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

Moneymaker

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

Clearly the only solution to this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Frigga_92

Cyclists aren't idiots. Drivers aren't idiots. Idiots are idiots.

Jawgap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

Limits, as they say, are not targets......if you need to drive at 15 km/hr under the speed limit to accommodate road conditions, including dozy pedestrians, then you have to.........you have no 'right' to be able to drive at the speed limit.

........interestingly speed limits don't apply to cyclists.......handy when you're in the 30km/hr zone in Dublin city centre;)

Jawgap

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Need to be?........seriously?

Aside from the emergency services? When're do motorists need to be without extra hold ups.......maybe they should just leave earlier.

floggg

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.

Does it not seem stupid that anybody can just walk, jog or run along the side of the road and across it, without knowledge of the signs, car stopping distances or any of that.

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

There is no cycling licence for the same reason there is no pedestrian licence. They added burden and regulation doesn't justify the reduction in risk that would result. Both are capable of causing accidents, but the biggest deterrence or preventative measure for each group is the likelihood of being killed if they use the road in a reckless manner.

99% of cyclists are acutely aware that they will be flattened like a pancake if they try and take on a car. So they don't.

Even if they do the biggest risk they pose is to themselves.

Cars on they other hand are another matter. While you can't do much damage cycling into somebody or something, you cando a **** load of damage in a car.

They pose a huge risk to not only the drivers but passengers, other road users, pedestrians and propery.

Cars are a lethal weapon so we regulate their use. Bikes aren't for the most part - very few third party deaths result from bad cycling. In fact I don't recall ever hearing of one (I'm sure there has been but I haven't heard of it).

I'd almost imagine there is as many third party deaths caused by pedestrians to be honest (no stats, just a speculative guess).

Shenshen

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.

Why would it, though?
Make it part of primary school education - the siituation in Europe was mentioned. In Germany (the only country I can speak for , so it'll have to do), you have lessons when you're 6 or 7 years old. Before you complete the written and practical cycling test, you are only allowed to cycle on the pavements. You are not allowed to cycle on the road unless you have the license, or have reached 15 year of age.

newport2

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

Anyone using the road (on 2 wheels or 4) who is causing a build-up of traffic behind should make every effort to let the other traffic past. Likewise, motorists should not attempt to pass unless it's safe to do so.

It's not about legal entitlement, it's about not being an inconsiderate a-hole.

We all share the road, and I say this as a regular cyclist who drives occasionally.

Sir Arthur Daley

ThisRegard wrote: »

A guy has a fall at around 70kph, gets back on his bike, rides uphill for another 10k or so. All with a broken shin. Real ******s are those Tour De France guys.

You would not feel any pain either if you were dosed with juice.

ThisRegard

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

You would not feel any pain either if you were dosed with juice.

It's simply because manly men cycle.

kylith

Shenshen wrote: »

Why would it, though?
Make it part of primary school education - the siituation in Europe was mentioned. In Germany (the only country I can speak for , so it'll have to do), you have lessons when you're 6 or 7 years old. Before you complete the written and practical cycling test, you are only allowed to cycle on the pavements. You are not allowed to cycle on the road unless you have the license, or have reached 15 year of age.

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

blackwhite

secondrowgal wrote: »

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.

Whilst I agree with what you've posted, I was referring to cyclists not checking changing lanes.

If you aren't capable of, or willing to, check over your shoulder when changing lanes, then you probably shouldn't be cycling on the road. (same applies for motorists as well - and plenty of motorists are as bad for just wildly swinging between lanes).

stefanovich

I agree. There are definitely some cyclists who feel the need to make a point by cycling two abreast rather than single file and blocking up an entire lane of traffic rather than using the hard shoulder.

magicbastarder

you're not allowed use the hard shoulder. it's for stopping in, not travelling in.

floggg

SeanW wrote: »

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

Given that such incentives exist, could it be that the government have copped on to the idea that they more people that cycle the better for everybody - less traffic, less congestion, less pollution, less road maintenance, less healthcare costs etc.

stefanovich

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

Jawgap

stefanovich wrote: »

I agree. There are definitely some cyclists who feel the need to make a point by cycling two abreast rather than single file and blocking up an entire lane of traffic rather than using the hard shoulder.

Or maybe it's because cycling is a social activity.

Plus aren't hard shoulders only for emergencies? (They also tend to be surface quite poorly)

magicbastarder

stefanovich wrote: »

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

are we talking about makey uppy situations now?

Jawgap

stefanovich wrote: »

It's a bicycle, not a car for Christ's sake. If I was on a dual carriageway on a bicycle I would use the hard shoulder. You'd have to be nuts to do otherwise.

I would too.......except where the surface is rubbish. In general though I plan my routes to avoid dual carriageways (when I'm on the bike)

Shenshen

kylith wrote: »

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

In all fairness, if you're not able to pass a simple written and practical test designed to allow 6-year-olds reasonably safe use of the roads, maybe you really, really should not be on a bike.

The instructions we got were on how to keep yourself safe, how to read road signs, how to make sure your bike is safe to cycle on. If you can't grasp this at age 14... sorry, not sure what kind of a dvise to give to someone like that.

Caliden

kylith wrote: »

Because if cyclists have to be licenced then no licence means no cycling, which means no spinning round to your friend's house, or to football practise on Saturday.

If you must stay on the footpath until you're 15 (and we know how much pedestrians love bikes on the footpath, not to mention the fact that on-pavement cycle paths may as well not be there for all the notice that pedestrians take of them) what does a 14 year old who lives in an area with no footpaths do?

You're getting off point and into the nitty gritty details of such a system.

Think higher level from a commuter stand point (as per the OP) rather than Jimmy who wants to go down the road to play football.

blackwhite

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

TBH, whether I'm walking, cycling or driving, I get annoyed at anyone who causes me a needless delay.
- be it the dawdlers walking 5 abreast blocking a footpath, the motorist parked in the cycle lane, the joggers in the Grand Canal cycle lane, the taxi driver who throws on the hazards and comes to a stop blocking the road, The c*nts who ignore yellow boxes, the idiots who hit the brakes every time they see a car on the other side of the road, or the cyclists ignoring opportunities to let a car pass safely by asserting their "entitlements" no matter what.

If I'm cycling and there's traffic building up behind me, I'll happily move in when it's safe to do so. I've had the misfortune of being in my car behind cyclists who weren't so considerate, and seemed to take great satisfaction from needlessly delaying people.

floggg

newport2 wrote: »

Anyone using the road (on 2 wheels or 4) who is causing a build-up of traffic behind should make every effort to let the other traffic past. Likewise, motorists should not attempt to pass unless it's safe to do so.

It's not about legal entitlement, it's about not being an inconsiderate a-hole.

We all share the road, and I say this as a regular cyclist who drives occasionally.

So unicyclists are free to do as they please then

newport2

floggg wrote: »

So unicyclists are free to do as they please then

Absolutely, tricyclists too!