Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

No Pants wrote: »

I'm paying €1600+ on two cars. I'm on the opposite footpath.

€1600+ in taxes and now €50 on the spot fines.... wow, you have it tough!!

To the **** cycling down Marlborough Road (heading from Donnybrook to Ranelagh) on the wrong side of the road, without a helmet, on Saturday evening (20th July) at approx 6.30pm

You are giving cyclists a bad name for being thick and inconsiderate!

Cyclepath wrote: »

Indeed! There's no such thing as road tax. It's motor tax and it's based on the amount of CO2 your car emits. Therefore the notion that cyclists might pay 'road tax' is invalid.

This is just semantics. It's a tax for using a motorised vehicle on a public road. It really doesn't matter what it's called. It could be "public road tax". Bottom line is, if i don't use my car on a public road, i don't need to tax it.

And with regard to how it is calculated...

For a post 08 private cars it is based on CO2 emissions. For pre 08 cars it's based on engine size. And for many other categories of vehicle it is a flat fee. I don't see how this makes the notion that cyclists pay the tax invalid. A €50 flat fee could easily be introduced if the government decided to.

Cyclepath wrote: »

I'm also a motorist and pay tax on my 'team car' but it has nothing to do with my bicycle, or my use of the road. We need to resist this mistaken notion that motorists somehow have superior rights or greater claim to road usage.

People in all walks of life will feel a greater sense of entitlement when they pay for something, especially when they have to share it and are at times inconvenienced by people who don't. You might as well just suck it up and accept that because it won't change any time soon.

Cyclepath wrote: »

Most motoring in cities is just an expression of laziness and selfishness. There is absolutely no moral or legal justification for a single individual to clog up a city with a two ton conveyance polluting the atmosphere and endangering or delaying the more considerate cyclists, pedestrians, and public transport users.

Can you provide the data to back this rather arrogant statement up please.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

No its more of the lines of how do we cycle so our heads dont end up under a car wheel and also following the rules of the road !

Its there in the rules of the road to keep left as possible.

Last time I saw a cycle lane it was close to the footpath and not in the middle of the road !

It is safer to cycle out from the kerb, around the point where the painted line would be if there were a cycle lane there. It allows flexibility when dodging obstacles, prevents silly overtakes on single lane roads and allows drivers see you sooner. Yes it can be be mildly inconvenient for following traffic, but safety should always trump convenience.

As for the ROTR...The ROTR is a nice book, but it's no roadcraft bible. Roadcraft is worth learning, but it involves thinking about what is going on around you to a much greater level than that booklet could ever cover. And taking "keep left" too literally is a bad idea. Try it some day. Keep in as far left as possible. You'll find it quite scary. You will probably also meet one or two motorists who take another item in the ROTR literally and will refuse to go over the centre line as they overtake you despite the rest of the road being entirely clear.
That should be enough to focus the mind.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Last time I saw a cycle lane it was close to the footpath and not in the middle of the road!

A Berlin city planner gave a decent lecture in Dublin recently on planning cycling infrastructure. I missed it and caught it on utube afterwards:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBtK2llDoMs&feature=youtu.be

One of his observations was he had seen cycle lanes in Dublin that were very narrow (i.e. too close to the footpath). So yes, you probably have seen a lot of cycle lanes around Ireland that aren't where they should be. Doesn't mean cyclists should adopt equally rubbish road positioning.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Very simply if you want less hassle on the roads dont be looking for it and you wont get it.

I made a BIG mistake two weeks ago and it led to a MAJOR scare. I moved in to the the edge of the road to let a slow-moving vehicle past as I was cycling up a fairly steep corkscrew hill. Major roadcraft error! I didn't look to see what size the vehicle was first and I didn't assess whether it was safe to "let" it overtake. My ears lazily suggested a small truck, and there was space for one of those. It turned out to be a massive quarry lorry, and it took advantage of my moving in to overtake on a bend without crossing the centre line. Scary and dangerous!

In the future, I will be much more careful about inviting stupid overtakes by moving in. It was incredibly stupid of me not to look around and make eye contact with the driver and size up the vehicle before either letting him pass OR commanding the lane until it was safe to overtake, or until I reached a spot where I could pull in easily. A homical maniac might have overtaken me before I got there, but an ordinary lorry driver would have had patience with me for 90 seconds. I've rarely held a vehicle up for longer than that, a tailback of quarry lorries and logging trucks isn't my idea of fun.

If I had ended up dead, a coroner would have blamed the lorry driver and not me. Rules of the road, yadda yadda yadda, cyclists are supposed to keep in, lorry drivers are supposed to overtake only where it is safe. So I would have been legal, but my roadcraft was poor, and I could have ended up dead. This is pretty similar to situations where cyclists get doored - the "doorer" is at fault, but the cyclist would still be alive if he or she had stayed further out in the main traffic stream well away from doors. Staying well out helps in loads of other situations as well - like passing side road junctions on a main road. It's not just about avoiding crap at the edge of the road. It's about thinking for people who are too lazy to think for themselves and showing them what not to do.

Kav0777 wrote: »

Those pesky pedestrians, crossing the roads willy nilly without having paid for them, and sometimes using pedestrian crossings making me slow down, and sometimes even stop !!.......makes me mad :mad:

ah well, just have to suck it up and accept it ...

Yes. You do. I don't know why pedestrians are always brought up in these discussions. Everyone is a pedestrian at some stage and in general they are using footpaths, not roads. I can understand how you might feel that pushing an argument to it's conclusion might help your argument but it doesn't.

Kav0777 wrote: »

As an aside, I wonder will the above attitude work in a casualty room: Treat me first, I clearly pay more taxes that that fella there....I'm entitled, Hey Nursey I pay your wages ya know...

I wouldn't think so.

Actually your wrong. Healthcare in many countries including our own is very favourable towards those who pay. You will be seen much more quickly in the A&E Dept in Blackrock Private then you will in Vincent's public. Likewise, if you have a chronic illness, your waiting times to see a consultant and to recieve follow up treatment will be substantially less if you have the means to pay. It might not be fair, but it is the reality.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

No its more of the lines of how do we cycle so our heads dont end up under a car wheel and also following the rules of the road !

Its there in the rules of the road to keep left as possible.

Last time I saw a cycle lane it was close to the footpath and not in the middle of the road !

Are you all exempt from this or something ? Infact I hope theres an on the spot fine coming out for it since you admit to doing it.

Very simply if you want less hassle on the roads dont be looking for it and you wont get it.

I don't even know where to start with that brainfart of a post.

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. You do. I don't know why pedestrians are always brought up in these discussions. Everyone is a pedestrian at some stage and in general they are using footpaths, not roads. I can understand how you might feel that pushing an argument to it's conclusion might help your argument but it doesn't.

Except, obviously, in rural areas, where I cycle. I can understand how you might feel omitting that might help your argument ...

Swanner wrote: »

Actually your wrong. Healthcare in many countries including our own is very favourable towards those who pay. You will be seen much more quickly in the A&E Dept in Blackrock Private then you will in Vincent's public. Likewise, if you have a chronic illness, your waiting times to see a consultant and to recieve follow up treatment will be substantially less if you have the means to pay. It might not be fair, but it is the reality.

Maybe you could use private roads then, as you would healthcare..

Swanner wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense

Ok, initially you were talking about people paying for a public facility feeling more entitled to it, I wondered how that would work in casualty room, you then made the comparison between Blackrock hospital's A&E (private care) and Vincent's A&E (public care). I facetiously made reference to the private vs public nature of the care by suggesting you should use private roads. I realise now that this was glib and I should have pointed out that your criticism of my post referred people paying for private services and not people getting better public services because they pay for those public services..

... meh.... You're right ban bikes now!