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

Jawgap

missierex wrote: »

A bus cannot help being 'in the way', a cyclist can choose to cycle single file in order to (a) minimise disruption to other road users, and (b) help make the roads a little bit safer.

The roads are shared by all users, car drivers, truck drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. It is everyone's responsibility to be as careful as they can be, and to abide by the rules of the road. I was attempting to explain that I personally feel all road users should act responsibly and safely.

As I said, I was very clumsy in my argument as I don't respond to posts much on boards, and I apologise if what I said was unclear.

for somebody who maybe doesn't cycle........you're pretty good at back-pedaling

BTW - I'm slow on the bike so I can't choose to cycle in single file when I'm being overtaken.......

Tenzor07

missierex wrote: »

A bus cannot help being 'in the way', a cyclist can choose to cycle single file in order to (a) minimise disruption to other road users, and (b) help make the roads a little bit safer.

Yeap, cycle in the ditch/gutter, much safer! :rolleyes:

desertcircus

missierex wrote: »

A bus cannot help being 'in the way', a cyclist can choose to cycle single file in order to (a) minimise disruption to other road users, and (b) help make the roads a little bit safer.

The roads are shared by all users, car drivers, truck drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. It is everyone's responsibility to be as careful as they can be, and to abide by the rules of the road. I was attempting to explain that I personally feel all road users should act responsibly and safely.

As I said, I was very clumsy in my argument as I don't respond to posts much on boards, and I apologise if what I said was unclear.

Cycling single file doesn't make the roads safer, though: the whole reason so many cyclists go two abreast is to discourage people from overtaking dangerously.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Forcing pedestrians to get out of your way on a pedestrianized street/bridge is "acting the c**t." So is forcing pedestrians to yield on a green man.

Both are - in my experience as a daily pedestrian - almost exclusively, indeed exclusively in the former case - done by cyclists. The same people who moan that motorists aren't regulated enough and act like a Islamic fundamentalist seeing a picture of Mohammed when someone says ROAD TAX.

I'm not saying motorists don't do c***-ish things too - they do - some speed through residential areas and some may do the 'amber gamble' with traffic lights. But again speaking as a daily pedestrian, motorists treat me and my rights with much, much, much more respect than cyclists do.

sure the road fatality statistics would bear that out then.

Actually they do not - but not as you are arguing. There has been a large scale push to enforce speed limits in the last year or so - all of it on grade separated dual carriageways. Where there have never been more than a handful of accidents, all of them minor, fender-benders and the like.

You think that's appropriate, then I think it's also appropriate to get serious about RLJing, footpath riding c**ts on bikes.

missierex

CramCycle wrote: »

It never annoys me, getting stuck behind buses probably adds an extra 33% onto my commute time every morning. It is what it is, no reason to be angry with the driver. I just leave earlier as its a reasonable expectation that there could be a vehicle on the road slower than me.

A bus cannot help being 'in the way', a cyclist can choose to cycle single file in order to (a) minimise disruption to other road users, and (b) help make the roads a little bit safer.

The roads are shared by all users, car drivers, truck drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. It is everyone's responsibility to be as careful as they can be, and to abide by the rules of the road. I was attempting to explain that I personally feel all road users should act responsibly and safely.

As I said, I was very clumsy in my argument as I don't respond to posts much on boards, and I apologise if what I said was unclear.

desertcircus

missierex wrote: »

Please take the time to read my previous post.

I read that post, and while it was less confrontational in tone, there was nothing in it that contradicted the original post I quoted. Do you think a driver should drive slowly enough to be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear, or do you think it's silly to expect drivers to limit their speeds on winding roads?

magicbastarder

as mentioned previously, even if cyclists are cycling three abreast, within a lane, it does *not* affect your ability to overtake, as they are all within the lane.

unless you are on a single track road, of course.

Tenzor07

missierex wrote: »

I am simply pointing out that I find it frustrating to be stuck behind a group of cyclists taking up half the road.

Yet if it was a Gang of Hells Angels out for a club spin on there Harley's that frustration would turn into one of acceptance of the delay I'd say! :rolleyes:

TonyStark

missierex wrote: »

I acknowledge the above, I was perhaps a little clumsy in my argument.

I am simply pointing out that I find it frustrating to be stuck behind a group of cyclists taking up half the road.

Just wait til its clear and use the other half of the road to overtake them safely. :-)

CramCycle

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Would her bike not do damage if it ploughed into someone?

Ploughed, with two kids on board? and going at a speed her other child could keep up with her?

missierex wrote: »

So every driver should drive like a snail to avoid arrogant cyclists who are breaking the law?

How about to avoid a tractor, a stalled car, another RTA that is blocking the road, generally to be safe an considerate of others.

missierex wrote: »

I acknowledge the above, I was perhaps a little clumsy in my argument. I would like to add that I am in fact a very safe driver (despite what you may think), I have never hit anything or anyone, or almost hit anything or anyone, I most definitely intend to keep it that way

Several people in my local used to drink and drive 20 years ago, not causing an accident does not make your driving safe, it just means you were lucky, nothing else.

I am simply pointing out that I find it frustrating to be stuck behind a group of cyclists taking up half the road.

It never annoys me, getting stuck behind buses probably adds an extra 33% onto my commute time every morning. It is what it is, no reason to be angry with the driver. I just leave earlier as its a reasonable expectation that there could be a vehicle on the road slower than me.

magicbastarder

missierex wrote: »

I acknowledge the above, I was perhaps a little clumsy in my argument.

you were quite clear and repeated yourself several times.

i do know of someone (a friend of my uncle) who died about ten or fifteen years ago who hit the back of slow moving farm machinery on a bend. as i mentioned, this is not just about avoiding cyclists.

RebelButtMunch

SeanW wrote: »

I pay tax on my road usage as a motorist. Cyclists to do not for their bikes. "Road tax" is fine, an accurate description of the tax, even if it is only applied to motorists.

Yeah a road tax. Pedestrians should pay 2c to cross the road.

missierex

desertcircus wrote: »

Wait, you seriously think it's a crazy idea for drivers to be expected to drive with a basic regard for safety? What if there's a traffic jam around the corner, or a breakdown, or a child who's run onto the road, or a person on horseback, or...literally anything? You never travel so fast that you can't stop in the space ahead you can see to be clear. Are some people so reckless and sociopathic that they genuinely think that's an unfair imposition?

Please take the time to read my previous post.

desertcircus

missierex wrote: »

So you expect all drivers to drive at 20/30mph on any road with a slight bend? Come on, get real.

Wait, you seriously think it's a crazy idea for drivers to be expected to drive with a basic regard for safety? What if there's a traffic jam around the corner, or a breakdown, or a child who's run onto the road, or a person on horseback, or...literally anything? You never travel so fast that you can't stop in the space ahead you can see to be clear. Are some people so reckless and sociopathic that they genuinely think that's an unfair imposition?

missierex

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Even if groups of cyclists never cycled three abreast, you shouldn't be taking bends at such a speed that you won't be able to stop if you encounter something unexpected on the road. That could be a child who's run out, a broken down vehicle, animals, whatever...

I acknowledge the above, I was perhaps a little clumsy in my argument. I would like to add that I am in fact a very safe driver (despite what you may think), I have never hit anything or anyone, or almost hit anything or anyone, I most definitely intend to keep it that way

I am simply pointing out that I find it frustrating to be stuck behind a group of cyclists taking up half the road.

Chips Lovell

missierex wrote: »

So every driver should drive like a snail to avoid arrogant cyclists who are breaking the law?

Yes, a driver should be prepared to stop at all times, and be aware of potential hidden dangers, but that does not mean that cyclists can do what they like.

Even if groups of cyclists never cycled three abreast, you shouldn't be taking bends at such a speed that you won't be able to stop if you encounter something unexpected on the road. That could be a child who's run out, a broken down vehicle, animals, whatever...

Knasher

missierex wrote: »

So you expect all drivers to drive at 20/30mph on any road with a slight bend? Come on, get real.

The rules of the road require you to be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

...As an aside, what will drivers do if they bring in the proposed 'left on red' for cyclists........there'll be blood vessels burstin' all over the place:)

Wasn't the talk of American-style left-on-red from Leo The Rad-Cap back in February for all traffic?

magicbastarder

missierex wrote: »

So every driver should drive like a snail to avoid arrogant cyclists who are breaking the law?

speaking with my motorist's hat on, i do not drive around bends faster than is safe just for fear of hitting cyclists. it's the fear of hitting larger, heavier things than cyclists which slows me down.

this is not an issue limited to the context of cyclists. it's absolute basic road sense.

Jawgap

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I suppose this is as close as we will get to an answer to my question with respect to breaking red lights

Not really - I think I've been consistent on this point......

Red lights mean stop.

.....the government should bring in the promised Regs that have been languishing in the DoT for the last year or more that would allow Guards to give out FCNs to these petty offenders......

......until then the Guards could use their existing powers to stop and summons them.

As for the practicalities - well if they have to seize bikes, so be it - it will be a valuable lesson.

As an aside, what will drivers do if they bring in the proposed 'left on red' for cyclists........there'll be blood vessels burstin' all over the place:)

07Lapierre

missierex wrote: »

So every driver should drive like a snail slow down to avoid arrogant cyclists Human beings who are breaking the law?

Yes, absolutely!...nobody wants another human beings death on their conscience, even if they are arrogant. (being arrogant isn't illegal unfortunately)

TonyStark

missierex wrote: »

Yes, a driver should be prepared to stop at all times, and be aware of potential hidden dangers, but that does not mean that cyclists can do what they like.

Agreed.

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

...So if I don't look - have I committed an offence?

In my car you have. "Right! Outta the car, drop and gimme 20!!" :pac:

Jawgap wrote: »

I suppose this is the closest we'll get to an admission that a lot of drivers don't know that the RotR are not the same as Road Traffic Legislation.

Repeating the driving test every few years might, indeed, help correct such knowledge deficits.......

Hardly. There's no such question in the Theory Tests or in the "oral" section of the practical. It doesn't do any harm to assume that the RotR are "gospel" in any event.

missierex wrote: »

That is a given, but it still doesn't address my original issue that cyclists should not be cycling three abreast on a narrow, twisty road.

I wasn't attempting to address that. That's a separate problem.

missierex

magicbastarder wrote: »

you do realise that you've destroyed any credibility you may have had?

So every driver should drive like a snail to avoid arrogant cyclists who are breaking the law?

Yes, a driver should be prepared to stop at all times, and be aware of potential hidden dangers, but that does not mean that cyclists can do what they like.

07Lapierre

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I suppose this is as close as we will get to an answer to my question with respect to breaking red lights

Breaking red lights is Illegal! We can't get any clearer than that.

TonyStark

missierex wrote: »

That is a given, but it still doesn't address my original issue that cyclists should not be cycling three abreast on a narrow, twisty road.

Why not report them to the Gardaí? It wouldn't be too hard to track down the offenders especially if they were with a club.

OldNotWIse

Jawgap wrote: »

I suppose this is the closest we'll get to an admission that a lot of drivers don't know that the RotR are not the same as Road Traffic Legislation.

Repeating the driving test every few years might, indeed, help correct such knowledge deficits.......

I suppose this is as close as we will get to an answer to my question with respect to breaking red lights

Chips Lovell

They shouldn't be cycling three abreast on any kind of road, not just narrow twisty roads.

missierex

jimgoose wrote: »

I expect all drivers to drive at speed that enables them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. That's in the RotR as well.

That is a given, but it still doesn't address my original issue that cyclists should not be cycling three abreast on a narrow, twisty road.

magicbastarder

missierex wrote: »

So you expect all drivers to drive at 20/30mph on any road with a slight bend? Come on, get real.

you do realise that you've destroyed any credibility you may have had?