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

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tombo2001

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Cyclist or driver - It's all about consideration for your fellow road users..

You are spot on there; and for every gripe that you will have with a cyclist, a cyclist will have an equal gripe with you as a motorist.

Road users in Ireland are inconsiderate. Its a cultural thing about Ireland, not about Irish cyclists.

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

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.

you do realise that if you cannot overtake two cyclists who are taking up maybe two thirds of a lane, that you should not be overtaking one cyclist who is taking up one third of a lane?

either the oncoming lane ahead is clear for sufficient distance to overtake, or it is not. if you need to put your right wheel over the white line, you are overtaking and should not do so as a half assed gesture which is so commonly performed by people overtaking single cyclists.

seamus

SeanW wrote: »

Why are the last two reasonable things to expect?

Because people are idiots who make bad decisions.

Just because something seems like a bad idea, doesn't mean it's not to be expected.

I do exactly the same thing on a motorway/dual-carriageway; if I'm in an overtaking lane but there's a vehicle on my left quickly bearing down on the vehicle in front of him, I expect that he may move into my lane with little warning, and I watch him and my speed accordingly until I'm sure that he's not going to move into my lane.

The only assumption that's safe to make on the roads is that everyone else is a complete and utter f*cking moron, and act accordingly.

You'll find it's a much more pleasant experience when you switch your expectations - rather than get angry when people do stupid things, you instead find yourself being pleasantly surprised when they don't.

darkpagandeath

TommyKnocker wrote: »

The problem as I see it is as a pedestrian is not cyclists or motorists, it everybody's (cyclists, motorists & pedestrian's) attitude.

Loads of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians appears to have little to no understanding of the rules of the road and do as they please on the roads. Pedestrians J-walking out in front of traffic while looking at their phones. Cyclists & motorists breaking lights and fighting each other for every inch of road, neither one giving an inch.

Until we all cop ourselves on and until the under staffed Gardai start handing out tickets for muppetery (j-walking, breaking lights etc), then nothing will change for the better, it will just get worse IMHO.

Yet if one basically walks out in front of you and is killed it's automatically the drivers fault in most cases. As apparently you can see into the future and know to drive 15 kph under the speed limit to accommodate them just falling onto the road.

Tombo2001

jelenka wrote: »

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.

they are legally entitled to do it. Its not dangerous. Its just that you dont like it.

I really dont see why you regard it as any more of an inconvenience than traffic lights or the fact that you cant use a bus lane during the day......

As I said earlier, motorists will tolerate all sorts of delays from other motorists, but if a cyclist slows them down they go berserk.

TommyKnocker

The problem as I see it is as a pedestrian is not cyclists or motorists, it everybody's (cyclists, motorists & pedestrian's) attitude.

Loads of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians appears to have little to no understanding of the rules of the road and do as they please on the roads. Pedestrians J-walking out in front of traffic while looking at their phones. Cyclists & motorists breaking lights and fighting each other for every inch of road, neither one giving an inch.

Until we all cop ourselves on and until the under staffed Gardai start handing out tickets for muppetery (j-walking, breaking lights etc), then nothing will change for the better, it will just get worse IMHO.

Moneymaker

OP vs Liam Phealan in the ring, last man standing match.

Clearly the only solution to this.

Quin_Dub

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.

This is my main bug-bear with Cyclists to be honest....

Clearly there are good and bad on both sides , but as a rural dweller it really annoys me when cyclists do this - narrow single lane country road , riding 2 and 3 abreast and making no effort to facilitate other road users..

I have the same issue with people driving slow moving farm machinery as well when they make no effort to move in when possible to allow traffic to pass...

Cyclist or driver - It's all about consideration for your fellow road users..

darkpagandeath

I love this concept, People in large metal boxes are the ones that have to give way to small metal tubes. If i was on a small metal tube i would be looking out for large metal boxes. As i understand physics, the large metal boxes can look out for small metal tubes. But cannot come to rest instantly if a small metal tube does something unexpected.

Knasher

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

There is a very small subset of road signs that are actually relevant to cyclists, and the ones that matter are pretty easy to understand. There are some cyclists who choose to ignore stop signs, for instance, but I really don't think it is because they don't understand what stop means.

As for stopping distance, could you describe a situation when that would matter? Also can I ask if you know what the stopping distance of a bike on a wet hill is? Because the number of times I've had motorists over take me into the space I've left from the car in front for stopping distance leads me to think that generally motorists don't think about stuff like that, despite them having to undergo a test.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

kylith wrote: »

While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.

It wouldn't really because people would just ignore it.

+1 on adding something to the school curriculum on road use / road safety.

secondrowgal

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 agree with you b&w, and I am both a cyclist (to work!) and a motorist. But do you mind if I make one observation on the bolded bit above? Of course cyclists should be checking constantly what's going on around them, but from experience, it is really hard and dangerous to be looking behind you to check what's going on when you're cycling. It's not like being in a car where you are in a stable position on 4 wheels with mirrors. Just for example, I have to make a right turn pretty soon after some traffic lights at a 4-way junction when I am going home. Between starting from a standing start, the cars all trying to pass me, signalling to turn right and actually getting across the road, I don't have a lot of time to look behind me and not fall off

. I often just get off the bike and wait to cross to be honest.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that it is not always easy for a cyclist to check behind them as they don't have rearview mirrors and it's not always safe to look around if you are moving reasonably quickly. That's just something for motorists to be aware of I suppose.

Canis Lupus

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have a look in the Dash cam saves your ass thread in the motors forum. Seems plenty of car drivers do it as well...

kylith

Caliden wrote: »

I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy.

.

Which has been a boon to local businesses including to a large number of local businesses that have been set and sustained by this scheme......and paid local business rates, employer PRSI etc I'd say many of these businesses brought business to Main Street rather than leaving semi-derelict glass cathedrals to blight the outskirts of our towns......

Plus there's no loss to the Exchequer as it's highly unlikely anything more than a fraction of the bikes bought under the scheme would have have been bought in its absence.

ford2600

Jawgap wrote: »

As for mad, it's pretty mad you can pass a test and pretty much have a licence for 50+ years to drive increasingly powerful lumps of metal without any requirement for reassessment.

I passed my test with a Toyota Starlet - I'm now driving something three times larger, and probably 4 to 5 times more powerful - and I can, if I could afford it go buy something ten times more powerful than my existing vehicle without any requirement to undergo any kind of assessment! I could legitimately drive one of the new 1600 bhp Lamborghinis and there'd be nothing to stop me.......

It's the same with boats.

Any idiot with money can buy a boat/powerboat/rib and go on the water.

Not much fun when your the one in the kayak...

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

VAT on components, repairs etc

Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy.

Also as for regulation - the Road Traffic legislation applies and the
government have been sitting on the new regs that would allow cyclists to be
given FPNs for red light jumping, pavement cycling and dangerous overtaking, for at least a year now......

In theory.

......maybe direct some of your ire in their direction......or you could just continue to not let the truth get in the way of opinions......

Enforcement is exponentially harder for cyclists than motorists. You would have to have a guard at every junction and on every footpath to fine RLJers and footpath riders. Cyclists do not carry registration plates so they can't be tracked, and don't have licenses against which to record repeat offenses.

Barely a day goes by in Dublin city that I do not (as a pedestrian) have to yield to or jump out of the way of some d***head on a bike that decided that the red light was too inconvenient or that the footpath/pedestrian bridge was a good quasi-cycle lane.

If I drove my car like that, I'd be put of the road. And rightly so. And it would be much easier since I have to carry registration plates, maintain a license that's subject to penalty points, and carry insurance which would go up exponentially if I were in the habit of jumping red lights, driving on footpaths etc.

Jawgap

Caliden wrote: »

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

No it's not crazy - most people start cycling from very young and experience road use as cyclist and pedestrian.

If any thing, I'd say the opposite applies - my experience as a cyclist has made me a better driver as it gives you a better appreciation of the road and the environment - something drivers tend to be insulated from.

As for mad, it's pretty mad you can pass a test and pretty much have a licence for 50+ years to drive increasingly powerful lumps of metal without any requirement for reassessment.

I passed my test with a Toyota Starlet - I'm now driving something three times larger, and probably 4 to 5 times more powerful - and I can, if I could afford it go buy something ten times more powerful than my existing vehicle without any requirement to undergo any kind of assessment! I could legitimately drive one of the new 1600 bhp Lamborghinis and there'd be nothing to stop me.......

And I wasn't being aggressive - you mentioned stupid driving, suggesting that people pulling off stupid manoeuvres is down to the presence of cyclists, when it's doe to a lack of maturity that drives an inability for drivers to wait.

blackwhite

Caliden wrote: »

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

Some people will never accept that cyclists have a responsibility for anything.

Some people will never accept that cyclists aren't to blame for everything.

The two groups above seem to be drawn to threads like this like moths to a flame.

Caliden

Jawgap wrote: »

Then you should wait until there is space to complete any manoeuvre safely.....

'Really stupid driving' is the responsibility of the driver......drivers have no 'right' to overtake - if they can't do it safely the they wait until they can. Blaming cyclists, even I'll informed ones, for stupid driving is ridiculous.

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

Jawgap

jelenka wrote: »

No , but when you are on busy narrow backroads ,with lots of oncomming traffic , you simply don't have the room .

Then you should wait until there is space to complete any manoeuvre safely.....

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.

I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

'Really stupid driving' is the responsibility of the driver......drivers have no 'right' to overtake - if they can't do it safely the they wait until they can. Blaming cyclists, even I'll informed ones, for stupid driving is ridiculous.

Caliden

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.

I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

jelenka

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you driving a Stenna Line car ferry or something ? If you can't manage to over take them, maybe you should be on a bike yourself.

No , but when you are on busy narrow backroads ,with lots of oncomming traffic , you simply don't have the room .

ThisRegard

gramar wrote: »

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.

So they should be easy enough to dig out again, or link to the previous threads in which you mentioned them.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents

That's quite a difference from saying they're responsible for the majority. 1% is a percentage too.

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.

Link to the thread where the studies are then......

"Studies aside.....":rolleyes:

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it. Cyclists are also totally unregulated, and it shows.

?

VAT on components, repairs etc

Also as for regulation - the Road Traffic legislation applies and the government have been sitting on the new regs that would allow cyclists to be given FPNs for red light jumping, pavement cycling and dangerous overtaking, for at least a year now......

......maybe direct some of your ire in their direction......or you could just continue to not let the truth get in the way of opinions......

gramar

ThisRegard wrote: »

Show us these studies, or do we have to wait for the technology to be developed to see into other peoples imaginations ?

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.