OldNotWIse wrote: » I must have missed the last chapter on pedantry :rolleyes: But...does that change the fact that they shouldn't be breaking red lights??
missierex wrote: » So you expect all drivers to drive at 20/30mph on any road with a slight bend? Come on, get real.
jimgoose wrote: » I hope so. I teach it, anyway. Also, I recommend a few lessons in a HGV for anyone who wants their eyes opened vis-a-vis observation. :cool:
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
Jawgap wrote: » ...Incidentally, is the bit on pg122 mandatory.....
CramCycle wrote: » ?
magicbastarder wrote: » 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jimgoose wrote: » Never thought the old 6310i had it in it. :pac:
07Lapierre wrote: » Its already in your car..its called a Moble phone.
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.
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:
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.?
SeanW wrote: » This is why cyclists should be regulated. I encounter this sort of thing on a routine basis as a pedestrian as well.
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?
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.
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?
