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

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.......

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

Don't be silly, if they are breaking the law, it gives me carte blanche to break the law, perfectly legal. Guy in front of me too busy texting so I missed the green light, no problem, because he broke the law, I have carte blanche, its in the RTA 1963, section III, paragraph 2, line 4, "every Irish road user has the right to act the maggot if another road user has already set a sufficient example within the last minute or within 25 feet of their vehicle".*

*because someone will look it up, I am being sarcastic

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

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.

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.

I think the stats will show that speeding is a factor in more deaths in one year than RLJing, cycling on the pavement etc have caused in 20......

.....but yes, lets start getting serious on the RLJing etc - what do you propose? Redploying Guards from their speed detection duties to observing some of the busier junctions.......

CramCycle

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.

A cyclists single file, does not take up half the space of two cyclists, cycling abreast, they should stay out from the edge for safety, and you should give them safe passing distance, preferably by using an overtaking lane or by moving to the opposing lane when there is no other traffic approaching to complete the maneuver. If you cannot overtake two cyclists cycling abreast safely, then you cannot overtake a cyclist cycling single file safely. I realise it can be counter intuitive but it is true.

blackwhite

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the stats will show that speeding is a factor in more deaths in one year than RLJing, cycling on the pavement etc have caused in 20......

.....but yes, lets start getting serious on the RLJing etc - what do you propose? Redploying Guards from their speed detection duties to observing some of the busier junctions.......

Selective quoting to try and make it look like someone posted something that they clearly didn't say is pretty sh*tty behaviour TBH.

missierex

CramCycle wrote: »

A cyclists single file, does not take up half the space of two cyclists, cycling abreast, they should stay out from the edge for safety, and you should give them safe passing distance, preferably by using an overtaking lane or by moving to the opposing lane when there is no other traffic approaching to complete the maneuver. If you cannot overtake two cyclists cycling abreast safely, then you cannot overtake a cyclist cycling single file safely. I realise it can be counter intuitive but it is true.

That is fair enough, two abreast should be fine in theory, but I'm referring to times when there are two/three abreast, with maybe 5 or 6 rows of other cyclists behind them in the same formation.

CramCycle

missierex wrote: »

That is fair enough, two abreast should be fine in theory, but I'm referring to times when there are two/three abreast, with maybe 5 or 6 rows of other cyclists behind them in the same formation.

If they were single file they would be twice as long to overtake, how do you overtake a tractor/trailer (around the same speed as many cyclists, newer ones are faster though) or an arctic (far slower than a car, faster than a cyclist though, for safety and maneuverability) on country roads.

desertcircus

missierex wrote: »

That is fair enough, two abreast should be fine in theory, but I'm referring to times when there are two/three abreast, with maybe 5 or 6 rows of other cyclists behind them in the same formation.

But if you're overtaking safely and crossing into a separate lane as you should, then the two-abreast formation makes the overtake far easier. You're dealing with six bike lengths instead of twelve.

Tenzor07

missierex wrote: »

That is fair enough, two abreast should be fine in theory, but I'm referring to times when there are two/three abreast, with maybe 5 or 6 rows of other cyclists behind them in the same formation.

Ahh I see where your getting this from... you do know this was a fully permitted international sporting event?

the-giro-d-italia-in-ireland

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

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.

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.

Taken from JawGaps post

Originally Posted by SeanW
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.

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.

blackwhite wrote: »

Selective quoting to try and make it look like someone posted something that they clearly didn't say is pretty sh*tty behaviour TBH.

Really, what are the main differences? Top is the original, bottom is the quoted version

Jawgap

blackwhite wrote: »

Selective quoting to try and make it look like someone posted something that they clearly didn't say is pretty sh*tty behaviour TBH.

Well thanks for the input.....

....but the poster in question said "I think it's also appropriate to get serious about RLJing, footpath riding c**ts on bikes" - I was merely questioning what he meant by getting serious?

If it means more enforcement - then where will the Garda time to do this enforcement come from? the post seemed to conflate speed enforcement and illegal cycling behaviour.

There also seemed to be a suggestion that current speed enforcement was poorly focused - therefore would the resources that are being used on that be better focused on RLJing etc or some other aspect of road safety......

......and it's still a case that vehicular speed is a far, far greater contributor factor in fatal and serious road collisions, leading to death and serious injury than any cyclist behaviour will ever be.

I'm all for more enforcement in relation to poor cyclist behaviour, but not at the expense of speed enforcement.

No Pants

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?

Why stop there? If we ever get around to sticking registration plates and compulsory insurance on murderers, we'll cut that particular crime right down.

blackwhite

CramCycle wrote: »

Taken from JawGaps post

Really, what are the main differences? Top is the original, bottom is the quoted version

SeanW made a point about the Gardai focusing resources onto speed detection on roads where speed-related fatalities and serious accidents are extremely rare.

JawGaps post

I think the stats will show that speeding is a factor in more deaths in one year than RLJing, cycling on the pavement etc have caused in 20......

.....but yes, lets start getting serious on the RLJing etc - what do you propose? Redploying Guards from their speed detection duties to observing some of the busier junctions.......

is clearly trying to imply that SeanW doesn't think speeding regulation should occur at all.

Selective quoting might have been a bad way to desribe it, but the intent is clearly the same - whatever you want to call it.

I made a point earlier about entrenched "us and them" attitudes leading to a sh*ttier travelling experience for all on our roads - congratulations on proving the point.
Getting into pedantics because someone makes a criticism of someone on "your side" serves no purpose, other than to increase conflict.

Pinch Flat

Just joined the thread after 40 pages. Anything ground breaking or do I have to read through it all from the start?

HurtLocker

Cant we all get along. Our real enemy is taxi drivers

Ive only been driving for 2 years and of all the people on the road that portray the "I own the road" attitude that motorist says the cyclist has and the cyclist says the motorist is the taxi driver. Undertaking in excess of speed limits in bus lanes. Parking where ever they feel like with hazards. Slowing to a crawl to try and get a fair, cutting off others and tailgating when they are empty.

Really cyclists..... a great bunch of lads.......... except the wobblers. Overtaking these guys is tricky.

TonyStark

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Just joined the thread after 40 pages. Anything ground breaking or do I have to read through it all from the start?

Welcome....! :-)

dited

blackwhite wrote: »

Getting into pedantics because someone makes a criticism of someone on "your side" serves no purpose, other than to increase conflict.

:pac:

Jawgap

blackwhite wrote: »

SeanW made a point about the Gardai focusing resources onto speed detection on roads where speed-related fatalities and serious accidents are extremely rare.

JawGaps post

is clearly trying to imply that SeanW doesn't think speeding regulation should occur at all.

Selective quoting might have been a bad way to desribe it, but the intent is clearly the same - whatever you want to call it.

I made a point earlier about entrenched "us and them" attitudes leading to a sh*ttier travelling experience for all on our roads - congratulations on proving the point.
Getting into pedantics because someone makes a criticism of someone on "your side" serves no purpose, other than to increase conflict.

Thank you for telling me what I'm thinking - but it seemed to me the implication was that some resources deployed in respect of speed enforcement were not being efficiently targeted.

It seems to me that the appropriateness of the deployment is questioned, then followed up with a clarion call to get serious on illegal cyclist behaviour......

What is being suggested here? Is it that resources currently deployed on certain speed enforcement programmes could be better utilised to target non-compliant cyclists?

If that's the case then it's a bad idea - we could do with both more and better focused speed enforcement - not less, and certainly whatever enforcement is carried out in respect of cycling should not be at the expense of speeding.

I'm not sure how you get to an 'us & them' conclusion - as most cyclists posting on this thread are also drivers......

CramCycle

blackwhite wrote: »

is clearly trying to imply that SeanW doesn't think speeding regulation should occur at all.

He implies it is a waste of time, what he may not realise is that there are several safety considerations to be taken into account when making a checkpoint or setting up a speed detection point, alot of roads unfortunately do not allow Gardai to do those things as to do so is considered unsafe.

I made a point earlier about entrenched "us and them" attitudes leading to a sh*ttier travelling experience for all on our roads - congratulations on proving the point.

It's not us vs them, having travelled alot, driving in Ireland is more akin to me vs everyone else, there is no us, there is just me, which unfortunately does not work well when it comes to obeying the law for many road users.

Getting into pedantics because someone makes a criticism of someone on "your side" serves no purpose, other than to increase conflict.

What is "my side"? Obeying the law? not wasting admin and garda time with stupid, costly and generally unenforceable ideas? not being blind to the fact that in every class of road user there are law breakers and none of them are superior to the other in this regard, they are all d*cks.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Just joined the thread after 40 pages. Anything ground breaking or do I have to read through it all from the start?

Tons, it is a completely novel thread about cyclists and traffic management that has brought up some incredibly thought provoking ideas that have never been brought to my attention before :pac:

missierex

I just used the ol' google machine to see what the specific rules of the road were for cyclists.

It confirms that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to travel two abreast (which being honest, I didn't know), but that they should cycle single-file on 'narrow, or busy roads and when riding round bends' (Rules for Cyclists-UK), and if there is a risk that they “endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians” – in which case bikes must ride in single file. Bikes can be temporarily two/three abreast when the outside cyclist is in the process of overtaking (Dublinbikeblog).

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

http://dublinbikeblog.com/understanding/cycling-and-the-law-in-ireland/

I should add that it also confirms that a cyclist should keep to the left as much as possible, but only when it is safe to do so. Fair enough.

magicbastarder

those UK rules seem confused as to whether they're rules or guidelines.
saying you should cycle single file on busy roads is *not* the law - you will note that it says cyclists *should* wear helmets; there is no mandatory helmet law in the UK.

it's only when they use the word 'must' - and it's in bold uppercase - where it seems they're actually specifying what the law says.

bodice ripper

Annoying cyclists? Don't talk to me about annoying cyclists...

cython

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

Glad you highlighted that second section (which I have bolded), as the road traffic law received updates specifically relevant to this discussion in the second half of 2012, meaning that obviously sections of that document may not in fact apply to all any road users any more (and since the RoTR is not a legal statute its own assertion of the rules application has no bearing on matters). That document is at best 5 and at worst 7 years out of date, depending on your perspective, so please don't rely on it too much. The legislation, however, is always up to date once it becomes law.