Those damn cyclists again!

Sir Arthur Daley · 16-07-2014 02:13PM

So for example in cork city the new Cycle Route: UCC to City Centre- €466,250 is the cost of it. Is this route pratical and safe and tick all the boxes for cyclists or would the money have been better spent in vegas?

Buzz Killington the third · 16-07-2014 02:13PM

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.

Because they didn't indicate. They left the cycle lane to overtake another cyclist which forced the driver to swerve.

blacklilly · 16-07-2014 02:14PM

The route I travel to work is very busy with cyclists, most of whom are fine (although far too many break red lights). My bigGest gripe is.........

For those of you who are fimaliar with the road at blackrock ( 2 lane road), it's a particularly busy road with both vehciels and cyclists.
Now if I'm in the inside lane and there's a cyclist on the road, I wait until I have clearance on the outside lane to safely overtake the cyclist.
What seems to happen far too frequently is.....I'm driving on the inside lane, the traffic is moving slow and a cyclyist comes up the inside of my car from behind and thinks it ok to bang my vehicle as he/she may not have adequate room to pass me on the inside.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ROOM YOU STAY BEHIND....SIMPLE.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 02:16PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

Sorry this doesn't make sense.

Can you explain further

Tony EH · 16-07-2014 02:16PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What does that even mean? So some bike is overtaking another bike and you are trying to overtake them, that means you did not no think things through and drove dangerously.

Exactly, someone in a vehicle over-taking a vehicle, that's over-taking a vehicle.

I think someone needs to go back and do their test again. :pac:

rubadub · 16-07-2014 02:17PM

cournioni wrote: »

What fuel do cyclists pay tax on? If you're talking about food, food is 0%.

Only some basic foodstuffs are zero rated. Sports supplements are now 23% which happened a few years ago. If you go onto the NI website www.chainreactioncycles.com and check out the food section you will see the big difference in VAT if you change your country from UK to ireland.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the cycle to work scheme, the government giving tax back on people cycling to work. If they are encoraging cycling by giving tax breaks I doubt they will be attempting to tax people anytime soon. You might be better off putting your efforts into contacting your local TD calling for scrapping of the cycle to work scheme.

cournioni wrote: »

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.

Most people I know with bikes pay both motor tax and income tax.

Do you think pedestrians should make a contribution towards roads & footpaths too? I see loads illegally jaywalking all the time.

Bio Mech · 16-07-2014 02:18PM

blacklilly wrote: »

I'm driving on the inside lane, the traffic is moving slow and a cyclyist comes up the inside of my car from behind and thinks it ok to bang my vehicle as he/she may not have adequate room to pass me on the inside.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ROOM YOU STAY BEHIND....SIMPLE.

Why don't you try to leave adequate room to pass you on the inside? If only you were aware of past instances where you failed to do so. Oh wait yes your post above.

ThisRegard · 16-07-2014 02:20PM

gramar wrote: »

cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions

This refers to accidents at junctions. And 43% would equate to a minority, yes ?

Caliden wrote: »

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

It's a catch 22

It's simply facts. No arguing with facts.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 02:20PM

Bio Mech wrote: »

Why don't you try to leave adequate room to pass you on the inside? If only you were aware of past instances where you failed to do so. Oh wait yes your post above.

You're familiar with the junction then?

Chips Lovell · 16-07-2014 02:21PM

Nobody's obliged to leave adequate room for cyclists to pass on the inside. Hammering on someone's roof is a dick move. Would the same cyclists be apologetic if a motorist beeped at them because they couldn't get past them?

CramCycle · 16-07-2014 02:24PM

cournioni wrote: »

What fuel do cyclists pay tax on? If you're talking about food, food is 0%.

Hands up, I go t that wrong, there are only a few foodstuffs to which tax is applied.

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?

LOL, their emissions would generally be breathing, you know, what you do anyway, are you going to start taxing pedestrians for breathing. My point was had you read my post that tax on road damage would be so small as to cost prohibitive to administer. Tax on emissions would also be cost prohibitive to administer, when compared against motor vehicles on a like for like basis.

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.

The reason for the cycle lanes (that is a loose definition BTW for cheap red tarmacadam or a line of paint) is that it is often a requirement for getting EU funding. Personally I don't want cycle lanes, I want greater traffic law enforcement across the board but that seems to be a PITA for anyone to bother doing. It would certainly pay for itself in the short term as well as get a greater visible Garda presence on city streets which has to be a good thing.

manafana · 16-07-2014 02:25PM

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.

there is no tax on roads, you pay motor tax which covers the pollution your car causes by driving into work every day rather than using more environmental ways of getting in.

Regarding red lights it is an issue, but so are cars running lights too and thats more dangerous it all needs to be dealt with together. Cycling is good for people and they have every right to the road, slowing down someone is not an issue, they have a legal right to the road too. Give them space be patient and maybe even try cycling yourslef and see you might enjoy it.

Davarus Walrus · 16-07-2014 02:25PM

Saw some wanker cyclist getting creamed out of it this morning after he ran a red light. Happened on the corner of Lesson and FitzWilliam Street. Ran into the side of a van. I'm sure the fact most of his front teeth were on the ground and his face in tatters will remind him of the consequences of believing that the rules of the road don't apply to him.

ThisRegard · 16-07-2014 02:25PM

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

A bit of hasty googling there, and it's evident that you're not even reading the reports you're linking to.

Bio Mech · 16-07-2014 02:25PM

Caliden wrote: »

You're familiar with the junction then?

No which is why my post was phrased as a question. Hence the ? I was asking why they don`t leave enough room on the inside. Lack of space would have been an answer. But as you seem to know perhaps you can tell me.

TonyStark · 16-07-2014 02:27PM

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because they didn't indicate. They left the cycle lane to overtake another cyclist which forced the driver to swerve.

They didn't they overtook a cyclist, therefore there were 2 abreast in lane. it would seem the motorist was trying to overtake both.

ThisRegard · 16-07-2014 02:28PM

cournioni wrote: »

What fuel do cyclists pay tax on?

On the fuel I put into both cars in my household.

SeanW · 16-07-2014 02:28PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, should people who pay more tax get better or greater access?

What about that portion of general taxation that goes towards building and maintaining roads? Or should 'road tax' not just be raised until it covers the full cost of roads, and that portion of the health budget attributable to traffic collisions?

Maybe road tax raised should only be spent in the counties in which it is raised?

I didn't say any of that, I just think the fact that only motorists pay ROAD usage TAX should be properly noted. I object to silly "corrections" about the use of the term ROAD TAX because at best its inoffensive slang, at most, an accurate description of the basis of the tax - i.e. a tax a motorist must pay to use the road.

seamus wrote: »

The end has to justify the means. What problem will registration of bicycles solve, and how will that offset the obvious costs and implementation issues that it brings.

First of all, if you fined every RLJing footpath riding cyclist the same as the standard motoring fine €80 you could probably pay off the national debt.

How do you propose that you enforce this obligation to have a registration plate on bicycles, and how is it easier to enforce than the rules of the road? What makes you think that a person who doesn't care about the rules of the road is going to give two craps about having a plate on his bike?

Simple, use the same rules as apply for motorists. If "don't care about the rules of the road" and run red lights, I'll get tagged by red light cameras, that take my registration and apply penalty points, up until I get enough points to lose my license. My insurance would also go up exponentially during the time.

If I did not carry registration plates, the first gard that saw my car would stop me.

Cyclists could be subject to the same rules.
Get a license at any age by simply passing a knowledge test. Register the bikes, subject them to the same enforcement devices as cars. License endorsed each time an offence is recorded, under the same penalty points regime.
Then put traffic cameras on footpaths, pedestrian bridges etc as well as red lights. Watch either:

Cyclists begin to respect red lights and pedestrian areas like motorists do.
Lots of cyclists get disqualified under the same rules at motorists.

Bio Mech · 16-07-2014 02:28PM

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Nobody's obliged to leave adequate room for cyclists to pass on the inside. Hammering on someone's roof is a dick move. Would the same cyclists be apologetic if a motorist beeped at them because they couldn't get past them?

Obligation and being aware of other road users are not the same thing. Cyclists are not obliged to not cycle completely in the middle of the road either but you wouldn't want to see them do it.

Some cyclists are A-holes, some drivers are A-holes. Agree on the roof banging BTW. But I think too many people are too entrenched and focussed on their own rights on the road. Cyclists do it, road users do it. Some not all.

Caliden · 16-07-2014 02:29PM

Bio Mech wrote: »

No which is why my post was phrased as a question. Hence the ? I was asking why they don`t leave enough room on the inside. Lack of space would have been an answer. But as you seem to know perhaps you can tell me.

lack of space

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 02:29PM

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

Would it not just be easier to link to the thread you mentioned.......?

Buzz Killington the third · 16-07-2014 02:31PM

TonyStark wrote: »

They didn't they overtook a cyclist, therefore there were 2 abreast in lane. it would seem the motorist was trying to overtake both.

There's no reasoning here. If a cycle lane can hold one bike in width and a cyclist decides to overtake the guy in front it is not "cycling 2 abreast", it's a fecking overtaking manoeuvre in which they have to leave the cycle lane and in doing so they should indicate and be aware that there are cars driving on the road beside them!

Chips Lovell · 16-07-2014 02:33PM

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

There's no reasoning here. If a cycle lane can hold one bike in width and a cyclist decides to overtake the guy in front it is not "cycling 2 abreast", it's a fecking overtaking manoeuvre in which they have to leave the cycle lane and in doing so they should indicate and be aware that there are cars driving on the road beside them!

Even if you aren't in a cycle lane and are moving up to cycle two abreast, you should also signal. It's pretty much the same deal as when you're driving. If you're changing road position, you should always signal.

roadrunner16 · 16-07-2014 02:33PM

Apart from all the other stuff you said one thing stand out and I'm going to get in knocked for saying this but It boils my blood hearing motorists get it wrong... Yes cyclists don't pay road tax ...... in fact motorists don't pay road tax ....no one pays road tax .... its called Motor tax .... my bike dosen't have an effing motor !!!! Money for roads is taken from general taxation !!!!

blackwhite · 16-07-2014 02:35PM

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

NO.

Like every other situation on the road, if you want to leave one lane and join another then you must give way to any traffic already in the lane.

TBH, when people get the rules of the road so badly wrong it's no wonder that threads like this go round and round and round and round.

SeanW · 16-07-2014 02:35PM

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Apart from all the other stuff you said one thing stand out and I'm going to get in knocked for saying this but It boils my blood hearing motorists get it wrong... Yes cyclists don't pay road tax ...... in fact motorists don't pay road tax ....no one pays road tax .... its called Motor tax .... my bike dosen't have an effing motor !!!! Money for roads is taken from general taxation !!!!

Only it's not a Motor tax really, if your car is off the road and recorded as such you are not liable for the tax.

Cyclists don't pay to use the road, motorists do. And I think you'll find someone like me who has to pay €800/year - just in one tax/imposed cost alone - to drive 5000 miles or less is paying plenty for roads and a few other things.

Tony EH · 16-07-2014 02:36PM

Jawgap wrote: »

It wouldn't really because people would just ignore it.

+1 on adding something to the school curriculum on road use / road safety.

I remember being taught basic road safety in school and that was the 80's.

Bio Mech · 16-07-2014 02:36PM

Caliden wrote: »

lack of space

I retract my insinuation so.

Irishcrx · 16-07-2014 02:37PM

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

There's no reasoning here. If a cycle lane can hold one bike in width and a cyclist decides to overtake the guy in front it is not "cycling 2 abreast", it's a fecking overtaking manoeuvre in which they have to leave the cycle lane and in doing so they should indicate and be aware that there are cars driving on the road beside them!

Finally! Only a couple of hundred posts later and one man has made a little bit of sense. That was my only ****ing point this morning , If a cyclist is leaving the bloody cycle lane he should be aware that there are cars in tight spaces beside him as well, he didn't indicate and just came swanning out in front of the car to overtake forcing me to swerve into the right lane to avoid knocking him off the bike.

If he'd have let me know his intention I could have avoided it, pretty simple. I swear to god I know it's after hours and all but common sense goes out the window at times just for the sake of getting a rise out of people.

And to whoever said they up above that they pay fuel by their bike from their two cars at home , no that's paying fuel/tax for your two cars, not your bike. Liek if I had two cars and fueled them and bought a motorbike, is that fuel/tax going to pay for that as well? What about my boat?...

RobFowl · 16-07-2014 02:37PM

ellejay wrote: »

I think they should be Licensed, made to do a theory test on rules of the road and driving etiquette.

Their selfishness on the roads infuriate's me.

Not too sure if you are aware but every member of cycling Ireland is licensed and insured.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments