Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

radia · 23-07-2013 09:57AM

steamengine wrote: »

This quote from SI No 332/2012 seems to be the latest on cycling two abreast and explains to me at any rate how the RSA arrived at their interpretation :-

'Do cycle in single file if cycling if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.'

(s) by substituting for article 47 (as amended by Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011 ( S.I. No. 673 of 2011 )) the following:

“Pedal cyclists

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

If so, then the RSA is making a similar misinterpretation to others in this thread! As already pointed out, subclause (1) above means that cyclists can only be more than two abreast when they're overtaking in a way that doesn't endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others. There's nothing there that legally prevents inconvenient cycling two abreast.

Subclause (2) means that you can't have two cyclists simultaneously pulling out round a car to overtake it, for example. If a pair of cyclists cycling two abreast want to overtake other traffic, they must go past it one by one, and then can join up again and resume their 2 abreast status ahead of whatever they've passed out. It doesn't say that cyclists have to be in single file when being overtaken. That would be impossible to legislate for, since cyclists cannot fully control when/by whom they are overtaken.

Spook_ie · 23-07-2013 10:00AM

AltAccount wrote: »

Well spotted, that makes more sense. I was wondering what happened to cyclist 21 if groups are limited to 20 and subgroups are forced to stay in touch with each other.

So we can legally have a group of 20, cycling two abreast, every 50.1 yards. That still seems entirely reasonable.

TBH, I'm more curious what Spook's point is rather than the strict interpretation of 1937 law... Spook?

There's no point other than to say I preferred the wording of the 1937 act, at least it gave some dimensionality to the problem ( which obviously existed even then, so it's nothing new either )

I did say it was probably rescinded somewhere

Tombo2001 · 23-07-2013 10:12AM

bambergbike wrote: »

OK, I'm in Germany and can confirm this, up to a point. When I was a poor student in Germany in 1997 I broke a red light cycling home from a disco through deserted streets at three in the morning. The fine was hefty enough (140 DM, or 70 Euro) plus penalty points. The same as a motorist would have paid. I don't really understand why Irish cyclists will pay less than Irish motorists for RLJ - if B has a crash with C because of the stupid actions of A, and A remains unscathed, does it matter what A was driving at the time?

On the other hand, if A is a pedestrian and breaks a red light, the fine is 5€. Not necessarily everywhere, but I think that's the current Munich fine.

Cycling in a pedestrian zone used to be €10 and has gone up to €15.

Parking fines in various places are being increased because it was cheaper to get them than to pay for parking.

The "ticket" you have to buy when caught without one on public transport used to cost €40, I think that's going up to €60.

I live in Upper Franconia and I recently heard a parking fine story from a friend based in Lower Fanconia. An Upper Franconian beer lorry driver parked badly outside a pub in Volkach and got a ticket while he was making a delivery. He caught up with the parking warden as she was writing the ticket for a fairly tiny sum and started abusing her roundly. She got upset and added an extra bit to the fine to cover the driver obstructing her in her work. He got more upset. She sued him for insulting her and was awarded damages that were far, far higher than the initial parking fine. The Upper Franconian cuss word that he used to isn't used in Lower Franconia, so the good people of Volkach were all going round saying to each other that they had no idea what sulln meant, but it must be a really, really bad word because the parking warden had received damages for having to listen to it. So I made enquiries and discovered that it comes from "suhlen", to wallow (like a pig in muck) and is therefore akin to calling somebody a dirty sow.

Moral of the story: it doesn't matter how trivial the fine is if you also get sued. Most people here have third liability insurance, so accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, inline skaters and so on are often sorted out in much the same way as car accidents: stop and exchange details and then let the insurance companies work it out, in court or out of court.

I do think the trivial fines work. People paying a €15 fine don't feel bitterness towards the policeman who enforces it. They also don't feel so annoyed by their own stupidity that they try to hide the fact they got fined. They put their hands up and acknowledge that they were caught fair and square, and they tell all their friends - the fact that it all becomes a bit of a joke isn't a bad thing if the story makes the rounds and the message gets passed on that way.

That said, this is Germany and there are 17 Transport Ministers (one Federal one and 16 in individual states) and loads of state-level and local regulations. Take a shortcut home from the pub in the car on a road that's "resident's only" and you might get a €15 fine for a traffic offence, but use a "Forest Traffic only" road and you suddenly fall foul of laws protecting nature rather than traffic laws and might get a €20 000 fine instead (although I think you'd have to go on a three-week rampage with a lot of quad bikes before being fined the full whack.)

Thats really interesting......

You say This is Germany and there are 17 transport ministers....but Germany has 80 million people, so thats one minister for every 4.7mn people, which = Irelands population.

People say Germany has far too many rules and regulations. I'd be delighted, absolutely delighted, if some council bod made our road for residents only.

steamengine · 23-07-2013 10:29AM

radia wrote: »

If so, then the RSA is making a similar misinterpretation to others in this thread! As already pointed out, subclause (1) above means that cyclists can only be more than two abreast when they're overtaking in a way that doesn't endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others. There's nothing there that legally prevents inconvenient cycling two abreast.

Subclause (2) means that you can't have two cyclists simultaneously pulling out round a car to overtake it, for example. If a pair of cyclists cycling two abreast want to overtake other traffic, they must go past it one by one, and then can join up again and resume their 2 abreast status ahead of whatever they've passed out. It doesn't say that cyclists have to be in single file when being overtaken. That would be impossible to legislate for, since cyclists cannot fully control when/by whom they are overtaken.

Subclause (2) came over with the cut and paste - not an issue, however there is another way to read subclause (1). Read it again and leave out the 'save when overtaking other pedal cyclists' part to get the sense of what I'm trying to say. I'm not a legal person, but I do see two meanings and TBH, I would accept the RSA's interpretation before any poster's here as they are the Authority on the issue.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 10:37AM

alkos wrote: »

Get yourself one of these.

Catch him at the lights, politely knock on the window with a smile and when he rolls it down, wham the full can inside. Watch his ears bleed.

This kind of stuff doesn't have a place here. Thank you.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2013 10:41AM

steamengine wrote: »

Subclause (2) came over with the cut and paste - not an issue, however there is another way to read subclause (1). Read it again and leave out the 'save when overtaking other pedal cyclists' part to get the sense of what I'm trying to say. I'm not a legal person, but I do see two meanings and TBH, I would accept the RSA's interpretation before any poster's here as they are the Authority on the issue.

We're not going to have another person creating a row by generating their own interpretation of the law. Cycling two abreast is legal. End of story.

hardCopy · 23-07-2013 10:44AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm sure there's an exemption in there that comes into affect when they put their hazards on, or wave de herald viscously at you.

(thank god for taxi drivers, the one group cyclists jostle with over being the most disliked group on the roads)

Ewww, sticky newspaper. At least it's not his viscous copy of The Sun.

radia · 23-07-2013 11:06AM

steamengine wrote: »

Subclause (2) came over with the cut and paste - not an issue, however there is another way to read subclause (1). Read it again and leave out the 'save when overtaking other pedal cyclists' part to get the sense of what I'm trying to say. I'm not a legal person, but I do see two meanings and TBH, I would accept the RSA's interpretation before any poster's here as they are the Authority on the issue.

That gives:
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

It still says cyclists can't be more than 2 abreast, and can only be more than 2 abreast if doing so (being more than 2 abreast) is not dangerous, inconvenient etc.

The 'to do so' refers to the action in the main clause which is cycling more than two abreast. There is no ambiguity.

Jawgap · 23-07-2013 11:08AM

I think this would send out the right message......

ThisRegard · 23-07-2013 11:23AM

Broadsheet constantly throws up biking related stuff, this looks painful but the main comment to go with the story is "Wearing headphones when cycling is not good when in traffic…" . Obviously we don't know the circumstances but the reader is implying that it's the cyclist fault (?)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/23/be-careful-out-there-2/

And then there's this gem of a comment

"And not wearing a cycle helmet is not exactly clever either, and illegal!!"

This is the attitudes cyclists have to deal with.

Alek · 23-07-2013 11:29AM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This kind of stuff doesn't have a place here. Thank you.

Jaysus, just joking.

daymobrew · 23-07-2013 11:32AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Broadsheet constantly throws up biking related stuff, this looks painful but the main comment to go with the story is "Wearing headphones when cycling is not good when in traffic…" . Obviously we don't know the circumstances but the reader is implying that it's the cyclist fault (?)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/23/be-careful-out-there-2/

One person pointed out that the cyclist doesn't appear to have headphones on.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2013 11:43AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Broadsheet constantly throws up biking related stuff

i think the only topic which regularly beats cycling related ones for generating comment on broadsheet is abortion.

i'd say posts about cycling pushes up their ad revenue (little as that may be) due to all the page refreshes.

Tombo2001 · 23-07-2013 12:06PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Broadsheet constantly throws up biking related stuff, this looks painful but the main comment to go with the story is "Wearing headphones when cycling is not good when in traffic…" . Obviously we don't know the circumstances but the reader is implying that it's the cyclist fault (?)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/23/be-careful-out-there-2/

And then there's this gem of a comment

"And not wearing a cycle helmet is not exactly clever either, and illegal!!"

This is the attitudes cyclists have to deal with.

Very disapponting from broadsheet.....but like the Irish Times they seem to have learnt that mouthing off about cyclists is good for ad revenue.

To be honest, its really bad what Broadsheet has done here. Its really low. If The Sun ran with that photo and that headline, there would be end to the castigation....

.....but because Broadsheet is 'new media'.....thats alright then.

Beasty · 23-07-2013 12:13PM

alkos wrote: »

Jaysus, just joking.

You may have been, but it just needs one smart arse to think it's a good idea and you could be encouraging someone to do something stupid - also do not respond to mod comments/instructions in-thread - PM the mod instead

Thanks

whatis12 · 23-07-2013 12:22PM

Hi all,

As an avid cyclist and a driver i have been very interested in whats going on here , so have decided to give my pennies worth , not that is probably even worth that lol, anyway as a driver i get the whole " watch out for cyclists" thing the whole time and always from other cyclist who don't know i do it a lot and i mean a lot, just ask my other half when i tell her i'm going to be doing a 200k on sunday morning or i get home early during the week and decide that i can fit a 80-100 k in before i have to go to bed, but i get it from the cyclist who cycle to work or just do it leisurely with 1 or 2 friends but when it comes to car and cyclists i am afraid it works both ways. Lets face it when have you ever heard an add on tv/radio waring cyclist specifically to watch out for car uses or give way to them ??? to be honest i haven't heard one, or it just could be that i don't listen to the stations that do those adds!!!!
I like the photo above with the cyclist and whats written on his t shirt but given thats the USA its does not apply here, in the states laws of the road vary s=from state to state and some, if not a lot , of states don't a general road tax , like we do here, but its incorporated in to every ones tax at the end of the year so if you don't use a car your still paying a tax for the roads, here if you don't have a car and only use a bike your not paying a single penny to the up keep of the road, therefore and again remember i am an avid cyclist , you should give way and respect car users , i know most people are both but lets face most of the people who turn on drivers and go on about road rage towards them end up being the ones who don't pay tax to keep the roads that that use, and one more thing if any person wants to use the road, which i still think they are entitled to use, they should be prepared to abide by the rules set out for the road and if they break them then they should pay the penalty, after all a car/van/bus/lorry driver would have to pay them if they break them.
At the end of the day none of us wants to get hurt cycling or hurt some one cycling, and lets face it a lot of the rules concerning cyclist were brought out when bikes were the main source of transport in the country but things change so its up to the NRA/RSA to catch up with the times and revalue the laws and then they can make (hopefully) a lot of users of both transports happy.

PeadarCo · 23-07-2013 12:31PM

whatis12 wrote: »

if you don't use a car your still paying a tax for the roads, here if you don't have a car and only use a bike your not paying a single penny to the up keep of the road,

Absolute Rubbish. The upkeep of the roads is paid out of general taxation so anyone who pays any type of tax pays for road upkeep.

ozzy jr · 23-07-2013 12:31PM

whatis12 wrote: »

here if you don't have a car and only use a bike your not paying a single penny to the up keep of the road, therefore and again remember i am an avid cyclist , you should give way and respect car users .

Ah jaysus, not this "road tax" again :rolleyes:

Hmmzis · 23-07-2013 12:31PM

It's motor tax, nothing to do with roads.

Roads are maintained from income and other taxes (mostly income tax). So everyone pays for roads, even someone who has never had a car or bike or hoverboard.

hardCopy · 23-07-2013 12:32PM

whatis12 wrote: »

Hi all,

As an avid cyclist and a driver i have been very interested in whats going on here , so have decided to give my pennies worth , not that is probably even worth that lol, anyway as a driver i get the whole " watch out for cyclists" thing the whole time and always from other cyclist who don't know i do it a lot and i mean a lot, just ask my other half when i tell her i'm going to be doing a 200k on sunday morning or i get home early during the week and decide that i can fit a 80-100 k in before i have to go to bed, but i get it from the cyclist who cycle to work or just do it leisurely with 1 or 2 friends but when it comes to car and cyclists i am afraid it works both ways. Lets face it when have you ever heard an add on tv/radio waring cyclist specifically to watch out for car uses or give way to them ??? to be honest i haven't heard one, or it just could be that i don't listen to the stations that do those adds!!!!
I like the photo above with the cyclist and whats written on his t shirt but given thats the USA its does not apply here, in the states laws of the road vary s=from state to state and some, if not a lot , of states don't a general road tax , like we do here, but its incorporated in to every ones tax at the end of the year so if you don't use a car your still paying a tax for the roads, here if you don't have a car and only use a bike your not paying a single penny to the up keep of the road, therefore and again remember i am an avid cyclist , you should give way and respect car users , i know most people are both but lets face most of the people who turn on drivers and go on about road rage towards them end up being the ones who don't pay tax to keep the roads that that use, and one more thing if any person wants to use the road, which i still think they are entitled to use, they should be prepared to abide by the rules set out for the road and if they break them then they should pay the penalty, after all a car/van/bus/lorry driver would have to pay them if they break them.
At the end of the day none of us wants to get hurt cycling or hurt some one cycling, and lets face it a lot of the rules concerning cyclist were brought out when bikes were the main source of transport in the country but things change so its up to the NRA/RSA to catch up with the times and revalue the laws and then they can make (hopefully) a lot of users of both transports happy.

Road tax?

Stick up a copy of your receipt there for the craic.

RayCun · 23-07-2013 12:34PM

Hmmzis wrote: »

Roads are maintained from income and other taxes (mostly income tax).

Logically therefore, the unemployed and tourists should cycle on the paths

Spook_ie · 23-07-2013 12:37PM

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's motor tax, nothing to do with roads.

Roads are maintained from income and other taxes (mostly income tax). So everyone pays for roads, even someone who has never had a car or bike or hoverboard.

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

Hmmzis · 23-07-2013 12:50PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

What if the cyclist's salary higher than the motorist's?

Motoring is taxed more due to the devastation it causes to people and our surroundings. Just look at the amount of deaths caused by motorists every year.

check_six · 23-07-2013 12:52PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

Well, clearly, the way forward is for every citizen of this land to have a large electronic sign above their heads (attached with some form of rod scaffolding, I imagine) that would show a running total of the amount of direct and indirect tax they had paid to the state in the current tax year. It would allow you to bow and scrape to your superiors who had a larger running total than you, and it would help you to identify your lessers who you could safely kick up the backside, safe in the knowledge that you had paid more tax and were therfore more entitled than they.

We could even attach these signs to visitors as they arrived on our island. It's a win-win concept in my eyes!

I will come back with design sketches later. You may begin backside kickings right now based on any and all suspicions you may be harbouring.

ThisRegard · 23-07-2013 12:52PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

But the one who drives has little money to pay for anything else after the car loan, motor tax, insurance, and fuel so lives off weetabix for the week.

Whereas the cyclist has piles of money and eats a massive amount of food every evening to replenish his or her energy stocks while indulging in some fine wine and craft beer. Then goes away every weekend to participate in some event or another and stops off to parcel motel on the way to pick up his/her Wiggle/CRC delivery they're hiding from their partner.

Therefore the cyclist IS paying more tax.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2013 12:55PM

if you want to make the argument that road tax should pay for the roads, that's an easy one.
say a cyclist plus bike weighs 100KG. and motorist plus car weighs 1500kg.

the damage to the road is proportional to the third power of the weight per axle - so a car, being 15 times heavier, does 3000 times the damage that a bike does.

so if i was to pay road tax on a bike proportional to what i pay in motor tax on my car, my annual bill would be about 10c for the bike.

Tombo2001 · 23-07-2013 12:59PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

This places zero value on the damage caused to the environment by emissions.

In practice, there is a negative value associated with this which offsets the value of road tax. (theoretically).

Dermot Illogical · 23-07-2013 01:03PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Kill this one now....

2 people in exactly the same circumstances, both earn the same and there fore pay the same income tax,
one of them cycles to work the other drives, the one who drives is paying more in taxation (motor tax/fuel tax etc. ) therefore he IS paying more tax towards the roads than the cyclist so there are road taxes

The cyclist will live longer, and even up the balance sheet while the driver pushes up daisies.

Beasty · 23-07-2013 01:04PM

This has been covered in the forum ad nauseum. It's called motor tax for a reason, so let's not go down that route yet again

To avoid any doubt, that means it's off-topic - no more posts on the subject

Thanks

Beasty

delthedriver · 23-07-2013 01:09PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

I was driving behind a LK reg 520d BMW driver that lost his head at cyclists cycling two abreast on the coast road to Howth in Dublin this morning. He was being a dick, the cyclists were doing 40kph + and wheeled in to Howth about eight seconds after the cars! Could have been one of you, deep blue top, fairly clipping along, big fella. Cyclists either didn't hear the car driver or completely ignored him. I reckon the heat and the €50 fine business has renewed self righteousness amongst some of the less experienced drivers.

LK stands for Look Knacker!;)

Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

Comments