Those damn cyclists again!

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 wrote: »

So unicyclists are free to do as they please then

Absolutely, tricyclists too!