nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Those damn cyclists again!

Irishcrx

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods.

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes and they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

Surely with the ammount of cyclists now they should be paying something to use the public roads even a flat fee of €30 a year or something. Don't even get me started on breaking red lights or cycling out in front of cars , I know there's laws taking action against this now but from what I see it hasn't really stopped it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Red Nissan

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its going to be great, so deal with it.

As with all other schemes, small car tax, electric car tax, diesel incentive to mention just a tiny few, it's grand for a year or two until the tax revenue actually goes down, then the heretofore low or exempt tax becomes high tax and is drawn into the tax net.

Remember the ultimate plan is to BAD CARS totally, then the ONLY mode of transport will be the bus, taxi, sulky or bike ~ even though the horse will be banned too, culture you know.

Then it WILL be public transport users and cyclist where the ONLY tax income can be drawn from. And it will be so drawn.

So yes, for now enjoy your laugh.

padraig.od

Irishcrx wrote: »

What part of this doesn't make sence to you? I've been driving for ten years...If I'm dirivng on a two lane road with a cycling lane on the far left and I'm overtaking a bike, bike doesn't look behind him and moves out into the ROAD to overtake another bike I'm forced to slam on the brakes and move into the outer right lane to avoid knocking him off the bike, traffic in the right lane can't see the cyclist and also has to move to avoid my car coming into his lane lane...

Problem caused by cyclist not looking for traffic and moving into the road the middle of the road instead of using cycle lane??What am I meant to do like obviously some people on here have godly powers of intervention or have never driven on a public road.

Why were you driving so fast that you need to slam on the breaks? Where were you?
Were you breaking the speed limit?
Were you paying attention to cyclists ahead of you?
Should you have noticed that one cyclist was travelling much slower than the other and anticipated that they might pass them?

In writing your OP did it occur to you that you are complaining about a cyclist doing on a bike exactly what you did in your car?

Slow down, take it easy. If getting to work on time is such a big deal to you leave 5 - 10 minutes earlier. Problem solved.

looksee

There are arguments on both sides of this, there are also some rubbish car drivers who are a menace on the roads.

However yesterday on a narrowish road that has a good bit of traffic there was a tail-back of cars because two cyclists - in team outfits so they were obviously experienced cyclists - were cycling side by side, one just right of the hard shoulder line and the other just left of the centre line. They did not seem to be in any hurry and it would have been far more appropriate for them to be in single file, just as a gesture to let the traffic have a reasonable chance of passing. As it was the outer cyclist was ideally placed to complain about cars coming too close to him as they overtook.

Many cyclists are reasonable and try and give traffic every opportunity to pass, but the situation I described was just a sense of entitlement giving all cyclists a bad name.

No Pants

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here

I doubt it, just anyone who isn't getting over a recent lobotomy.

Irishcrx wrote: »

Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road

If you were "forced", it was by your own inability to read the road ahead and drive to the conditions.

Irishcrx wrote: »

they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine

Who is this mysterious "they" that has to tell you to be aware of other road users?

Irishcrx wrote: »

cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods.

Absolutely. Thousands of cars and buses, but it's cyclists that cause the danger.

Irishcrx wrote: »

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday

No they don't. :pac:

Irishcrx wrote: »

by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes

Can you please give the location of this magical thoroughfare where cyclists are the only traffic you have to contend with during the morning rush hour.

Irishcrx wrote: »

they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

No they don't.

Irishcrx wrote: »

they should be paying something to use the public roads

They do.

Irishcrx wrote: »

Don't even get me started on breaking red lights

Oh please, don't stop now.

Irishcrx wrote: »

cycling out in front of cars

Cyclists are allowed to cycle in front of cars. Just like cars can drive in front of other cars. Depending on how attentive you are, and based on the evidence provided, that's not very, you may have already noticed other cars on your commute.

Irishcrx wrote: »

I know there's laws taking action against this now but from what I see it hasn't really stopped it.

What new laws are you referring to? Breaking red lights has always been illegal.

gramar

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

While I don't agree with most of the OP's point, it is a bit mad that anyone can go down to Halfords, buy a bike, and set off among busy traffic without any knowledge of the rules of the road, testing, or even insurance to cover themselves if anything happens!

There should be a requirement to show knowledge of rules of the road but above all to have insurance. Many accidents are caused by cyclists either hitting off cars, colliding with pedestrians etc etc I've seen various studies that state that anywhere between 40-60% of accidents involving both cars and bicycles are caused by cyclists so why don't they have insurance to cover the damage caused by their actions? That makes no sense to me.

padraig.od

gramar wrote: »

There should be a requirement to show knowledge of rules of the road but above all to have insurance. Many accidents are caused by cyclists either hitting off cars, colliding with pedestrians etc etc I've seen various studies that state that anywhere between 40-60% of accidents involving both cars and bicycles are caused by cyclists so why don't they have insurance to cover the damage caused by their actions? That makes no sense to me.

Man that happened to me recently. I speeding down the road, minding my own business and some damn cyclist smashed into my windscreen.

dubscottie

logik wrote: »

Sorry... what? 95% of cyclists that are on the roads ALSO have a car including myself. I am ALREADY paying to use the road and paying motor tax.

Really? So that means I dont need to bother with tax on my motorbike anymore as I am ALREADY paying motor tax on my car?

I can see that working if I get stopped..

furiousox

padraig.od wrote: »

Man that happened to me recently. I speeding down the road, minding my own business and some damn cyclist smashed into my windscreen.

I heard about that alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6Mro4vjBs

Badly Drunk Boy

ellejay wrote: »

I think they should be Licensed, made to do a theory test on rules of the road and driving etiquette.

Their selfishness on the roads infuriate's me.

Yeah. Motorists too.

BeerWolf

carlmango11 wrote: »

Tough sh*t. Bikes were around longer than cars.

Here here, 'tearing' through the roads on this beast of a bike: LINK

desertcircus

looksee wrote: »

There are arguments on both sides of this, there are also some rubbish car drivers who are a menace on the roads.

However yesterday on a narrowish road that has a good bit of traffic there was a tail-back of cars because two cyclists - in team outfits so they were obviously experienced cyclists - were cycling side by side, one just right of the hard shoulder line and the other just left of the centre line. They did not seem to be in any hurry and it would have been far more appropriate for them to be in single file, just as a gesture to let the traffic have a reasonable chance of passing. As it was the outer cyclist was ideally placed to complain about cars coming too close to him as they overtook.

Many cyclists are reasonable and try and give traffic every opportunity to pass, but the situation I described was just a sense of entitlement giving all cyclists a bad name.

Cyclists are specifically advised to cycle two abreast on narrow roads in order to prevent drivers from attempting dangerous overtaking moves.

seamus

Irishcrx wrote: »

I had to swerve to avoid him because no I didn't expect him to come flying out of the cycle lane and into the middle of the road to overtake two other bikes, I expected the bikes to stay in the cycle lane while there was traffic moving to the side of them.

You know what they say about assumptions. Never assume any other road user is going to do anything until they've started doing it.

What am I meant to do stay behind every single bike that's to the left of me??

Observe. There's a cyclist to your left, bearing down on the two in front of him. The most likely possible outcomes of this situation are:

1. He slows down and waits
2. He checks behind him, sees you, and waits
3. He check behind him, sees you and overtakes anyway
4. He just overtakes without checking

So within half a second you should be able to deduce that 50% of the most likely things to occur result in you taking evasive action, or flattening a cyclist. Regardless of the fact that you have right-of-way, the logical choice here is to slow down until you're sure of what the cyclist is going to do, before you proceed to pass them.

The rule for all roads users is the same - better to yield your right-of-way and drive away annoyed, than to aggressively defend your right-of-way and not drive away at all.

blackwhite

padraig.od wrote: »

Man that happened to me recently. I speeding down the road, minding my own business and some damn cyclist smashed into my windscreen.

See, posts like this don't help the debate at all.

There are bad drivers, and there are bad cyclists.

Trying to pretend that, in any given incident, that cyclists are never in wrong is patently stupid and only serves to harden the extremes on both sides of the argument.

When I cycle, I'm always annoyed by the amount of drivers who don't realise that cyclists are more vulnerable than they are and try to squeeze past when there isn't a sufficient gap, tailgate, and open car doors without looking (among other things).

When I drive, I'm always shocked by the number of cyclists who don't realise how vulnerable they are, and will do stupid things like run red lights (including at this junction this morning, causing traffic coming from both directions to have to emergency brake), like swerving from one lane to another without hand signals or checking if there's someone already in the lane or cycle the wrong way down one-way streets.

In short, SOME motorists need to realise how easy it is for a cyclist to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that could result in someone being hurt and show a bit of consideration for others.
And, SOME cyclists need to realise how easy it is for cyclists to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that increase the chance of they themselves, and others, getting hurt, and show both consideration for other road users and a sense of responsibility for their own safety.

No Pants

BeerWolf wrote: »

Here here, 'tearing' through the roads on this beast of a bike: LINK

I'd love to get one of these, but they're expensive. I can get myself a lot of regular bike for that money.

rubadub

Irishcrx wrote: »

they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

Why don't you just buy a cheap clapped out bicycle and leave it in your garden, then you don't have to pay motor tax or income tax.

It's the best kept secret, loads seem to be fully aware that bike owners & car owners are mutually exlusive groups tax wise, but nobody seems to take advantage of this tax loophole.

folan

Irishcrx wrote: »

I expected the bikes to stay in the cycle lane while there was traffic moving to the side of them. What am I meant to do stay behind every single bike that's to the left of me??

was the cyclist in the cycle path and swerved onto the road suddenly? or where there 2 cars on the road?
you seem to have confused even yourself, despite your mighty 10 years driving.

hatrickpatrick

kylith wrote: »

When should they start paying, OP? From the age of 6 or so, when they start cycling to school? Do you have any other ideas to discourage people from taking exercise?

Just think how much slower your commute would be if all those cyclists were in cars instead.

And he could well have been so far out on the road because it was too dangerous to cycle closer to the footpath.

If people aren't old enough to drive, they're not old enough to be on the road at all. Cycle lanes are a different matter.
There are two reasons I despise a lot of Dublin cyclists, very specifically:
1: Ploughing right through pedestrian lights when the pedestrians have a green man, I've seen many people get injured by this in the general vicinity of Trinity (any of the adjacent roads really)
2: Cycling on the pavement at high speed and expecting pedestrians to get out of their way, even though they shouldn't be there.

If the Gardai did a proper clampdown on this kind of sh!te, I'd have far less problem with cyclists. But although people will use the "a few bad apples" argument, I'd just point out that light breaking in busy pedestrian areas seems endemic in Dublin. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop for the red lights coming off College Green onto Westmoreland St for instance. I once saw an old man's dog getting hit by a cyclist while he was crossing with a green man near St Patrick's Cathedral, and the cyclist didn't stop or apologize but started shouting abuse at the guy while continuing on his way.

Ergo, the reason I support registration is because in the current free-for-all environment, cameras on lights can't flag the identities of repeat light breakers the way they can with cars. If bikes had to have reg plates, we could fine or ban cyclists who behave dangerously, but as it stands, nothing is done about it.

Now, a question for those who feel this is a silly suggestion: Why should cyclists not be subject to the same regime motorists are, in which there's a system in place to deal with crappy drivers in the form of penalty points?

floggg

looksee wrote: »

There are arguments on both sides of this, there are also some rubbish car drivers who are a menace on the roads.

However yesterday on a narrowish road that has a good bit of traffic there was a tail-back of cars because two cyclists - in team outfits so they were obviously experienced cyclists - were cycling side by side, one just right of the hard shoulder line and the other just left of the centre line. They did not seem to be in any hurry and it would have been far more appropriate for them to be in single file, just as a gesture to let the traffic have a reasonable chance of passing. As it was the outer cyclist was ideally placed to complain about cars coming too close to him as they overtook.

Many cyclists are reasonable and try and give traffic every opportunity to pass, but the situation I described was just a sense of entitlement giving all cyclists a bad name.

And I could recount many tales of drivers being not only dicks, but threatening life's too (cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists).

Some people are bad drivers, some are bad cyclists. Some cyclists are inconsiderate as are some motorists.

Get over it. Heck if you walk down the street you'll bump into some reckless or inconsiderate pedestrians.

I realise how pathetic id sound though if I wrote a started a thread about that the guy who bumped into me on the street yesterday because he wasn't looking where he was going.

Shenshen

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

While I don't agree with most of the OP's point, it is a bit mad that anyone can go down to Halfords, buy a bike, and set off among busy traffic without any knowledge of the rules of the road, testing, or even insurance to cover themselves if anything happens!

No doubt all the cycling heads will be along shortly to say that it works fine in Europe etc and that's true.. but we don't have the public transport or cycling infrastructure that cities like Amsterdam do. Like it or not we are a very car dependent country - even more so if you live outside Dublin.

.

Yes, it works in Europe. But having grow up in Europe, I can tell you that we had cycling lessons at primary school. We had to learn the rules of the road, we had to learn some basic first aid in case something did happen, we had to learn what the requirements are for a bike to be roadworthy and how to maintain a bike, and we had to pass a written test and a cycle around a little parcours in the school yard. We were instructed by a memeber of the local police traffic corps.

That said, I don't find cyclists here to be any more ignorant of the rules of the road than your average driver (I've made my driving license here a few years back, and only took up cycling this year again).

So, yes, by all means, introduce a cycling license. But please make sure to also teach everyone else - drivers and pedestrians - the rules of the road.

padraig.od

blackwhite wrote: »

See, posts like this don't help the debate at all.

There are bad drivers, and there are bad cyclists.

Trying to pretend that, in any given incident, that cyclists are never in wrong is patently stupid and only serves to harden the extremes on both sides of the argument.

When I cycle, I'm always annoyed by the amount of drivers who don't realise that cyclists are more vulnerable than they are and try to squeeze past when there isn't a sufficient gap, tailgate, and open car doors without looking (among other things).

When I drive, I'm always shocked by the number of cyclists who don't realise how vulnerable they are, and will do stupid things like run red lights (including at this junction this morning, causing traffic coming from both directions to have to emergency brake), like swerving from one lane to another without hand signals or checking if there's someone already in the lane or cycle the wrong way down one-way streets.

In short, SOME motorists need to realise how easy it is for a cyclist to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that could result in someone being hurt and show a bit of consideration for others.
And, SOME cyclists need to realise how easy it is for cyclists to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that increase the chance of they themselves, and others, getting hurt, and show both consideration for other road users and a sense of responsibility for their own safety.

I was just mocking the clumsy phrasing. Cyclists damaging cars, come on!

mal1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now, a question for those who feel this is a silly suggestion: Why should cyclists not be subject to the same regime motorists are, in which there's a system in place to deal with crappy drivers in the form of penalty points?

Because bad driving kills, bad cycling is annoying. That's why.

everlast75

Are you one of the 'double take brothers' OP?

neilthefunkeone

Irishcrx wrote: »

they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

I pay 1800 for my motor Tax... Is it OK for me to cycle to work?

Surly i should be allowed more of the road over someone who pays only 300.. Yes? no?

No Pants

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If people aren't old enough to drive, they're not old enough to be on the road at all.

Now I'm no fan of country people, with their strange odours, funny accents and incestuous ways, but even I have never suggested that they be confined to their homes until they've reached the age of 17 and passed a test. :eek:

Well done that man!

blackwhite

padraig.od wrote: »

I was just mocking the clumsy phrasing. Cyclists damaging cars, come on!

I've seen it happen a number of times, usually long scrapes with the edge of handlebars (paintwork can be very expensive to get repaired) or wing mirrors being hit - usually by cyclists who try to squeeze through stopped traffic and over-estimated the gap.

folan

dubscottie wrote: »

Really? So that means I dont need to bother with tax on my motorbike anymore as I am ALREADY paying motor tax on my car?

I can see that working if I get stopped..

there is a motor on my bike? thats been hiding well

kylith

gramar wrote: »

There should be a requirement to show knowledge of rules of the road but above all to have insurance. Many accidents are caused by cyclists either hitting off cars, colliding with pedestrians etc etc I've seen various studies that state that anywhere between 40-60% of accidents involving both cars and bicycles are caused by cyclists so why don't they have insurance to cover the damage caused by their actions? That makes no sense to me.

The thing about insurance is the fact that so many children cycle, will they have to be insured too? From what age? If you usually brought your kids to school on bikes are you going to pay to insure them all or would it be just easier to stick them in the car? Does the insurance cover them when they're out on their own, or will under 16s have to have an adult with them?

Gone West

Anyone else notice how it was originally one bike, then changed to two as the story grew?

jelenka

I don't mind cyclists on the road, I'd say more of them are vigilant and don't break the rules, but i absolutely hate it when 2 cyclists cycle next to each other having a chat, leaving no room to overtake them.

martingriff

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll probably get bashed by the fitness fanatics on here , but I have a serious pain my ass with cyclist entitlement when I'm driving to work in the morning. Twice in the last week I've been forced to swerve into an outer lane and nearly collide with another car because someone was cycling to far on the inside on the road , they ask all motorists to be aware of cyclists and that's fine, but cyclists also need to be aware of motorists and the danger they are causing in busy morning periods.

It's also grinds my gears that they slow down my trip into work by 5-10 minutes everyday by taking up the lanes , slowing down traffic , slowing down crossing lanes and they have free use of the roads while the rest of us have to pay for them.

Surely with the ammount of cyclists now they should be paying something to use the public roads even a flat fee of €30 a year or something. Don't even get me started on breaking red lights or cycling out in front of cars , I know there's laws taking action against this now but from what I see it hasn't really stopped it.

Whatever about a cyclist too far on the inside and yes most cyclists need to learn the rules of the road you swerving on to oncoming traffic is something you need to sort out. You may be going slow but waiting until the road is somewhat clear before moving out would be a safe way to do it. The cyclist is not making you nearly hit a car you are by your manouvers