Those damn cyclists again!

magicbastarder · 17-07-2014 11:18AM

in terms of overtaking, even if the cyclists are cycling three abreast (only allowed if the outer one is performing an overtaking manouevre); as long as they are all in the one lane, it does not affect your ability to safely overtake, as compared to there being two cyclists side by sde.

SeanW · 17-07-2014 11:18AM

cournioni wrote: »

Driving on my way home last night at traffic lights at a T-Junction on a one way two laned street (one going left, one right onto a two way street). I waited as usual at the lights, turning right onto the two way street. Light turns green and two cyclists (both without helmets) went straight through their red light and into my path. I lay into the horn, one of the cyclists looked visibly shook and the other laughed while both of then cycled across two lanes of traffic who obviously had the right of way.

Infuriating.

This is why cyclists should be regulated. I encounter this sort of thing on a routine basis as a pedestrian as well.

Jawgap · 17-07-2014 11:19AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And must they also follow the rules of the road the same as drivers?
Seems that everybody knows their rights but not their responsibilities!

.......and as usual drivers / road users seem not to know that the RotR are not the law of the land, but you knew that anyway - sure haven't you read them,

Your obligation (including as a cyclist) is to follow Road Traffic Legislation

magicbastarder · 17-07-2014 11:22AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Other than volume in Dublin

from a statistic i heard about ten years ago relating to rush hour traffic in dublin, for every 100 cars on the road, there were 118 occupants.
that's enough traffic to take up over a third of a mile of road, for an occupancy less than two buses.

Jawgap · 17-07-2014 11:22AM

SeanW wrote: »

This is why cyclists should be regulated. I encounter this sort of thing on a routine basis as a pedestrian as well.

Seriously....? Again.....?

Drivers & vehicles are regulated and it doesn't stop the muppetry..........but if the regulation is extended to cycling it will?

Tony EH · 17-07-2014 11:22AM

jimgoose wrote: »

Are you speaking to me? I'm not quite sure what it is, and I don't use them. It seems to be to be largely a C-programming declaration-follows-use sort of setup. But regardless, it doesn't matter what I think, the EU has seen fit to confer the "legal status of vehicles" upon them, whatever that means, so there you are. :cool:

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying say.

But, if you're not sure what a bicycle is, then you probably shouldn't be allowed on the road.

CramCycle · 17-07-2014 11:22AM

cournioni wrote: »

Motor drivers can be arseholes too I agree, but I have never seen any motorist force two lanes of traffic to break while on a green like these cyclists did. Astonishing.

I do, but I suppose that the issue with anecdoetal stories, just because I see it regularly, does not make it a statistically regular event, as with your story.

I suppose the only way to do it would be to look at the stats (which are probably not much better as everyone agrees enforcement is horrific in regards road traffic law in Ireland), what are the volume of serious RTAs caused by the different groups, what are the costs involved, what are the number of deaths, who was designated to be at fault by investigators.

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:23AM

Tony EH wrote: »

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying say.

But, if you're not sure what a bicycle is, then you probably shouldn't be allowed on the road.

'Tis true, biy - the Lord help me, I'm just not that bright! :pac::pac::pac:

SeanW · 17-07-2014 11:24AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, you postulated one (of several) rather ridiculous idea that access to the road should be based on payment of what you described as 'road tax' - and the non-payment of said 'road tax' should exclude cyclists - in the spirit of 'exaggeration for illustration' it was pointed out to you that more than just cyclists use the roads that are paid for from the public purse.......however, you seem to have no truck with those users being excluded on the basis of non-payment, perhaps because they are not cyclists?

Quote where I said that ... hint:

I did not.

I merely said the ROAD TAX was a truthful term for the tax that must be paid by motorists to use the roads, as opposed to the technical term Motor Tax which is not actually a tax on motor ownership but use of same on the road. I never called for the exclusion of anyone.

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:25AM

SeanW wrote: »

...I merely said the ROAD TAX was a truthful term for the tax that must be paid by motorists to use the roads, as opposed to the technical term Motor Tax which is not actually a tax on motor ownership but use of same on the road. I never called for the exclusion of anyone.

Oh it's a tax on motor vehicle ownership alright. If it was an actual "Road" tax, the current ridiculous nonsense would be done away with and replaced with an extra tax on fuel. True pay-as-you-use. :cool:

07Lapierre · 17-07-2014 11:25AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously....? Again.....?

Drivers & vehicles are regulated and it doesn't stop the muppetry..........but if the regulation is extended to cycling it will?

Enforcement of ALL road traffic laws would sort out a lot of problems for ALL road users.

run_Forrest_run · 17-07-2014 11:28AM

at least the cyclists are on the roads, it boils my blood to see fully grown men & women cycling on footpaths..IT'S ILLEGAL.

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:28AM

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and as usual drivers / road users seem not to know that the RotR are not the law of the land, but you knew that anyway - sure haven't you read them,

Your obligation (including as a cyclist) is to follow Road Traffic Legislation

From http://www.rsa.ie/rsa/learner-drivers/your-learner-permit/rules-of-the-road/:

The purpose of the Rules of the Road is to save lives and prevent injury on our roads. The rules apply to all road users:
...
The current Rules of the Road comply with and reflect the road traffic law as at 1st March 2007

magicbastarder · 17-07-2014 11:28AM

if motorists want cyclists regulated, taxed and monitored, surely they'd be happy with a GPS device fitted to each car, to allow automatic fines for breaching speed limits, red light jumping, etc.?

cournioni · 17-07-2014 11:32AM

SeanW wrote: »

This is why cyclists should be regulated. I encounter this sort of thing on a routine basis as a pedestrian as well.

My girlfriend used to work in the IFSC and on her walk to the bus on Parnell Street in her four years working there, she has been hit by two cyclists. One on a footpath and the other as she was at a pedestrian crossing giving the green light for pedestrians to cross. She has seen several other incidents where they have broken reds with pedestrians have had the green light, as have I.

My grandmother about ten years ago was knocked down by a cyclist on a footpath and had to have a hip replacement as a result of her injuries.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that cyclists should be treated in all ways the same as a motorist/motorcyclist.

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:33AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if motorists want cyclists regulated, taxed and monitored, surely they'd be happy with a GPS device fitted to each car, to allow automatic fines for breaching speed limits, red light jumping, etc.?

This particular motorist wants cyclists regulated and licensed. A good start would be compulsory bells, fitment and use, as opposed to this "Sorry! Gangway, sorry!!" a split-second before almost hitting pedestrians. I do not believe they should be taxed or "monitored", whatever that means. And such a GPS device will enter my vehicle some time after I am in the cold, cold ground. And then only when my widow runs out of ammunition. :cool:

SeanW · 17-07-2014 11:34AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if motorists want cyclists regulated, taxed and monitored, surely they'd be happy with a GPS device fitted to each car, to allow automatic fines for breaching speed limits, red light jumping, etc.?

Plenty of cyclists demand just that - while they're free to ride on footpaths, jump red lights and generally act the c**t.

Funny thing is, I don't remember the last time I had to jump out of the way of a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge ... When motorists break laws, it is normally something like breaking a 30 or 50kph speed limit on a grade separated or high quality dual carriageway. You know, the really horrible evil stuff that motorists should hang their head in shame for.

cournioni · 17-07-2014 11:34AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if motorists want cyclists regulated, taxed and monitored, surely they'd be happy with a GPS device fitted to each car, to allow automatic fines for breaching speed limits, red light jumping, etc.?

Sure, all things equal.

07Lapierre · 17-07-2014 11:36AM

jimgoose wrote: »

This particular motorist wants cyclists regulated and licensed. A good start would be compulsory bells, fitment and use, as opposed to this "Sorry! Gangway, sorry!!" a split-second before almost hitting pedestrians. I do not believe they should be taxed or "monitored", whatever that means. And such a GPS device will enter my vehicle some time after I am in the cold, cold ground. And then only when my widow runs out of ammunition. :cool:

Its already in your car..its called a Moble phone.

missierex · 17-07-2014 11:39AM

Thargor wrote: »

What is the problem with lycra? If you'd ever put 5 minutes of effort on a bike you'd see why other materials arent up to the job, heat and moisture removal being the main factors along with friction/chafing. What possible problem could you have with what another person chooses to wear anyway?

Its already been explained about 5 times in this thread that the hard shoulders (and most of the cycle lanes) are unusable, they're full of years worth of debris and drains etc.

In some cases yes. I agree hard shoulders and cycle lanes can be below standard, but, where I've witnessed cyclists doing the above, it is on the main Castlebar to Dublin road (N5), with a very high standard of hard shoulder. I've often cycled on them myself without any issue.

As for the Lycra, I was attempting to 'set the scene'. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to get so touchy about it!

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:40AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Its already in your car..its called a Moble phone.

Never thought the old 6310i had it in it. :pac:

07Lapierre · 17-07-2014 11:43AM

jimgoose wrote: »

Never thought the old 6310i had it in it. :pac:

What Make/model car do you drive? The latest BMW's transmit engine data back to BMW via the in-car Sat-Nav.

jimgoose · 17-07-2014 11:44AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

What Make/model car do you drive? The latest BMW's transmit engine data back to BMW via the in-car Sat-Nav.

1999 Jaguar S-Type. It does what I tell it, speaks only when spoken to, and does not accept candy from strangers. :pac:

Chips Lovell · 17-07-2014 11:45AM

While cycling three abreast is definitely illegal (except when overtaking), there's some debate on whether you're allowed cycle in the hard shoulder. The law is kind of unclear about that it.

missierex · 17-07-2014 11:46AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agree, This is illegal and very annoying, BUT if its not safe to overtake, don't do it. you'll only endanger yourself, the cyclists and any oncoming traffic.

I don't unless it is 100% safe to do. It still is annoying though. I also don't understand why they still cycle three abreast on country roads. Coming around a bend in a car and having flocks of cyclists in front of you is very dangerous. It's an accident waiting to happen.

magicbastarder · 17-07-2014 11:48AM

SeanW wrote: »

Plenty of cyclists demand just that - while they're free to ride on footpaths, jump red lights and generally act the c**t.

Funny thing is, I don't remember the last time I had to jump out of the way of a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge ... When motorists break laws, it is normally something like breaking a 30 or 50kph speed limit on a grade separated or high quality dual carriageway. You know, the really horrible evil stuff that motorists should hang their head in shame for.

so when cyclists break laws, they're acting the c**t, but when motorists break laws, it's generally 'allowable' stuff.

sure the road fatality statistics would bear that out then.

magicbastarder · 17-07-2014 11:50AM

missierex wrote: »

Coming around a bend in a car and having flocks of cyclists in front of you is very dangerous. It's an accident waiting to happen.

yes, it is - but you're the danger. if you're driving around a blind bend, you don't drive so fast that you cannot stop in time for a stationary obstacle.

you're revealing more about your driving habits than those you're giving out about

TonyStark · 17-07-2014 11:50AM

missierex wrote: »

In some cases yes. I agree hard shoulders and cycle lanes can be below standard, but, where I've witnessed cyclists doing the above, it is on the main Castlebar to Dublin road (N5), with a very high standard of hard shoulder. I've often cycled on them myself without any issue.

I use this road quite a bit to get home from time to time. The main problem on this road is not cyclists causing delays but cars running stop signs and taking this as a cue to merge with traffic. I guess the main motivating factor is having to wait for the road to become clear. I've lost count of the number of vehicles I've seen running stop signs on this road and using the hard shoulder as a type of merging lane, which it is not.

07Lapierre · 17-07-2014 11:50AM

missierex wrote: »

I don't unless it is 100% safe to do. It still is annoying though. I also don't understand why they still cycle three abreast on country roads. Coming around a bend in a car and having flocks of cyclists in front of you is very dangerous. It's an accident waiting to happen.

I don't understand why some people press the brake every time they see a car coming towards them on the road? Some people are just nutters!

Again, better enforcement of the existing laws for all is better then introducing yet more laws which the Gardai are unable to enforce.

Jawgap · 17-07-2014 11:52AM

SeanW wrote: »

Quote where I said that ... hint:
I did not.

I merely said the ROAD TAX was a truthful term for the tax that must be paid by motorists to use the roads, as opposed to the technical term Motor Tax which is not actually a tax on motor ownership but use of same on the road. I never called for the exclusion of anyone.

So it's ok for people, including cyclists to use the road then without paying this unicorn-like 'Road Tax'?

Something of reversal of your earlier position....

jimgoose wrote: »

From http://www.rsa.ie/rsa/learner-drivers/your-learner-permit/rules-of-the-road/:

The purpose of the Rules of the Road is to save lives and prevent injury on our roads. The rules apply to all road users:
...
The current Rules of the Road comply with and reflect the road traffic law as at 1st March 2007

Well done, now how about a link to someone who was prosecuted for not following the RotR - the RotR are applicable to all road users, but failing to comply with them?

Incidentally, is the bit on pg122 mandatory.....

Motorists should watch for cyclists emerging from the end of a cycle track and mopeds and motorcycles emerging from junctions who might be difficult to see because of their small size.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments