycle lane and only spotted the car last minute, thus requiring a brown shorts level of braking. Whereas he should have spotted garage entrance + yellow box. Which is a given for drivers pulling out and in without looking (for cyclists). Then slowed to a responsible speed.

Impressive? Can't agree. TBH if your passing a line of queued cars its a given someone is going to step between them, or a door open, or someone step off the kerb without looking. So racing down along them is irresponsible at best.

fasttalkerchat · 11-02-2013 10:15PM

BostonB wrote: »

You. Evading the 71% of red light accidents caused by driver and 4% caused by cyclists.

And what percentage of road users are cyclists? I would imagine less than 4%!

Stark · 11-02-2013 10:22PM

What percentage of driver/cyclist accidents involve a cyclist. I would guess 100%! :rolleyes:

BostonB · 11-02-2013 10:24PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And what percentage of road users are cyclists? I would imagine less than 4%!

You're kinda into a different (unrelated) statistics there dude.

I found this though...

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/

In 1949 there were 24 billion kms cycled in the UK – a 33% of all the vehicle miles travelled. By 2009 this had fallen to 5 billion kms, just 1% of vehicle miles [10]

The 2001 Census gives a figure of 638,000 for the number of people who use bikes as the main mode of getting to work in England – 2.83% [11]

A 2007 survey of Public Attitudes to the environment noted that 10% of people use a bike to get to work – 4% as the main mode and 6% as an alternative mode.

Cycle Use in Other Countries
Britain still lags behind countries with similar weather, population density and geography.

Holland – 27% of trips, 848 km per person per year
Denmark – 19%, 936 km pp/year
Germany – 10%, 291 km pp/year
UK – 2%, 75 km pp/year
Though higher than the US where the figure is more like 1%

Cycle Rates by country
Cycling Through Red Lights
A survey by Transport for London at 5 junctions in London, found that 17% of cyclists went through a red light. (Stats on red lights)

In a survey of cyclists asked whether they go through red lights 1.9% said “Yes, frequently.” 11.8% – Yes, sometimes. 19% – ‘rarely and 42% – never (red lights – with

Knasher · 11-02-2013 11:15PM

BostonB wrote: »

My comment was he didn't second guess the car. While he saw the car he saw it almost too late. The reason the cyclist was so incensed was because they were going too fast in the cycle lane and only spotted the car last minute, thus requiring a brown shorts level of braking. Whereas he should have spotted garage entrance + yellow box. Which is a given for drivers pulling out and in without looking (for cyclists). Then slowed to a responsible speed.

Impressive? Can't agree. TBH if your passing a line of queued cars its a given someone is going to step between them, or a door open, or someone step off the kerb without looking. So racing down along them is irresponsible at best.

The cyclist was in a cycle lane, passing the queued line of cars on the inside. Fankly we have no idea what his visibilty was, so your assumption that he wouldn't have had a good view of the kerb is unfounded. I also wouldn't normally expect a queued car to suddenly open its door, doing so would be extremly irresponsible, and while it is possible, frankly there is very little you can do to prepare for it except having good enough brakes that you stand a chance of stopping if it happens.

The cyclist was traveling at a speed where he was able to stop in time when the motorist acted irresponsibly. He also had his bike in a suffecient condition that he was able to stop in time. Apart from shouting at the wrong person, I'd say the cyclist acted very responsibily.

Ray Palmer · 11-02-2013 11:18PM

BostonB wrote: »

My comment was he didn't second guess the car. While he saw the car he saw it almost too late. The reason the cyclist was so incensed was because they were going too fast in the cycle lane and only spotted the car last minute, thus requiring a brown shorts level of braking. Whereas he should have spotted garage entrance + yellow box. Which is a given for drivers pulling out and in without looking (for cyclists). Then slowed to a responsible speed.

Impressive? Can't agree. TBH if your passing a line of queued cars its a given someone is going to step between them, or a door open, or someone step off the kerb without looking. So racing down along them is irresponsible at best.

You don't know what the cyclist saw. I said you second guess cars you see a lot of the time. We don't know when the cyclist saw the car that was crossing without due care.
The driver said he never saw the bike and relied on others to tell him the speed.
You are making up a different story on top of third hand information. So racing down a line of stopped cars is made up by you. He could just as easily cycling at 20kmph and and looking out for cars when a car from the other side of the road suddenly appears.

BostonB · 12-02-2013 12:07AM

Knasher wrote: »

The cyclist was in a cycle lane, passing the queued line of cars on the inside. Fankly we have no idea what his visibilty was, so your assumption that he wouldn't have had a good view of the kerb is unfounded. I also wouldn't normally expect a queued car to suddenly open its door, doing so would be extremly irresponsible, and while it is possible, frankly there is very little you can do to prepare for it except having good enough brakes that you stand a chance of stopping if it happens.

The cyclist was traveling at a speed where he was able to stop in time when the motorist acted irresponsibly. He also had his bike in a suffecient condition that he was able to stop in time. Apart from shouting at the wrong person, I'd say the cyclist acted very responsibily.

You don't have such an extreme reaction if you brake in time to avoid something. Follow a car into a garage then beat on it, cursing at it.

I dunno where you cycle, but a lot of my route is city center, canal, and along queue of cars. People not looking getting out of cars, and cars not looking entering and leaving garages is normal. As is pedestrians walking through cars, behind buses, trucks etc. For me, I see a garage coming up, I'm expecting to be cut up.

fasttalkerchat · 12-02-2013 01:06AM

BostonB wrote: »

You're kinda into a different (unrelated) statistics there dude.

I found this though...

My point was that perhaps cyclists are 2% of vehicles but cause 4% of accidents. Cars are 70% of vehicles but cause 50% of accidents... Note: I made these figures up because I don't have anything solid to base it on.

Simply saying that cyclists make up just 4% of accidents doesn't make them less likely to cause an accident.

BostonB · 12-02-2013 01:35AM

Whats important here, is the thing that hits pedestrians, most often at red lights, is a car. By an enormous margin.

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 02:48AM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

My point was that perhaps cyclists are 2% of vehicles but cause 4% of accidents. Cars are 70% of vehicles but cause 50% of accidents... Note: I made these figures up because I don't have anything solid to base it on.

Simply saying that cyclists make up just 4% of accidents doesn't make them less likely to cause an accident.

Statistics for 2006 would indicate that out of 1490208 commutes the results were
2.4% being cyclists 79.5% being car drivers/passengers 7.7% bus users 0.8% Motorcycles 9.4% other including Goods vehicles

Sunshine87 · 12-02-2013 04:07AM

Some cyclists are absolute morons

Had one tonight who decided to pull out in front of me (even though i was indicating left into a road), and then proceeded to cycle in the middle of the road at snails pace, ffs, she threw me daggers when i blew at her.

In my 6 years of driving i've had plenty of cyclists pulling out in front of me, and not a stitch of safety gear on them, wtf is that about.

SleepDoc · 12-02-2013 05:08AM

Sunshine87 wrote: »

Some cyclists are absolute morons

Had one tonight who decided to pull out in front of me (even though i was indicating left into a road), and then proceeded to cycle in the middle of the road at snails pace, ffs, she threw me daggers when i blew at her.

In my 6 years of driving i've had plenty of cyclists pulling out in front of me, and not a stitch of safety gear on them, wtf is that about.

Incorrect use of the horn.

Indicators don't give you right of way.

Safety gear is not mandatory, or even useful in most circumstances.

Sunshine87 · 12-02-2013 05:19AM

SleepDoc wrote: »

Incorrect use of the horn.

Indicators don't give you right of way.

Safety gear is not mandatory, or even useful in most circumstances.

Well if a cyclist is gonna make a maneuvre like that, they might want to consider safety gear!

I think you'll find when i am turning left and oncoming traffic are turning right, i have the right of way.

opti0nal · 12-02-2013 08:05AM

Sunshine87 wrote: »

Well if a cyclist is gonna make a maneuvre like that, they might want to consider safety gear!

I think you'll find when i am turning left and oncoming traffic are turning right, i have the right of way.

Ah, you missed out there. She fancied you and wanted to get your attention. Even though you're a driver, you're still a living, breathing, sexual being.

BostonB · 12-02-2013 09:37AM

LOl.

Now I wondering what kinda safety kinda gear you have in mind!

Squeaky the Squirrel · 13-02-2013 12:15AM

The psychology of why cyclists enrage car drivers

rubadub · 13-02-2013 10:17AM

Squeaky the Squirrel wrote: »

The psychology of why cyclists enrage car drivers

And why pedestrians also enrage the same breed of cyclist-hating-motorists, well the logical non-hypocritical ones, who are probably few & far between.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

Spook_ie · 13-02-2013 06:35PM

Beasty wrote: »

No it's not - it's about an OP having a rant about a cyclist who he claimed failed to follow the rules of the road. When the hypocrisy of that motorist who clearly failed to follow the rules of the road himself was highlighted you and one or two others decided to try and turn it into a general anti-cyclist rant. When your own hypocrisy is highlighted you simply try and divert attention by claiming this thread is specific to cyclists.

Now how about you trying to reclaim a small bit of credibilty by answering the following question honestly (I suspect you won't but I'll try anyway):

Do you ever break the rules of the road when driving? eg going over an unbroken white line, failing to stop at a stop sign perhaps because you can see there's nothing coming, speeding, stopping when it's not safe to do so, failing to use your indicators when turning or moving lane, etc.?

You don't have to admit to what you've done, a simple "Yes I do" or "No I don't" will do

And as a 2nd question, given I don't think it's actually part of the rules of the road:

Do you always give cyclists the minimimum recommended 1.5m clearance when overtaking?

Well let me see,

Do I deliberately break traffic regulations.....No

Have I inadvertently broken traffic regulations....Possibly, given the state of signage and road markings on the roads

Do I have/had any endorsements against my driving......One, some 36 years ago shortly after passing my UK test for speeding

Have I had any accidents.....Yes two, one in the UK shortly after passing the test when I left the road, another in Ireland when a City Imp rammed into the back of me after I emergency stopped for a cyclist crossing from right lane College Green to left lane on Grafton Steet without looking / indicating

Edit BTW what has this to do with cyclists needing to nhave some cop on and following the R of the R, stop trying to divert attention away from the fact that 87.5% of them DELIBERATELY ignore the R of the R and expect other road users to compensate for that illegality

rubadub · 13-02-2013 06:49PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

no legitimate excuse for total disregard for the R of the R by the majority of cyclists, 87.5% self admitted in the survey carried out by TCD

I imagine if you asked those same 87.5% the same questions you were just asked about driving -that the majority would have answered with similar results. I am sure many gardai have to give legitimate excuses for not enforcing the ROTR to their superiors.

I wonder what this thread would have turned out like it had been

srumball wrote: »

IMO cyclists seem to think they own the road, just the other day I was crossing through a yellow box into the petrol station, traffic was back up from the lights (red light) through the box. A cyclist was FLYING down the cycle lane not looking ahead and nearly slammed into the side of the car as I was pulling into the petrol station.He A passing pedestrian then followed me into the petrol station and began to beat on my car, calling my girlfriend a C**t etc scaring the **** out of her in the car.

Everyone in the petrol station and traffic was watching like WTF is up with this guy. 2 people approached me afterward saying they saw the whole thing and the cyclist was definetly in the wrong, but I later found out it was them who were wrong, turns out just because 2 people say 1 other is wrong the majority doesn't mean they are right, seems few people know the rules

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

Comments