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

Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

1…1112141617…31

Comments

  • #392
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    The North Korean skit was particularly good, fake letters from the North Koreans asking then to cease and desist. I'm a Waterford man myself (I know, I know), so probably biased.
    And Michelle Obama saying that Irish people were "ugly mother****ers". That fooled a few people.


  • #393
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/476851904522493952


  • #394
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Looks like the Canal cycle lane @ the baggot street bridge. Good to see the Gardai policing that, they could really rethink those junctions though. It's a bit crazy at rush hour when you've cyclist and pedestrians all waiting to cross there. Having the ped crossings behind the lights for the cycle track means that many seem to be unaware of when they can and can't go.


  • #395
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/476851904522493952

    LOL, only 34, the Gardai are getting slack, I'd have that every second turn of the lights at the Mount St. Junction at peak times, 34 peds, 34 cyclists and 34 RLJ/ambergambling/yellow box sitting motorists.


  • #396
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    If that was every 10mins I'd understand. At peak its almost constant RLJ.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    bigar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭bigar


    The reason of red light jumping by cycles and pedestrians is partly the very long periods of green/red. All lights are catering for cars and not for cycles and pedestrians. Why wait when there is no traffic or the crossroad is blocked? It is time light sequences are changed to cater for bicycles and pedestrians instead of cars.


  • #398
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    Just to remind the Boards.ie jersey wearing cyclist that I met this evening that 1.5m is a recommendation NOT a legal requirement and if I could have any chance of identifying you I would be going straight to the Garda.

    That little stunt you pulled could have ended badly for me…

    You saw me coming (you looked over your shoulder so you were aware that I was behind you), and as I went to overtake you pulled out and forced me (almost) into the ditch on the opposite side of the road.

    And you had the cheek to shout "Its 1.5 meters wanker!" as I passed..

    Had a car been speeding coming in the opposite direction (and there is many up there) we would both be dead.

    You are lucky that I was on a Motorbike and not a car with kids in the back..


  • #399
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    By the sounds of it this was in a rural area. I'm not commenting on who was in the wrong, if either, however it is worth noting that urban cycling and rural cycling tend to be different beasts.


  • #400
    dubscottie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    Aard wrote: »
    By the sounds of it this was in a rural area. I'm not commenting on who was in the wrong, if either, however it is worth noting that urban cycling and rural cycling tend to be different beasts.

    Try Dublin 14.. Not rural. At one point I really thought that they were trying to cause an accident.. It scared the fecking **** out of me and I started thinking about soft spots to land.. (its amazing how something that takes 2-3 second to happen lasts 10-15 seconds in your head!!)


  • #401
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    dubscottie wrote: »
    You saw me coming (you looked over your shoulder so you were aware that I was behind you), and as I went to overtake you pulled out and forced me (almost) into the ditch on the opposite side of the road.
    Any debris, road furniture, gratings, manholes there?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,665 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    seamus wrote: »
    Looks like the Canal cycle lane @ the baggot street bridge. Good to see the Gardai policing that, they could really rethink those junctions though. It's a bit crazy at rush hour when you've cyclist and pedestrians all waiting to cross there. Having the ped crossings behind the lights for the cycle track means that many seem to be unaware of when they can and can't go.
    The lights on that stretch are over complicated for cyclists and pedestrians, imo. Not sure of a solution though - falshing amber or green for both cyclists and pedestrians, rather than trying to split it between the two?

    Surprised it was a priority spot to catch people - still a pleasant place to spend yesterday I guess.


  • #403
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Our Law enforcers, setting a fine example! Any bicyclist here would have been in real trouble...

    29vmhzd.jpg


  • #404
    Danjamin1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    dubscottie wrote: »
    Just to remind the Boards.ie jersey wearing cyclist that I met this evening that 1.5m is a recommendation NOT a legal requirement and if I could have any chance of identifying you I would be going straight to the Garda.

    That little stunt you pulled could have ended badly for me…

    You saw me coming (you looked over your shoulder so you were aware that I was behind you), and as I went to overtake you pulled out and forced me (almost) into the ditch on the opposite side of the road.

    And you had the cheek to shout "Its 1.5 meters wanker!" as I passed..

    Had a car been speeding coming in the opposite direction (and there is many up there) we would both be dead.

    You are lucky that I was on a Motorbike and not a car with kids in the back..

    That's not on, it's never acceptable for anyone to create a dangerous situation on the road. If someone's decided to overtake you then you should never block them during the maneuver. It's like when someone speeds up as you're overtaking them, just creates danger unneccesarily!


  • #405
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    dubscottie wrote: »
    Had a car been speeding coming in the opposite direction (and there is many up there) we would both be dead.
    If there was a car coming in the opposite direction though I presume you would not have been overtaking right?


  • #406
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    The lights on that stretch are over complicated for cyclists and pedestrians, imo. Not sure of a solution though - falshing amber or green for both cyclists and pedestrians, rather than trying to split it between the two?
    Really the issue is that the first cyclist to the lights, crosses over the ped crossing. This gives the impression that the cycle lane has priority, even when the bike light is red.
    The cycle lane stop should be before the ped crossing - i.e. if you go over the ped crossing, then you're in the middle of the junction. That's not how it is at present.

    There's also the issue that the green for the bikes is waay too short. When the ped lights go green, the bike light should flash orange, and then the green sequence for bikes should be twice as long. They should also have a push button activation so that the bike & ped lights go between every change of the car lights, and not every second change. Along that entire stretch, facilities for bikes and peds should have priority over vehicular traffic. It's close to the city and very busy, vehicles should be bottom of the chain.


  • #407
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    CramCycle wrote: »
    If there was a car coming in the opposite direction though I presume you would not have been overtaking right?

    If the car was speeding as they said they may not have noticed it though.


  • #408
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    dubscottie wrote: »
    Just to remind the Boards.ie jersey wearing cyclist that I met this evening that 1.5m is a recommendation NOT a legal requirement and if I could have any chance of identifying you I would be going straight to the Garda.

    That little stunt you pulled could have ended badly for me…

    You saw me coming (you looked over your shoulder so you were aware that I was behind you), and as I went to overtake you pulled out and forced me (almost) into the ditch on the opposite side of the road.

    And you had the cheek to shout "Its 1.5 meters wanker!" as I passed..

    Had a car been speeding coming in the opposite direction (and there is many up there) we would both be dead.

    You are lucky that I was on a Motorbike and not a car with kids in the back..

    I can't see anyone on a bike with minimal protection putting themselves in a position where they can be hit / knocked off by something heavier and faster moving.......perhaps a more benign explanation is that the cyclist did what most cyclists do every time they cycle - swerved or moved out to avoid a pothole, drainage grate, glass or any of the hundred and one assorted hazards one finds on the margins of our roads?


  • #409
    rp
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭rp


    dubscottie wrote: »
    1.5m is a recommendation NOT a legal requirement
    You are correct in as much that it is not an explicit stipulation of the Road Traffic Act, but it is incorporated in case law in Ireland, which mean in the event of an accident, a motorist who did not give 1.5m clearance is likely to be judged as being at fault / convicted of dangerous driving.
    It'd be better for all concerned if this was policed a priori to prevent incidents, rather than just in apportioning blame afterwards.


  • #410
    bigar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭bigar


    dubscottie wrote: »
    (you looked over your shoulder so you were aware that I was behind you)

    HINT: when a cyclist looks over his shoulder it means he is likely to do a manoeuvre and wants to check if the road is clear. It obviously was case here and the road was clear until you decided to overtake him. You saw him do this but still decided to overtake him. Proving again there is a long way to go for driver's education in regards of other road users.


  • #411
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Reminds me of that video of a cyclist and a bus doing the rounds. The cyclist posted it to criticise the bus driver only to have most people point out his own dangerous overtaking.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    bigar wrote: »
    HINT: when a cyclist looks over his shoulder it means he is likely to do a manoeuvre and wants to check if the road is clear. It obviously was case here and the road was clear until you decided to overtake him. You saw him do this but still decided to overtake him. Proving again there is a long way to go for driver's education in regards of other road users.
    I disagree here. I frequently look over my shoulder when doing nothing more than travelling in a straight line. Mostly I would do so in urban settings, where the traffic is heavier or the level of background noise is higher. At other times my ears normally suffice.


  • #413
    Danjamin1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Danjamin1


    bigar wrote: »
    HINT: when a cyclist looks over his shoulder it means he is likely to do a manoeuvre and wants to check if the road is clear. It obviously was case here and the road was clear until you decided to overtake him. You saw him do this but still decided to overtake him. Proving again there is a long way to go for driver's education in regards of other road users.

    Now that's not a fair point, I look over my shoulder occasionally when I'm not about to make any manouevre, same as I'd check the mirrors from time to time in the car. No harm knowing what's behind you.


  • #414
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    bigar wrote: »
    HINT: when a cyclist looks over his shoulder it means he is likely to do a manoeuvre and wants to check if the road is clear. It obviously was case here and the road was clear until you decided to overtake him. You saw him do this but still decided to overtake him. Proving again there is a long way to go for driver's education in regards of other road users.

    Sorry? When a cyclist looks behind them people are supposed to know what they are going to do?

    Surely most cyclists would use a hand gesture to at least indicate and give the people behind them some clue.


  • #415
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Daith wrote: »
    Sorry? When a cyclist looks behind them people are supposed to know what they are going to do?

    Surely most cyclists would use a hand gesture to at least indicate and give the people behind them some clue.

    Just a small point here...

    Yes, when in slow moving traffic, motorists do respond to a look over the shoulder...
    Also the fact that it's not always practical due to road surfaces/conditions, wind etc to use hand gestures all the time..


  • #416
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Daith wrote: »
    Sorry? When a cyclist looks behind them people are supposed to know what they are going to do?

    Surely most cyclists would use a hand gesture to at least indicate and give the people behind them some clue.
    It depends on why he swerved. If he was avoiding a hazard on the road surface he'd want both hands on the handlebars in case he hit it.
    This is exactly why you're supposed to give cyclists good room when overtaking.


  • #417
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,248 ✭✭✭Daith


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Just a small point here...

    Yes, when in slow moving traffic, motorists do respond to a look over the shoulder...

    Yet we have cyclists here who will look over their shoulder just to get a feel of traffic behind them and not to change position.
    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Also the fact that it's not always practical due to road surfaces/conditions, wind etc to use hand gestures all the time..

    Surely the same situation would occur with looking behind you if the conditions are that bad?

    I wonder what the conditions were and if the cyclist did indicate that he was avoiding a hazard.


  • #418
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Just a small point here...

    Yes, when in slow moving traffic, motorists do respond to a look over the shoulder...
    Also the fact that it's not always practical due to road surfaces/conditions, wind etc to use hand gestures all the time..
    I would give a hand signal if I (a) spotted the obstacle in time and (b) didn't have someone in close proximity already.


  • #419
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Our Law enforcers, setting a fine example! Any bicyclist here would have been in real trouble...

    29vmhzd.jpg

    The car is an obstacle, just like any other. Go around it cautiously and stay behind that bus. It wouldn't be right to try squeese in between the car and the bus. You don't have to stay within the cycle lane ;)


  • #420
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    No Pants wrote: »
    I disagree here. I frequently look over my shoulder when doing nothing more than travelling in a straight line. Mostly I would do so in urban settings, where the traffic is heavier or the level of background noise is higher. At other times my ears normally suffice.

    +1, its good practice, I think it is well recognised that good roadcraft includes looking behind yourself every 10 to 15 seconds (use a timer, its not as short a distance as one might think), in much the same way if you looked in your mirrors less than that you would probably get marked down in your driving test.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,383 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Daith wrote: »
    Yet we have cyclists here who will look over their shoulder just to get a feel of traffic behind them and not to change position.
    Surely the same situation would occur with looking behind you if the conditions are that bad?
    I wonder what the conditions were and if the cyclist did indicate that he was avoiding a hazard.

    I would say that a lot of car drivers would think you were waving at your mate going the other way, even if your hand signals register on them at all! :rolleyes:

    Though this could also be useful!


Advertisement