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

cournioni

endacl wrote: »

It's not really. It's a confusion that leads to begrudgery.

Does a motor have to be taxed if its sole use is on private property?

Frogurt!

seamus wrote: »

Yes. In the same way that having a motorway but not being legally obliged to use it makes sense.

He obviously means if there is a cycle lane available on the road the cyclist is on.

OK, drive on the mane instead of the actual motorway and see how you get on.

Irishcrx

Wow well this escalated quickly...

I forgot that I had also saw a cyclist cycling in the hard shoulder on the M50 a few weeks ago, I'm sure had he been killed it would have been the motorists fault as well for his lack of driving ability or not expecting to come accross the cyclist.

Not at all the fault of this dim wit Lance Armstrong wannabe , totally togged out like he was entering the Tour de france, luckily the gards had already stopped him and were impounding the bike while he's standing there shouting at them.

Chips Lovell

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

...I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane...

I think you let him off lightly. If it were me, I'd have stepped out of my car and beat him over the head with my umbrella.

TonyStark

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

While driving I've almost been hit by a car because they swerved to my side of the road to avoid a cyclist who was overtaking another cyclist without indicating first. If there had been an accident it would have been both their fault. Motorists will defend motorists and cyclists will defend cyclists. It's just going to go round in circles. At the end of the day, if everyone was just more aware of each other then it'd be grand.

I don't see how it would have been the cyclists fault. It's the responsibility of the motorist overtaking to make sure the way is clear. He went over the white line so he is in the wrong. You had a lucky escape from a bad driver.

SteM

Caliden wrote: »

There's a system in place to deal with poor drivers. There is no camera to determine bad driving so the Gardai rely on being in the right place at the right time and the public in order to deal with bad drivers.

It's not the greatest system but it does help.

The same can not be said about a system dealing with bad cyclists.

The exact same system is in place for bad cyclists. If the gardai are in the right place at the right time then a cyclist can be fined if they are caught breaking the rules of the road.

CramCycle

cournioni wrote: »

Are motorists not already taxed for their pollution/usage when they fill up at the pumps? The more you use, the more you're taxed.

I agree that motorists have to be taxed for their road usage due to wear and tear and for infrastructural improvements, but shouldn't this apply to all road users (including cyclists)?

Cyclists pay tax on their fuel, if you were to equivocate road damage to motor tax, I think the number comes in between 20cent and 2euro for the equivalent cost to road damage. If you go for emissions,, I am less sure but I am confident that it is an equally insignificant number.

Go onto the money saved for future exchequers due to improved public health, reduced traffic as every two cyclists can be equated to one less car due to our one person one car culture.

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What question?

Are you asking why a road user legally entitled to use the road, would then use said roads?

Will you go back and read what i asked you, i wrote it in simple english.

endacl

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

It's not really. It's a confusion that leads to begrudgery.

[Deleted User]

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

And to answer the question?

What question?

Are you asking why a road user legally entitled to use the road, would then use said roads?

Buzz Killington the third

While driving I've almost been hit by a car because they swerved to my side of the road to avoid a cyclist who was overtaking another cyclist without indicating first. If there had been an accident it would have been both their fault. Motorists will defend motorists and cyclists will defend cyclists. It's just going to go round in circles. At the end of the day, if everyone was just more aware of each other then it'd be grand.

TonyStark

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

You think that that is bad?

I came in by train and saw traffic come to a complete stall because of other cars...... crawling doesn't seem so bad!

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You can call them cycle lanes I prefer the more descriptive "painted paths" as a name.

And to answer the question?

[Deleted User]

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

Whats a taxi lane?

Peist2007

I have recently moved to Rathmines and walk into town every morning to work. I have been taken aback by how cyclists behave on my daily walk. I saw 3 taxis crawling behind a cyclist trundling along in the middle of the taxi lane this morning. In fact, most cyclists on that stretch in the mornings just take up the middle of the lane.

Caliden

SteM wrote: »

Do you think this 'bike license' will stop some people from cycling poorly? Just like having a drivers license stops some drivers from driving poorly? You go on about cyclists needing to know drivers stopping distances but if you look at the roads any day of the week you see drivers that don't know their own stopping distances!

RSA ads alone are not enough - using the road requires education for both drivers and cyclists.

There's a system in place to deal with poor drivers. There is no camera to determine bad driving so the Gardai rely on being in the right place at the right time and the public in order to deal with bad drivers.

It's not the greatest system but it does help.

The same can not be said about a system dealing with bad cyclists.

I'm not saying there aren't bad motorists (there are) and I'm also not saying that every cyclist is a bad cyclist but I would think that those cyclists who obey the rules of the road would like to separate themselves from the cyclists who pick and choose what rules to obey.

I would like to think that anyone using the road could be readily identifiable so as to deter bad behaviour.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26837911/ns/health-behavior/t/anonymity-opens-split-personality-zone/#.U8Zy_PldVEI

the above is an article which quotes a studying showing that "out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward."

People change when they think they cannot be identified. The same goes for online message boards.

[Deleted User]

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

You can call them cycle lanes I prefer the more descriptive "painted paths" as a name.

TonyStark

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

There is no legal requirement to use a cycle lane. Usually cycle lanes are littered with glass and debris and it is preferable sometimes to use the road. Provided he wasn't on the M50 he is breaking no law.

cournioni

Caliden wrote: »

Because we're polluting the environment and causing more wear and tear to the roads.

mathie wrote: »

Emissions?

Are motorists not already taxed for their pollution/usage/emissions when they fill up at the pumps? The more you use, the more you're taxed.

I agree that motorists have to be taxed for their road usage due to wear and tear and for infrastructural improvements, but shouldn't this apply to all road users (including cyclists)?

seamus

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

Yes. In the same way that having a motorway but not being legally obliged to use it makes sense.

SteM

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

You had no reason to engage with him. He wasn't breaking the law, he doesn’t have to use cycle lanes if they're available. If you see another driver driving poorly will you make a point to roll down your windows at lights to engage with them. You may say yes but I bet you'll just keep on driving.

'Largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists' - care to explain that? So were there pedestrians on the cycle lane? Just one or two or none? Did you stop and ask the pedestrians why they were walking on the cycle lane endangering their own lives or do you just have a thing against cyclists?

Did this cyclist accuse you of endangering his life or was he just getting on with his life and leaving you to yours?

CramCycle

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

In all of the studies bar the Washington post one which they do not give numbers for, for some unknown reason, referred to in that article, motorists were deemed to be more at fault than cyclists for collisions.

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog , on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety on contributing factors in bike-car crashes. It found that in 2009, cyclists were at fault in 49 percent of crashes, while drivers were at fault in 51 percent. Failing to yield to right of way was the most frequent cause of the snarls.

And the Washington Post recently a 2004 report from DC showing cyclists more likely than motorists to be at fault in a crash.

But a older from Hawaii had a different conclusion. Using police-reported crash data from 1986 to 1991, researchers found that motorists were at fault in approximately 83.5 percent of incidents, whereas bicyclists were at fault in only 16.5 percent of incidents.

Sir Arthur Daley

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

There are alot of laws that do not make sense, does having a cycling lane and having a law that states you dont have to use it by law make total sense to you?

[Deleted User]

gramar wrote: »

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

Ed Beighe, who mans the Arizona bike blog Azbikelaw, crunched some numbers on fault from his state and found that 44 percent of fatalities from bike-car crashes in 2009 were determined to be the fault of the cyclist, while 56 percent were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common collision was when a driver struck a cyclist from behind.

44% cyclists fault
56% car drivers fault

:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

What a crock of ****!

How does a road user endanger themselves by legally using a road?

SteM

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.

Do you think this 'bike license' will stop some people from cycling poorly? Just like having a drivers license stops some drivers from driving poorly? You go on about cyclists needing to know drivers stopping distances but if you look at the roads any day of the week you see drivers that don't know their own stopping distances!

RSA ads alone are not enough - using the road requires education for both drivers and cyclists.

TonyStark

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.

Legally they are entitled to cycle to abreast.

Even to pass one cyclist safely with the recommended clearance you would need to go partially over the white line. Otherwise you are not leaving the cyclist enough space.

gramar

Here's one:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault

seamus

BFDCH. wrote: »

Does the motorist have a right of way here? is it not the same as any other road user, in that the person further ahead on the road has right of way, the driver behind should only over take when it is safe to do so

Where the cyclist is using the cycle lane, he is for all intents and purposes a vehicle in a separate lane, and therefore must yield to traffic in the other lane if he intends to move out of the cycle lane.

Where the cyclist is not using a cycle lane, then yes the following motorist must treat the cyclist like any other vehicle and provide the full width of the roadway for the cyclist's usage.

Ratzo Rizzo

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes: