Those damn cyclists again!

stefanovich · 16-07-2014 11:52AM

blackwhite wrote: »

cyclists ignoring opportunities to let a car pass safely by asserting their "entitlements" no matter what.

This

kylith · 16-07-2014 11:58AM

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

I think I misunderstood - you don't have to be 15 to sit the test then? Do they have to carry ID or their licence with them at all times when cycling to prove that they're either over 15 or licenced?

Caliden wrote: »

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.

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

Shenshen · 16-07-2014 12:02PM

kylith wrote: »

I think I misunderstood - you don't have to be 15 to sit the test then? Do they have to carry ID or their licence with them at all times when cycling to prove that they're either over 15 or licenced?

No, the lessons and test happen when you're 6 years old. We got a badge to stick onto the back mudgard of our cycles back then, I'm not sure if that's still what's being done. We got a few spare ones, for when we'de get new bikes, etc.

If you did not have that badge and were under 15, you were not allowed to cycle on the road. Once you're 15, you had to have ID with you anyway (German law), so no big deal either way.

km991148 · 16-07-2014 12:04PM

kylith wrote: »

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

I am sure that wont be a problem - some half @rsed rule will come in just like pension levy, services levy, household tax, USC etc etc

Next up - Pedestrian Permit (banded like parking), bicycle wheel tax, umbrella tax and talking sh!te on boards tax..

gramar · 16-07-2014 12:05PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

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

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

No Pants · 16-07-2014 12:06PM

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

Also has provided benefits to employers and, without being intended I'm sure, bike thieves.

ThisRegard · 16-07-2014 12:08PM

gramar wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

You made the claim, not me. So it's up to you to back up what I think is the dubious claim that cyclists can be the cause of up to 60% of accidents when the accident is between a car and a cyclist.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 12:09PM

kylith wrote: »

It does come down to the nitty gritty though. It's easy to say 'cyclists should have to be licenced/insured' but then it's a question of which ones can be licenced/insured; is it done by age? by ability? Is a 6 year old allowed to be on their own bike, or do they have to be on a carrier on their parent's? How young can you be licenced? How would it be enforced?

You're still getting stuck on one particular detail.

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's over 18's only that need to carry it and some beginner road safety is taught in schools for those under 18.

henryporter · 16-07-2014 12:12PM

So yesterday on the way to work I got diverted due to roadworks, ended up in a queue of traffic on a narrow byroad going nowhere until someone backed up, then stuck behind a tractor, also had to wait for a few cyclists to get around corners so that I could safely pass them and finally got to work without having lost my patience or temper with any of them - why not just chill the f*ck out OP, it would be safer for everyone on the road if you did.

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 12:15PM

Caliden wrote: »

You're still getting stuck on one particular detail.

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's over 18's only that need to carry it and some beginner road safety is taught in schools for those under 18.

No, because it would be completely unenforceable - like dog licences.

Why 18? What's the purpose of such a licence?

rubadub · 16-07-2014 12:19PM

Caliden wrote: »

What I'm trying to ask, would a bike licence make sense?

If not, why not?
If so, why so?

it would make as much sense as a pedestrian licence. Nearly all the things asked here could be suggested for pedestrians too.

On my commute I see more pedestrians on the roads than cyclists, and usually doing far more dangerous things than people on bicycles.

But as most repressed bigots do happen to walk they cannot enjoy the auld "us vs them" mentality, so they turn a blind eye to pedestrians.

gramar · 16-07-2014 12:20PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

You made the claim, not me. So it's up to you to back up what I think is the dubious claim that cyclists can be the cause of up to 60% of accidents when the accident is between a car and a cyclist.

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions"

Source: Rospa Royal Society for the prevention of accidents
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

Talib Fiasco · 16-07-2014 12:21PM

old hippy wrote: »

Envy and hatred. Classy.

The more bikes on the road, the better. And why shouldn't people have the latest gear if they want to?

No problem with people who're avid cyclists...one of my best friends does it 24/7 and has all the top gear because he's at that level...it's the fools who appear for two or three weeks in the year with top of the line gear that trundle along ala a 3 year old on a tricycle that take the biscuit...

valderrama1 · 16-07-2014 12:22PM

stefanovich wrote: »

This

Yeah.. it's just not realistic to assert anything on the road especially in the city centre. If you come out of there alive on a bike it's a win..

It should be the case that they can cycle safely but for that we would have to have a city like Copenhagen which clearly we don't... so until that's sorted it'll be constant frustration for both sides.

Dublin just isn't set up for bikes but of course without any proper bike lanes or bike parking facilities the government are setting up the bike to work scheme and the bike rental things..

Tombo2001 · 16-07-2014 12:25PM

valderrama1 wrote: »

Yeah.. it's just not realistic to assert anything on the road especially in the city centre. If you come out of there alive on a bike it's a win..

It should be the case that they can cycle safely but for that we would have to have a city like Copenhagen which clearly we don't... so until that's sorted it'll be constant frustration for both sides.

Dublin just isn't set up for bikes but of course without any proper bike lanes or bike parking facilities the government are setting up the bike to work scheme and the bike rental things..

I wouldnt complain too much. We have a Taoiseach who is an avid cyclist. I believe Dublin City Council is quite cyclist friendly. Leo Varadkar was quite supportive as minister.

What we have on the other hand is a wider popular of motorists of whom a large number believe they own the roads, and a media that feeds into that perception.

Its just not realistic to expect cyclists to obey the rules when other road users (motorists, pedestrians) disregard them.

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2014 12:26PM

mal1 wrote: »

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

This guy's dog was badly injured. A tiny bit more to the left and it would have been the guy himself, who without wanting to sound ageist was frail enough to have probably taken significant damage if he'd been the one hit.

Are you seriously telling me that a bike at full speed hitting a pedestrian wouldn't harm either the cyclist or the pedestrian?!

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2014 12:27PM

No Pants wrote: »

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!

Would you oppose reg plates for bicycles then, so that light breakers could be flagged and fined automatically instead of just when a Garda happens to witness the incident?

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 12:28PM

gramar wrote: »

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions"

Source: Rospa Royal Society for the prevention of accidents
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

gramar wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered digging them out. You have google too. Do some legwork if you're that interested.

There were 3 studies that I saw - the lowest was about 40% and the highest said that in 60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault. I never mentioned 1% but even if that is all it was then that's a lot of accidents caused by road users who have no insurance to compensate for the damage or loss caused to others.

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

Tombo2001 · 16-07-2014 12:29PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that a bike at full speed hitting a pedestrian wouldn't harm either the cyclist or the pedestrian?!

You can make that argument, and of course you are right.

however the primary problem that motorists have - as exhibited in the OP of this thread - is not they they feel threatened by cyclists, but that they feel inconvenienced by them. That is the debate at hand.

secondrowgal · 16-07-2014 12:29PM

blackwhite wrote: »

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).

Yeah, gotcha, and I agree with you 100%, which is why I usually get off the bike at that junction I told you about. It's maybe just a particular situation where the turn is too close to the lights and it's a tight fit (finar, finar!), so it's not the best place for having to look over your shoulder.

Thargor · 16-07-2014 12:30PM

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.

Whe I cycle through a built up area I can only go about 12-15 kph max with lots of stopping and starting, if it wasnt for all these cars on the roads slowing me down Id be doing 28-30 kph, funny that.

Rackstar · 16-07-2014 12:30PM

Does some sort of alert go out when someone opens a thread bashing cyclists?

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2014 12:35PM

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage:

Motor tax =/= Road tax

Most of us understand that, we just don't agree with it.

humanji · 16-07-2014 12:36PM

If you can't comment without insulting a person or groups of people, then just don't comment.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 12:36PM

Jawgap wrote: »

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

Even he did come post another 2 studies you would find something to nit pick.

It's a catch 22

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2014 12:38PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You can make that argument, and of course you are right.

however the primary problem that motorists have - as exhibited in the OP of this thread - is not they they feel threatened by cyclists, but that they feel inconvenienced by them. That is the debate at hand.

Agreed, I'm simply giving a pedestrian's point of view - a speeding object breaking traffic lights where pedestrians have a green man, especially in a crowded area, is dangerous. That applies whether it's a car, bike, or indeed another pedestrian. Putting people at risk in this manner should carry consequences regardless of the type of vehicle one is operating - if you're driving something capable of moving fast enough to injure somebody, it should have a reg plate so that your ass can be fined if you're caught doing something dangerous. Otherwise there's no deterrent to this kind of thing.

endacl · 16-07-2014 12:39PM

Rackstar wrote: »

Does some sort of alert go out when someone opens a thread bashing cyclists?

Or a filter. Send it straight to The Cuckoo's Nest...

:rolleyes:

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 12:39PM

Caliden wrote: »

Even he did come post another 2 studies you would find something to nit pick.

It's a catch 22

No, I promise if he comes up with the 2 studies I'll acknowledge that point and not nitpick or comment on them.

old hippy · 16-07-2014 12:39PM

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

Don't take things too literally...maybe w*nkers would have been more apt but it's just a slur anyway

Calling people that word can be taken as offensive, whether meant in jest or no.

It's being used in a negative context here, as you don't like "weekend cyclists" or whatever folks these are...

sarkozy · 16-07-2014 12:40PM

Jawgap wrote: »

One down, two to go.......

Also the study cited says in a particularly type of accident (serious ones) in a particular type of location (junction) failing to look properly on the part of cyclists was a significant contributory factor......hardly supports your more general statement that "60% of accidents between cars and bicycles the cyclist were at fault or more at fault"......

There was an article in the Guardian, relating to the UK, which has a similar cycling environment to our own, which reported that in court rulings on cyclist/driver collisions, 60-70% of judgements were in favour of the cyclist. This is the clearest statistic available in the UK (and a strong indicator for Ireland) of who is more often than not responsible for these incidents. This is evidence that needs to be repeated often, worked into policy, and then into actual implementation.

On another note, it's again worth mentioning, OP, that, whether it's bad etiquette or not, in Ireland cyclists are perfectly entitled to take lanes and the Road Safety Authority gives advice to cyclists to take lanes in situations where they would be safer to do so. It may be frustrating to drivers, but it's a matter of life or death for cyclists.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments