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

Cantona's Collars · 07-12-2013 07:50PM

mitosis wrote: »

Should have driven between them

With both doors open.

RainyDay · 07-12-2013 09:26PM

apkebcfrxvlms4 wrote: »

Also, cyclists are slow moving traffic and are obliged to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by - there is case law to support this obligation.

Source please?

MrCreosote · 07-12-2013 11:42PM

apkebcfrxvlms4 wrote: »

Also, cyclists are slow moving traffic and are obliged to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by - there is case law to support this obligation.

In most urban areas, cycling is significantly faster than driving. Maybe we should lobby for the motorised slow-moving parasites to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by.

CramCycle · 07-12-2013 11:49PM

apkebcfrxvlms4 wrote: »

Also, cyclists are slow moving traffic and are obliged to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by - there is case law to support this obligation.

How come when I pull up behind another car on the road they don't pull in? Hmmmm

wil · 08-12-2013 12:06AM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Is being beeped at really something that is "reasonable to encounter"? I can think of only one or two occasions in the last year where I might have had a reason to beep at someone in my car.

When is beeping at someone "reasonable"?

When said someone has given no indication that they are aware your vehicle is there and they are likely to end up in a collision if they proceed in the manner they currently are. eg someone looking like they are about to step in to moving traffic without looking, reversing car coming at you, car changing lane without indicating or looking, car about to pull off side road in to your path without looking - pretty much any situation where the person shows disregard for themselves and others by lack of observation and needs to be woken up.

Why are Irish people so upset at the sound of a horn, is it the ultimate criticism of them?
It would be hilarious if wasn't ridiculous the amount of abuse I have gotten from people for NOT crashing in to them.
They'd be a shivering wreck if they drove in some countries. Actually in Morocco the horn is used instead of indicators.

And why do drivers think they are allowed to drive on permanent cycle lanes even though the law says they cant and should get points for it.
Cycle lanes are not for parking or undertaking.

JuliusCaesar · 08-12-2013 12:09AM

I cycle, and I also drive. Owning a car I pay Motor Tax.

1. I was stopped at red lights on my bike, waiting to turn right. Suddenly I felt pressure on my leg. The car behind had driven right up to me - right up as in was now touching my leg. When I looked at the driver, she said to me "The lights are about to change".

All drivers are idiots.

2. I was coming down a hill in the cycle lane passing a lot of stationary traffic. Suddenly I saw the bonnet of a car (turning right through the stationary lane) coming into the bike lane behind a van. Despite the fact that I wasn't coming too fast as I had my brakes on, I was awfully afraid that I wouldn't be able to stop in time and that I would go flying over the bonnet. The car driver could not see the lane, and if the van driver was signaling them to carry on, he/she didn't check the bike lane in his/her mirrors.

All drivers are idiots.

3. I need to turn right on the bike onto a main road (coming round a one-way system) and then take the SECOND left. In order to do this safely, and not be run over by cars taking the first left, I do break the red lights. (This is Harcourt St/Adelaide Rd, going to Rathmines rather than Ranelagh - for those familiar with the area)

All road designers are idiots.

As a cyclist, I am very well aware that I am one of the most vulnerable road users and cycle defensively. But I cycle because I'd rather spend 15 minutes cycling to get to work than 45-60 minutes in a car, or 60-90 minutes by public transport. (It's nice that it keeps me fit too!

)

But I'm also not too keen on other cyclists, who don't seem to realise that not every cyclist is in the peak of physical condition. I got a very hard time from young men and MAMILS who don't seem to realise that looking normal doesn't mean that you're not suffering from a chronic physical condition, which means that cycling takes a HUGE effort sometimes and I can't travel as fast as other cyclists.

wil · 08-12-2013 12:17AM

apkebcfrxvlms4 wrote: »

There are far too many self righteous ar$ehole cyclists about and the law has a lot of catching up to do with the current realities on the road.
Cyclists come on here pontificating about 2 abreast being "perfectly legal" but forget to mention that its only legal when not inconveniencing other road users.
Also, cyclists are slow moving traffic and are obliged to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by - there is case law to support this obligation. Cyclists never get tired of telling us that they are vehicles within the meaning of the RTA when looking for their rights but hypocritically ignore the obligations such a classification puts on them (such as pulling in as slow moving vehicles to as not to impede other traffic).
Respect is a two way street and many cyclists are little better than gurriers on the road.

That equally goes for drivers, I meet them every day, driving or cycling.
The only difference is the cyclist is risking his own life, the driver is risking a paint scratch. Many drivers seem to forget that in their cocoon, seemingly minor disregard for safety of a cyclist amounts to a potential death sentence for that cyclist.
While some cyclists do crazy things, there are plenty of drivers who never cease to astound in their stupidity and disregard for ROTR.

And please quote that specific case law, it sounds like complete BS except in some very specific or unusual circumstances.

CramCycle · 08-12-2013 01:17AM

wil wrote: »

And please quote that specific case law, it sounds like complete BS except in some very specific or unusual circumstances.

apkebcfrxvlms4, bullsh1t, in some mad cap scheme to paint all cyclists into a homogenous group, I call shenanigans on your implication.

Umpossible.

Cienciano · 08-12-2013 01:49AM

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I cycle, and I also drive. Owning a car I pay Motor Tax.

1. I was stopped at red lights on my bike, waiting to turn right. Suddenly I felt pressure on my leg. The car behind had driven right up to me - right up as in was now touching my leg. When I looked at the driver, she said to me "The lights are about to change".

All drivers are idiots.

2. I was coming down a hill in the cycle lane passing a lot of stationary traffic. Suddenly I saw the bonnet of a car (turning right through the stationary lane) coming into the bike lane behind a van. Despite the fact that I wasn't coming too fast as I had my brakes on, I was awfully afraid that I wouldn't be able to stop in time and that I would go flying over the bonnet. The car driver could not see the lane, and if the van driver was signaling them to carry on, he/she didn't check the bike lane in his/her mirrors.

All drivers are idiots.

3. I need to turn right on the bike onto a main road (coming round a one-way system) and then take the SECOND left. In order to do this safely, and not be run over by cars taking the first left, I do break the red lights. (This is Harcourt St/Adelaide Rd, going to Rathmines rather than Ranelagh - for those familiar with the area)

All road designers are idiots.

As a cyclist, I am very well aware that I am one of the most vulnerable road users and cycle defensively. But I cycle because I'd rather spend 15 minutes cycling to get to work than 45-60 minutes in a car, or 60-90 minutes by public transport. (It's nice that it keeps me fit too! )

But I'm also not too keen on other cyclists, who don't seem to realise that not every cyclist is in the peak of physical condition. I got a very hard time from young men and MAMILS who don't seem to realise that looking normal doesn't mean that you're not suffering from a chronic physical condition, which means that cycling takes a HUGE effort sometimes and I can't travel as fast as other cyclists.

I seriously think I've narrowed it down to "Every road user except me is an idiot".
The worst are: Cyclists, taxi drivers, merc/bmw drivers, boy racers, women drivers, foreign drivers, old people, drivers with hats (seriously, check that one out), micra drivers, bus drivers, white van drivers, jeep drivers, farmers, police, boggers in the city, dubs out of the city, boggers, dubs, people outside mass, truck drivers, northie drivers, fast drivers, slow drivers, 10kph below the speed limit drivers, school run drivers etc etc.

Harry Angstrom · 08-12-2013 01:56AM

Biggest danger of all is when a motorist decides to take a left turn at a junction when a cyclist is going straight on, and is perfectly entitled to carry on his/her way without some knucklehead motorist deciding to cut them up. Are those fookers blind or what?? Or perhaps they don't seem to realise that cyclists are actually MOVING :rolleyes:

Healy Rae Permit Holder · 08-12-2013 03:45AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Biggest danger of all is when a motorist decides to take a left turn at a junction when a cyclist is going straight on, and is perfectly entitled to carry on his/her way without some knucklehead motorist deciding to cut them up. Are those fookers blind or what?? Or perhaps they don't seem to realise that cyclists are actually MOVING :rolleyes:

It depends on the layout of the road, i was driving down Dyke Parade and had entered the lane for bachelors quay, there was a cyclist to my left of me, the lights were red and the cyclist was quicker to react and went to cycle on straight instead of turning left, i nearly ran him over had to stop, he should have been to the right of me since he was continuing on Dyke Parade, he was poorly lit too, what would the law be if i had mowed him down that morning?
This happened in Cork City.

CramCycle · 08-12-2013 01:13PM

[QUOTE=Healy Rae Permit Holder;87897934, there was a cyclist to my left of me[/QUOTE]

If the cyclist was already to your left you should have waited till he proceeded through the junction. It sounds like you were at fault as you knew someone was there and you moved anyway. Even if he was also turning left, overtaking on a turn is just poor judgement regardless of what else is happening.

ArmaniJeanss · 08-12-2013 01:47PM

Healy Rae Permit Holder wrote: »

the lights were red and the cyclist was quicker to react and went to cycle on straight instead of turning left, i nearly ran him over had to stop, he should have been to the right of me since he was continuing on Dyke Parade, he was poorly lit too, what would the law be if i had mowed him down that morning?

It's one of the contradictions in cyclist/car relations; if he had been on the right of you at the junction then you would have been quite content, but some other car driver would have been upset about a cyclist hogging the middle of the road and not letting faster traffic go past.

Healy Rae Permit Holder · 08-12-2013 02:34PM

CramCycle wrote: »

If the cyclist was already to your left you should have waited till he proceeded through the junction. It sounds like you were at fault as you knew someone was there and you moved anyway. Even if he was also turning left, overtaking on a turn is just poor judgement regardless of what else is happening.

I was intending of taking the junction wide to allow space for the cyclist.

Healy Rae Permit Holder · 08-12-2013 02:45PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It's one of the contradictions in cyclist/car relations; if he had been on the right of you at the junction then you would have been quite content, but some other car driver would have been upset about a cyclist hogging the middle of the road and not letting faster traffic go past.

I would have been content, are cyclist suppose to use the same lanes as driving lanes? was the cyclist in the right or wrong lane in this case? if i drive in the wrong lane and make a mistake and if i crash it would be all my fault, is this not the same for cyclists?
I am not anti cyclist, i cycle myself.

seamus · 08-12-2013 03:03PM

Healy Rae Permit Holder wrote: »

I would have been content, are cyclist suppose to use the same lanes as driving lanes? was the cyclist in the right or wrong lane in this case? if i drive in the wrong lane and make a mistake and if i crash it would be all my fault, is this not the same for cyclists?
I am not anti cyclist, i cycle myself.

According to street view and google maps the arrows painted on the road at this junction (Dyke Parade/Bachelors Quay eastbound) indicate that either lane can be used for going straight on.
If that is the case, then the cyclist was in the correct lane. Though I accept the markings may have changed since the images were taken.

In any case, it doesn't actually matter if the cyclist was in the correct lane. When turning left, you must yield to any traffic on your left. The cyclist had right-of-way merely by being in that position, even if it was the incorrect one.

ArmaniJeanss · 08-12-2013 03:18PM

Healy Rae Permit Holder wrote: »

I would have been content, are cyclist suppose to use the same lanes as driving lanes? was the cyclist in the right or wrong lane in this case?

Personally I'd have been in the middle of the driving lane such that nothing could go past me but as I said thats causing motorists ire also.
I don't know whether its right or wrong to be honest - and obviously it gets even more complicated if theres a cycle lane on the left for both leftturning and going-on-straight cyclists.

Healy Rae Permit Holder wrote: »

if i drive in the wrong lane and make a mistake and if i crash it would be all my fault, is this not the same for cyclists?

Generally it'll be the motorists fault, in the example you gave I'd say it would have been very clearly your fault if you'd hit him - It a single lane road I think, cyclist hasn't signalled that he's turning left, you've somehow managed to plough into him from a starting position where both of you were motionless.

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 03:24PM

Its always important to remember nobody is a good road user. Your driving licences means that your a competent road user nothing more. If your a cyclist and don't have a driving licence you can even say your a competent road user.

Beasty · 08-12-2013 04:45PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Its always important to remember nobody is a good road user. Your driving licences means that your a competent road user nothing more. If your a cyclist and don't have a driving licence you can even say your a competent road user.

What an absurd statement

Of course it's possible for drivers to be much better that the basic standard required to pass a test. Similarly just because someone has not passed a driving test does not mean they are not a competent road user. I know many cyclists who have never driven but still have a far better grasp of traffic laws and good "driving" practice than some motorists who have passed a driving test (and some with driving licences in this country never even passed a driving test!)

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 06:36PM

Beasty wrote: »

What an absurd statement

Of course it's possible for drivers to be much better that the basic standard required to pass a test. Similarly just because someone has not passed a driving test does not mean they are not a competent road user. I know many cyclists who have never driven but still have a far better grasp of traffic laws and good "driving" practice than some motorists who have passed a driving test (and some with driving licences in this country never even passed a driving test!)

There is nothing absurd about it, there is no test of competency for a cyclist so how can they prove that they are competent road users?

Image this two identical sixteen years, one gets a car and the other gets a bicycle for their birthday. Which one can go out onto the use their vehicle on the road that day? Explain to me how it makes that one person must pass a basic test on the ROTR and the other doesn't?

Beasty · 08-12-2013 06:45PM

You do not need such "proof" of competency to actually be competent! In fact, certificates of passing "tests" are not proof of competency - plenty of people do very well in exams but can be pretty useless when it comes to dealing with real-life situations

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 06:55PM

Beasty wrote: »

You do not need such "proof" of competency to actually be competent! In fact, certificates of passing "tests" are not proof of competency - plenty of people do very well in exams but can be pretty useless when it comes to dealing with real-life situations

You do need proof, how can you be competent if you haven't pass a test on the ROTR?

Bucklesman · 08-12-2013 07:38PM

Jester252 wrote: »

You do need proof, how can you be competent if you haven't pass a test on the ROTR?

You can be competent, and you can be certified competent. Same way you can be insane without being certified insane.

You could also be incompetent having being certified competent if your mindset or driving habits changed after getting your driving licence. Thinking you're more competent than any road user who doesn't have a licence because you have yours... that could indicate overconfidence. At the end of the day, certification is just some lad signing a piece of paper to say they saw you being competent one time.

Beasty · 08-12-2013 07:40PM

Jester252 wrote: »

You do need proof, how can you be competent if you haven't pass a test on the ROTR?

I haven't but consider myself a perfectly competent driver (for over 35 years) and cyclist (I did pass a driving test in another jurisdiction). I suspect my knowledge of the RoTR is as good as most drivers in Ireland. I've not done any "tests" or "exams" in over 28 years, but consider myself perfectly competent to do my job (which requires specialism in laws that change every year;)), as my employer clearly does also

I will re-iterate my point - competency is not measured by an abilty to pass tests or exams - it's measured by an ability to do the job at hand (in this case driving or cycling) - the "certificate" (Irish driving licence in this case) is merely a piece of paper that says at some time in the (possibly distant) past you managed to undertake a limited number of driving manouvers to the satisfaction of one other person, and in some cases sat a written test on the RoTR, or indeed that in some cases you were simply in the right place at the right time and never actually had to pass any test or exam.

beauf · 08-12-2013 07:54PM

Jester252 wrote: »

You do need proof, how can you be competent if you haven't pass a test on the ROTR?

The accident statistics of new drivers would suggest passing the test doesn't make many drivers competent .

A lot of people (Cyclists and drivers) know the ROTR and deliberately ignore them.

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 07:55PM

Beasty wrote: »

I haven't but consider myself a perfectly competent driver (for over 35 years) and cyclist (I did pass a driving test in another jurisdiction). I suspect my knowledge of the RoTR is as good as most drivers in Ireland. I've not done any "tests" or "exams" in over 28 years, but consider myself perfectly competent to do my job (which requires specialism in laws that change every year;)), as my employer clearly does also

I will re-iterate my point - competency is not measured by an abilty to pass tests or exams - it's measured by an ability to do the job at hand (in this case driving or cycling) - the "certificate" (Irish driving licence in this case) is merely a piece of paper that says at some time in the (possibly distant) past you managed to undertake a limited number of driving manouvers to the satisfaction of one other person, and in some cases sat a written test on the RoTR, or indeed that in some cases you were simply in the right place at the right time and never actually had to pass any test or exam.

Yet again more hear say
How is it safe to have someone on the road without any prove that he or she knows the ROTR?

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 07:57PM

beauf wrote: »

The accident statistics of new drivers would suggest passing the test doesn't make many drivers competent .

A lot of people (Cyclists and drivers) know the ROTR and deliberately ignore them.

Many people seem to think that passing the driving test makes you a good driver.

Beasty · 08-12-2013 08:00PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Yet again more hear say
How is it safe to have someone on the road without any prove that he or she knows the ROTR?

What, in anything I have posted in this thraed, do you consider hearsay?

Passing a driving test is absolutely no proof that the individual in question "knows" the RoTR.

Jester252 · 08-12-2013 08:06PM

Beasty wrote: »

What, in anything I have posted in this thraed, do you consider hearsay?

Passing a driving test is absolutely no proof that the individual in question "knows" the RoTR.

I know many cyclists who have never driven but still have a far better grasp of traffic laws and good "driving" practice than some motorists who have passed a driving test

That a lot of hearsay.

:rolleyes:
That second statement has to be one of the dumbest thing I've read.
In order to pass the driving test you must first pass a test on the ROTR i.e the theory test, in order to pass this test you must study the ROTR. It is at some prove that the road user has some knowledge of the ROTR.

beauf · 08-12-2013 08:07PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Many people seem to think that passing the driving test makes you a good driver.

Mainly the people who have just passed the test.

The statistics tell a different story.

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

Comments