Those damn cyclists again!

Sir Arthur Daley · 16-07-2014 01:52PM

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.

CramCycle · 16-07-2014 01:52PM

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.

SteM · 16-07-2014 01:53PM

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.

TonyStark · 16-07-2014 01:53PM

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.

Chips Lovell · 16-07-2014 01:54PM

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.

Irishcrx · 16-07-2014 01:54PM

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.

Frogurt! · 16-07-2014 01:54PM

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.

cournioni · 16-07-2014 01:55PM

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?

magicbastarder · 16-07-2014 01:55PM

TonyStark wrote: »

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.

not necessarily in this case; if a cyclist (or any road user) changes lanes without indicating, they're the ones originally at fault.
there's no info on whether this was the case above though.

CramCycle · 16-07-2014 01:56PM

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?

As stated by the minister at the time the law was repealed, cycle lanes in Ireland are not fit for purpose and in many instances are a health and safety hazard. Unfortunately repairing them to a state that are useable is unfeasible. Hence why it made sense to remove the mandatory use element of the law as there was a realisation that it would eventually cost local government to much to maintain as well as to cover legal costs for accidents caused due to dangerous infrastructure.

Shenshen · 16-07-2014 01:56PM

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?

There are some cycle lanes around Cork I would never, ever cycle on approaching a junction.
They are layed out in the most effective way to kill cyclists. Essentially, the lane runs alongside the road until it comes up to the junction, at which point it runs out into the road and right across the "turn left" lane. The most dangerous road layout I've seen in my life.

Even if there was a law saying cyclists HAVE to use cyle lanes where provided, I would not use them on those roads. I'd rather break the law than my bones.

RobbieTheRobber · 16-07-2014 01:57PM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

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

Yes it makes sense when we consider the quality of so called cycle lanes.

Cyclists are legally entitled road users and as such they are legally entitled to use the road. The existence of cycle lanes in no way changes a cyclists right as a road user to legally use the road!

The reason for this law was that previously there were laws requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes were available despite no maintenance on these lanes and the overall design being very poor.

Are you satisfied now?

Bio Mech · 16-07-2014 01:57PM

Even for AH this thread has an impressive amount of mistruths and mass generalizations.

It makes me understand how war happens.

SteM · 16-07-2014 01:57PM

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.

I drive 2 days an week and cycle 3 for my commute. It brings me up the canal, through Rathmines and out to Tallaght. I can safely say that the WORST part of the commute on the bike is through Rathmines. Pedestrians just cross that road wherever they want, many of them don't even look before they cross. I'm not surprised the hear a cyclist was going down the middle of a taxi lane (never heard of one of those mind you) there.

endacl · 16-07-2014 01:59PM

cournioni wrote: »

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

No.

CramCycle · 16-07-2014 01:59PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

I am pretty sure that unless he hit the cyclist on purpose, it would be deemed the cyclists fault, there are giant signs warning cyclists not to use motorways, not sure where you got the idea the driver would be at fault in any scenario.

Sir Arthur Daley · 16-07-2014 02:01PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you satisfied now?

All i wanted was an answer and thanks for finally giving me one. Im not necessarily directing this question at you but why is there so much infrastructure being spent on cycling lanes if no one is using them?

Tombo2001 · 16-07-2014 02:01PM

Caliden wrote: »

I think that's all motorists are looking for as well.

Responsibility and accountability.

Some cyclists seem to getting hung up on the point of being identifiable though and prefer their anonymity.

Really?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely break red lights?

Do you mean the motorist who routinely break the speed limit in urban areas?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely drive while on their mobile phones?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely use the bus lanes when they shouldnt?

No of course you dont.

But you are happy to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

endacl · 16-07-2014 02:01PM

Bio Mech wrote: »

Even for AH this thread has an impressive amount of mistruths and mass generalizations.

It makes me understand how war happens.

It's the topic. It brings out the stupid in many. If you're interested in exploring the true futility of online debate, search the topic on the site. It's come up many times before. Nothing new on this thread. If anything, it's got slightly less nothing new than previous threads.

Tombo2001 · 16-07-2014 02:04PM

endacl wrote: »

It's the topic. It brings out the stupid in many. If you're interested in exploring the true futility of online debate, search the topic on the site. It's come up many times before. Nothing new on this thread. If anything, it's got slightly less nothing new than previous threads.

This will only end when the pool of frustrated motorists that coincidentally have also just discovered boards.ie is finally exhausted. I am guessing some time in the late 2020s.

RobbieTheRobber · 16-07-2014 02:04PM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

All i wanted was an answer and thanks for finally giving me one. Im not necessarily directing this question at you but why is there so much infrastructure being spent on cycling lanes if no one is using them?

A good question and one many cyclists would like answered. I could provide you numerous examples of poor design in cycle lanes which makes them all but useless. yet as you say quite a large sum of money has been wasted on these and seemingly without any input from the people who are supposed to use them.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 02:04PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Really?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely break red lights?

Do you mean the motorist who routinely break the speed limit in urban areas?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely drive while on their mobile phones?

Do you mean the motorists who routinely use the bus lanes when they shouldnt?

No of course you dont.

But you are happy to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

Actually, yes I do.

Stop asking rhetorical questions to fit your own agenda.

SteM wrote: »

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.

How is it the exact same system if there's no method for the public to report a cyclist?

SteM · 16-07-2014 02:04PM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

All i wanted was an answer and thanks for finally giving me one. Im not necessarily directing this question at you but why is there so much infrastructure being spent on cycling lanes if no one is using them?

People do use them - where it is safe to do so. You should direct your questions to various councils that seem to have no problem creating cycle lanes that end without warning, that are not properly maintained, that have lamp posts in the middle of them, that merge dangerously with footpaths etc.

endacl · 16-07-2014 02:07PM

Actually, stop the presses! I overtook a muppet in a jeep today travelling north on the M50. Tootling along in the middle lane. He had an ipad propped on his steering wheel, watching a movie as he drove.*

It's actually jeep drivers! Not cyclists. Jeep drivers are the real menace!!!

All of them. Obviously. I have a single instance of muppetry to back this claim up.

* Not invented for comic effect. I actually did see this. Between Ballymount and Red Cow.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 02:09PM

endacl wrote: »

Actually, stop the presses! I overtook a muppet in a jeep today travelling north on the M50. Tootling along in the middle lane. He had an ipad propped on his steering wheel, watching a movie as he drove.*

It's actually jeep drivers! Not cyclists. Jeep drivers are the real menace!!!

All of them. Obviously. I have a single instance of muppetry to back this claim up.

* Not invented for comic effect. I actually did see this. Between Ballymount and Red Cow.

Oh wow!

If only there was some way to identify and report him. Oh well I guess his identity will be unknown forever.

/s

Baron Kurtz · 16-07-2014 02:09PM

SteM wrote: »

I drive 2 days an week and cycle 3 for my commute. It brings me up the canal, through Rathmines and out to Tallaght. I can safely say that the WORST part of the commute on the bike is through Rathmines. Pedestrians just cross that road wherever they want, many of them don't even look before they cross. I'm not surprised the hear a cyclist was going down the middle of a taxi lane (never heard of one of those mind you) there.

Yep. Gotta keep your wits about you at the lights at Lidl/Aldi. There's no need for lights it seems, or any kind of process, as it's a free-for-all.
The break off left to upper Rathmines is worse. No one has EVER stopped there!:) Fact! That part of a cycle is just funny; an exercise in negotiating obstacles - it really hones this skill though.

cournioni · 16-07-2014 02:10PM

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

What fuel do cyclists pay tax on? If you're talking about food, food is 0%. They're not paying tax on their emissions either seeing as you're going down that road. Methane is one of the biggest destroyers of the ozone don't you know?

Joking aside, the fact is that cyclists are still not paying tax even though cycle lanes are becoming more prevalent on our roads. I believe they should make a contribution.

Tombo2001 · 16-07-2014 02:11PM

Caliden wrote: »

Actually, yes I do.

Stop asking rhetorical questions to fit your own agenda.

You said, All motorists want is Responsibility and Accountability.

I replied, are you including the many many motorists who routinely break the law.

You are now telling me above, that Yes the many many motorists who routinely break the law also want accountability and responsibility.

I really dont get where you are going with this.

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 02:11PM

cournioni wrote: »

I have a question.

Why are motorists taxed for the use of their vehicles on public roads and cyclists are not?

endacl wrote: »

Actually, stop the presses! I overtook a muppet in a jeep today travelling north on the M50. Tootling along in the middle lane. He had an ipad propped on his steering wheel, watching a movie as he drove.*

It's actually jeep drivers! Not cyclists. Jeep drivers are the real menace!!!

........

.......and Yaris drivers!

Tony EH · 16-07-2014 02:13PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Proof if ever it were needed that it doesnt matter how many times a point is made....it doesnt matter how many times a message is hammered home..if people want to believe something else entirely, regardless of it being the complete opposite of reality, they will believe it.

There are just some people who can't learn.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments