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

mal1

elchupanebrey wrote: »

New forum request "Cyclists v Motorists"

New forum request "Motorists that cycle v Motorists that don't"

bmwguy

I cycle to work every day but I also pay motor tax of €1080 a year on a 2.5 engine so I definitely pay to be there. OP point invalid.

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

Slow? not around the city.

They'd slow up a fair bit if they observed traffic signals.

Jawgap wrote: »

Erratic? not if handled with a modicum of competence - plus they're gyroscopically and centrifugally stabilised at speed.

That's a rather large "If"! :pac:

Jawgap wrote: »

Unlit? some are, but the Guards crack down on it, just like they do on those one-eyed wonder cas

They don't crack down on it anything like enough.

Jawgap wrote: »

Uninsured? Aside from Cycling Ireland insurance, a lot, if not most household policies, confer third party protection on you when you're on the bike

It isn't compulsory though. It should be.

Jawgap wrote: »

Unregistered? There's no requirement

Then stay off the carriageway. Again, it should be.

Jawgap wrote: »

Child's toy? Well yes - it's fun, its keep people occupied and users come back for more. some even cost more than cars, but like all good toys you can get perfectly serviceable versions that are cheap and useful - and have pretty much zero running costs.

Some people have a somewhat strange definition of "fun". :pac:

OldNotWIse

CramCycle wrote: »

In my 15 years cycling in Dublin, I have seen quite a few near misses with cyclists and pedestrians, 2 actual collisions, both ended up with the cyclist (who was at fault in only one of them) in an ambulance. I have seen many near misses with cars and pedestrians, one with a pedestrain so drunk he stumbled away after stepping out in front of the car, but several more where an ambulance had to be called.

Point being, nothing to do with cyclists or motorists, problem is a small subset of people who don't pay attention.

Children under the age of 12 are allowed on the footpath for their own safety as it is realised they might not have the sense to interact with traffic and are small enough not to do any damage to pedestrians. I can't imagine they were bombing it along, and considering the behaviour of some road users on the road, I can't say I blame her.

And her adult sized bike?

OldNotWIse

Jawgap wrote: »

Drove this morning.......but at one point was overtaken by an Avensis who went over the continuous white line and through a hatched area.......to get to the traffic jam ahead a few seconds before he otherwise would have :rolleyes:

Really, to school in July??

Poor feckers - what school is open in July.......

Yeah didn't think about that. Guess it must have been a summer camp or something. Momma bear and cubs going from A(unknown place) to B (unknown place) at 08:20 - better? In any event, I dont think their destination was the main focus of my post - was it?

CramCycle

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yeah, they're all perfect. Poor poor cyclists. Never break red lights. Never almost kill people at pedestrian crossings as the fly through on red.

In my 15 years cycling in Dublin, I have seen quite a few near misses with cyclists and pedestrians, 2 actual collisions, both ended up with the cyclist (who was at fault in only one of them) in an ambulance. I have seen many near misses with cars and pedestrians, one with a pedestrain so drunk he stumbled away after stepping out in front of the car, but several more where an ambulance had to be called.

Point being, nothing to do with cyclists or motorists, problem is a small subset of people who don't pay attention.

I saw a woman ferrying her entire progeny to school a few mornings ago. She was cycling and had one child in a seat on the back, another resemled ET in a fuucking basket at the front, and a kid about 7 or 8 cycling behind her - all on the footpath Out of Momma Bear's way!

Children under the age of 12 are allowed on the footpath for their own safety as it is realised they might not have the sense to interact with traffic and are small enough not to do any damage to pedestrians. I can't imagine they were bombing it along, and considering the behaviour of some road users on the road, I can't say I blame her.

Jawgap

CramCycle wrote: »

Its like the person on the van who I seen lambasting a mother and child on a cargo bike for holding them up (she was in the bike lane). They were coming through a junction, the delay was approximately 2.5 seconds before the lane widened but they decided to slow up, then scream and shout at the mother, finally they raced of to catch traffic less than 25meters up the road, which they would have reached earlier had they not decided to verbally assault a mother and child for no reason.

...

Drove this morning.......but at one point was overtaken by an Avensis who went over the continuous white line and through a hatched area.......to get to the traffic jam ahead a few seconds before he otherwise would have :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yeah, they're all perfect. Poor poor cyclists. Never break red lights. Never almost kill people at pedestrian crossings as the fly through on red.

Edit: I saw a woman ferrying her entire progeny to school a few mornings ago. She was cycling and had one child in a seat on the back, another resemled ET in a fuucking basket at the front, and a kid about 7 or 8 cycling behind her - all on the footpath Out of Momma Bear's way!

Really, to school in July??

Poor feckers - what school is open in July.......

jimgoose

07Lapierre wrote: »

No. Probably one of these:
Perfectly safe.

http://www.sustainablecitiesnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/firstphoto.jpg

Frankly I should prefer to be perambulated in a wheelbarrow pushed by an LSD-frenzied orang-utan than in such a thing. But to each their own. :pac::pac::pac:

07Lapierre

jimgoose wrote: »

Is that one of those bicycle trailer efforts? Anyone who carries a child in one of those needs their head examined, if you ask me! :pac:

No. Probably one of these:
Perfectly safe.

http://www.sustainablecitiesnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/firstphoto.jpg

jimgoose

CramCycle wrote: »

...was their behaviour acceptable? Using language my own mother would disown me for, all be cause they weren't delayed, but their was a false perception that they were, is this behaviour acceptable in any situation

Of course not. Patience and tolerance should be shown at all times to the pedalling-bicyclists, just like when dealing with any slow individual. :cool:

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Because they are slow, erratic, vulnerable, unregulated, unlit, uninsured, and unregistered. A bicycle is at best an alternative to regular road-traffic, and at worst a child's toy. This needs to be absorbed into some people's cliggíns quare-lively.

Slow? not around the city.

Erratic? not if handled with a modicum of competence - plus they're gyroscopically and centrifugally stabilised at speed.

Unlit? some are, but the Guards crack down on it, just like they do on those one-eyed wonder cas

Uninsured? Aside from Cycling Ireland insurance, a lot, if not most household policies, confer third party protection on you when you're on the bike

Unregistered? There's no requirement

Child's toy? Well yes - it's fun, its keep people occupied and users come back for more. some even cost more than cars, but like all good toys you can get perfectly serviceable versions that are cheap and useful - and have pretty much zero running costs.

CramCycle

jimgoose wrote: »

Is that one of those bicycle trailer efforts? Anyone who carries a child in one of those needs their head examined, if you ask me! :pac:

No, its the one where the child is in front, that said the rear trailers are incredibly safe, several videos online of how they behave in an impact with a car. I would feel very safe with my child in one.

Regardless, seems to be taking away from the issue, was their behaviour acceptable? Using language my own mother would disown me for, all be cause they weren't delayed, but their was a false perception that they were, is this behaviour acceptable in any situation

OldNotWIse

CramCycle wrote: »

Can I ask where you are based?

Dublin rush hour - cyclists are generally as fast if not faster than traffic.
Dublin out of rush hour - more than enough room to overtake
Countryside - there is generally only one lane in each direction for road users

Its like the person on the van who I seen lambasting a mother and child on a cargo bike for holding them up (she was in the bike lane). They were coming through a junction, the delay was approximately 2.5 seconds before the lane widened but they decided to slow up, then scream and shout at the mother, finally they raced of to catch traffic less than 25meters up the road, which they would have reached earlier had they not decided to verbally assault a mother and child for no reason.

Oddly enough when I gave footage of the incident from a helmet cam to Dublin County council, they had no interest in the behaviour of their workers, even with a reg plate, date, time and pictures of their faces. Sometimes been a complete and utter w*nker is perfectly acceptable

You can ask

OldNotWIse

papu wrote: »

You'd think they were all going to the exact same destination . You'd think they never have to turn right..

oh wait.

Yeah, they're all perfect. Poor poor cyclists. Never break red lights. Never almost kill people at pedestrian crossings as the fly through on red.

Edit: I saw a woman ferrying her entire progeny to school a few mornings ago. She was cycling and had one child in a seat on the back, another resemled ET in a fuucking basket at the front, and a kid about 7 or 8 cycling behind her - all on the footpath

Out of Momma Bear's way!

jimgoose

CramCycle wrote: »

...a mother and child on a cargo bike...

Is that one of those bicycle trailer efforts? Anyone who carries a child in one of those needs their head examined, if you ask me! :pac:

CramCycle

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or when you see 3 or 4 of them, all in different lanes holding up lines of traffic behind

You'd think they could have one dedicated lane that cyclists could use....Oh wait....

Can I ask where you are based?

Dublin rush hour - cyclists are generally as fast if not faster than traffic.
Dublin out of rush hour - more than enough room to overtake
Countryside - there is generally only one lane in each direction for road users

Its like the person on the van who I seen lambasting a mother and child on a cargo bike for holding them up (she was in the bike lane). They were coming through a junction, the delay was approximately 2.5 seconds before the lane widened but they decided to slow up, then scream and shout at the mother, finally they raced of to catch traffic less than 25meters up the road, which they would have reached earlier had they not decided to verbally assault a mother and child for no reason.

Oddly enough when I gave footage of the incident from a helmet cam to Dublin County council, they had no interest in the behaviour of their workers, even with a reg plate, date, time and pictures of their faces. Sometimes been a complete and utter w*nker is perfectly acceptable

Jawgap

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or when you see 3 or 4 of them, all in different lanes holding up lines of traffic behind

You'd think they could have one dedicated lane that cyclists could use....Oh wait....

You would think so - but I'll think you'll find there are no dedicated cycle lanes - there is some bits of painted road and pavement around but the city council (in Dublin anyway) uses these to store the glass, stones, and other assorted and dangerous detritus that would otherwise clutter up the main carriageway.

They are also handy for storing mulched leaves in autumn, and ice in winter.

oh, and its where they keep the drain covers too......and a lot of them require you to take illogical detours to stay on them.....and you have to yield at every gateway and sidestreet

Oh wait.....

.....there's the off road paths (like Clontarf and the Phoenix Park) which are brilliant - so brilliant in fact the dog walkers, joggers, families with kids, families without kids, power-walkers etc all love to use them.

So yes, I too often wonder why more use isn't made of them

jimgoose

Evie Freezing Tide wrote: »

They are traffic. Why do you think that bikes are separate to other road users? That bikes cannot be traffic...???

It's this mentality that needs to be culled, and culled quickly.

Because they are slow, erratic, vulnerable, unregulated, unlit, uninsured, and unregistered. A bicycle is at best an alternative to regular road-traffic, and at worst a child's toy. This needs to be absorbed into some people's cliggíns quare-lively.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or when you see 3 or 4 of them, all in different lanes holding up lines of traffic behind

You'd think they could have one dedicated lane that cyclists could use....Oh wait....

They are traffic. Why do you think that bikes are separate to other road users? That bikes cannot be traffic...???

It's this mentality that needs to be culled, and culled quickly.

papu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or when you see 3 or 4 of them, all in different lanes holding up lines of traffic behind

You'd think they could have one dedicated lane that cyclists could use....Oh wait....

You'd think they were all going to the exact same destination . You'd think they never have to turn right..

oh wait.

OldNotWIse

Or when you see 3 or 4 of them, all in different lanes holding up lines of traffic behind

You'd think they could have one dedicated lane that cyclists could use....Oh wait....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

On my cycle to work this morning, there were three situations where a motor vehicle almost colided with me and 1 incident with a pedestrian.

1. Car wanting to make a right turn accross my path, did so without caring for oncomming non motored traffic. Hopefully this is on my camera.

2. Motorist turning left when I was going straight, he did not overtake me fully, but just cut in front of me without any consideration. I was going straight and had to jam on. That was a very close call. Had I not broke, he would have plowed right into the side of me. Fortunately for that sack of scat, the camera battery ran out. The impression I got here was, "gtfo of my way bike, I am in a car".

3. Pedestrian just steps out in front of me, another pedestrian seen me coming, reached out and pulled her back as I swerved. I think we both would have been hurt badly if I hadn't reacted so. What would a bike do do a person at 35-40km per hour I wonder. She didn't see me because she didn't look to her right at all. Not once.

It's glaringly obvious that the general public haven't a clue how to use the roads. This goes for bikes, pedestrians, cars, vans, trucks, buses, taxi drivers etc etc. There's a complete misunderstanding of ones position and responsibility as a road user. A lot of cop on is required.

I completely understand that mistakes and misjudgements are made, but some of the stuff you see on the roads is outright disgusting behaviour. From all parties too. A total sense of self entitlement oozes from every type of road user.

elchupanebrey

New forum request "Cyclists v Motorists"

TonyStark

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!

Well if a car were to drive along side a cyclist then they should be over the white line, considering the cyclist ought to have 1.5 meters of clearance. Again, there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to remain in a cycle lane.

There is a legal requirement for all road users to drive with due care and consideration, if they don't then they can be charged with an offence under the road traffic act.

Presumably the car had to swerve as they couldn't complete the manoeuvre.

Technically if they are side by side then it is two abreast! In fact the procedure for cyclists signalling their intent is not called "indicating" it's called "hand signaling", bicycles are not equipped with indicators FYI.

If I were to base things on my view of the world.. A LOT of motorists vehicles don't have indicators... if they have them then they are seldom used...

With or without hand signals there is nothing to excuse a motorist travelling behind cyclists or other traffic to drive defensively, anticipate manoeuvres and give enough room and distance.

Jawgap

henryporter wrote: »

Wait a minute - you're not suggesting that this story may be made up? :rolleyes:

desertcircus wrote: »

If a cyclist managed to throw a bidon through the tempered glass rear windscreen of a modern car while moving and staying upright, he's Clark Kent.

Actually, no, scratch that. We're all able to do that without any trouble. DO NOT ANGER US.

Maybe it was one of those Mjolnir bottles.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcC16ce46As

superelliptic

dubscottie wrote: »

I don't know why cyclists can never understand this.. (probably to busy smelling their own farts)

It is not a tax on motors.. It is a tax for using the ROAD!

I have 2 motorbikes. One is a bike I use on the road, one is a motocross bike for off-road use.

I have only to pay tax on the road bike.. Why? Because it goes ON THE ROAD! (see the clue in the name?)

I park my car up for 6 months. Do I pay tax on it? No. Because it is OFF THE ROAD!

Farmer Wellies Mcphee has a quad bike for running round his farm. Does he pay road tax on it? No. As it doesn't go near the road.

If it was a motor tax then everything with a motor, from a petrol strimmer to a 150 tonne dump truck in a quarry would have to pay it as they have "smog producing, filthy motors".

And don't say that you already pay road tax on your car blah blah. That is for that vehicle only.

And how much money is Dublin City Council wasting on putting up the little traffic lights under the main ones at major junctions?

They have little red, yellow and green lights in the shape of a cycle, but still the majority of cyclists still ignore them?

Dont think you're right there..

Subtle difference but- Its a tax for maintenance of the road.

The roads themselves are for everyone to use.

Source: http://www.gov.ie/services/renew-motor-tax-online/

3rd line 1st paragraph:

"The revenue from this tax is used to maintain and upgrade the road network in Ireland. "

Your description of motor tax describes it like its a kind of entry fee you have to pay before you get to use the road, its not; the money just goes towards road maintenance and upgrades. Since motorised traffic is heavier and causes the most erosion of the road, it makes sense that that kind of traffic be made pay for its own infrastructure. Bicycles are going to do no damage to tarmac at all but its infrastructure pays for itself in other ways like helping maintain a healthier population thus reducing GP and hospital expenses, and helps to promote tourism, etc.

desertcircus

If a cyclist managed to throw a bidon through the tempered glass rear windscreen of a modern car while moving and staying upright, he's Clark Kent.

Actually, no, scratch that. We're all able to do that without any trouble. DO NOT ANGER US.

henryporter

Jawgap wrote: »

There's this new material called plastic - it's soft and it's squishy and it's what the water bottles (bidons) are made of.

Unless the suggestion now is, that said cyclist just happened to have a glass bottle with him which he fired through the rear (back) window of a 5 series......:pac:

Wait a minute - you're not suggesting that this story may be made up? :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Caliden wrote: »

There's this new material called glass, it's revolutionary and it's going to change the world.

There's this new material called plastic - it's soft and it's squishy and it's what the water bottles (bidons) are made of.

Unless the suggestion now is, that said cyclist just happened to have a glass bottle with him which he fired through the rear (back) window of a 5 series......:pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

That glass has to be ordered in from BMW, very pricey to get fixed.