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

Chips Lovell

Five abreast? We have a new high score!

Surely we must have someone who wants to rant about people riding six abreast. Six? Anyone? Going once...

endacl

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Five abreast? We have a new high score!

Surely we must have someone who wants to rant about people riding six abreast. Six? Anyone? Going once...

I'm up for it! Where does the OP drive?

oak5548

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Five abreast? We have a new high score!

Surely we must have someone who wants to rant about people riding six abreast. Six? Anyone? Going once...

See this is the attitude I'm talking about.
It's not worth arguing with a blind fool.

Jawgap

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

I was once stopped by the Gardaí and they told me to cycle on the footpath. This was long before cycle lanes or any of that...

I fondly remember the Guard who directed me towards the motorway because the Old Airport Road was blocked by a fire.

I pointed out the obvious - that I was on a bike - and his attitude was "Sure you'll be grand - the traffic is all f$%ked up and is crawling along."

I had no hi-viz on, but I did have a couple of Exposure Lights (over 1,500 lumens between them) and he commented on my lack of hi-viz

- the same lights saw me stopped by a motorbike Guard because he thought they were too powerful!

Jawgap

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Five abreast? We have a new high score!

Surely we must have someone who wants to rant about people riding six abreast. Six? Anyone? Going once...

Yep - in Merrion Square recently I saw 6 abreast......and I've photo evidence to back it up.......

.......what do I win?

PrzemoF

I think that 5-6 abreast is really wrong!!! They should know how to form an echelon

jimgoose

PrzemoF wrote: »

I think that 5-6 abreast is really wrong!!! They should know how to form an echelon

With locked shields, like strange mechanical Hoplites. Now that'd be pretty cool!

Chips Lovell

oak5548 wrote: »

See this is the attitude I'm talking about.
It's not worth arguing with a blind fool.

The irony...

blackwhite

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

That's the point I tried to make, ad nauseum, earlier in the thread.

Yet, there's a serious attitude problem with most on here whereby anyone saying anything negative about any individual cyclist's behaviour is immediately attacked by people who position themselves on the "cyclists' side" of the debate. Same thing happens, albeit it seems to a lesser degree, in the reverse scenario also.

In regard to the speeding enforcement v RLJ enforcement argument:
I think someone doing 130kmph, or even 140kmph, on the M9 is less of a danger to others than a cyclist RLJing at a busy pedestrian crossing.

TBH, a garda sitting on his own in a marked car with a "hairdryer" is usually an extremely inefficient use of resources. Speed surveillance should be carried out by unmarked vans, and be primarily targeted at accident black spots and at areas of high volumes of traffic/cyclist/pedestrian interaction.

Guards in marked cars should only be involved in traffic matters for visible checkpoints where tax/insurance/NCT/tyres and lights should all be checked.
The majority of the traffic corps should be in unmarked cars or on motorbikes, and enforcement should be on all traffic offences, not just whatever the latest media campaign is about.

PrzemoF

jimgoose wrote: »

With locked shields, like strange mechanical Hoplites. Now that'd be pretty cool!

... and really useful against some light cars? :eek:
Or at least pedestrians

jimgoose

PrzemoF wrote: »

... and really useful against some light cars? :eek:
Or at least pedestrians

Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty... For tonight, we dine in hell!

Jawgap

endacl wrote: »

.....

Perhaps if boards had existed in the 19th century people would have been on it having good old irrational rantywhinges about highway tax v carriage tax, and pesky perambulators?

:pac:

"The window tax, Joe - it's disgraceful. some people are letting light in through doors and not paying."

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! I recall getting shouted at before from a passenger in a moving car... "..here who the F.. dya think you are... Stephen Roche!!?""

I've had the Lance Armstrong shout a few times, and once I was accused of being "Stephen Kelly" - that well known...........

eeeee

oak5548 wrote: »

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people. They outright refuse to use cycle lanes and come up with every excuse possible, the most common being they're full of glass and debris (they rarely are). Unfortunately they dont cater to the wannabe lance armstrongs who treat the road as their own personal exercise space.

Recently in the commuting and transport forum there was a massive thread on hi-viz jackets and nearly every cyclist commenting said hi-viz was stupid and pointless.

They're a gigantic pain in the arse to deal with tbh as a safe driver and casual cyclist myself.

Also I suppose the fact that we're using boards.ie doesnt help with the smart arse comments, inflated egos, and reverse psychology everyone seems to display.

Every single thread = disagree with the op because my opinion = correct.

A fine and reasoned attitude you are displaying there yourself. :rolleyes:
Have you ever cycled in a cycle lane? Have a go in one. There is a good 99% change there will be one or all of the following in it: glass, manholes, potholes, poles, wheel nuts, rubbish, or pedestrians. And that's before it spits you out into the path of left turning traffic. I also doesn't let you turn right off it, frequently being built up off the footpath.

Re the LA thing, I suppose it's not fair that motorways are limited up to 120kph. Is that to cater for all the Sebastian Vettles and Alonso's? What about those who just want to go at 60? How inconsiderate of the government to legislate for and build roads for that speed. It's just not fair :rolleyes:.

oak5548 wrote: »

Are you just part of the cyclist circle-jerk or are you going to tell me what part of the post was bullcrap?

I get the feeling most arrogant cyclists dont even have licenses. Every car driver knows that driving at slow speeds is dangerous and impedes every other road user.
Infact, you FAIL your driving test for being too slow.

So what gives cyclists the right to refuse to move 1 meter to the left, stop getting in peoples way, stop swerving erratically because they cant hold the handlebars steady, stop ignoring cycle lanes which were built costing millions, to stop cycling in packs of 5 abreast or more?

Yes the road has to be shared, but its a two way street. Truck drivers have to take up as much space as possible and manouver their truck in a way that often straddles 2 lanes and they have to assert themselves over other road users.

Cyclists dont seem to understand that either no do a lot of car drivers.

If you cycle in the gutter you get cars skimming, you, fact. they do not give you enough room. Also the amount of glass and crap in on the side of the road is mental, and I know you wouldn't drive your car into a pothole or over a definite puncture causing debris so why should cyclists? The cycle lanes were built with almost no consultation with actual cyclists, so they are badly designed and not fit for purpose. Blaming cyclists for decisions made and infrastructure built that had nothing to do with them makes no sense what so ever.

oak5548 wrote: »

See this is the attitude I'm talking about.
It's not worth arguing with a blind fool.

Yes, because your points are so thoughtfully made, considered, factually accurate an reasoned it's hard to elevate an opposing reasoning to such lofty levels of eloquence and cogent argument. :rolleyes: I mean "Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people". Wow. I bow to your superior insight and incisive logic. I can only hope to aspire to such glibly made and poorly thought out aspersions.

eeeee

Jawgap wrote: »

Yep - in Merrion Square recently I saw 6 abreast......and I've photo evidence to back it up.......

.......what do I win?

Jawgap that's only 4. Must try harder. Although extra points for them taking over both sides of the road.

Jawgap

gadetra wrote: »

Jawgap that's only 4. Must try harder. Although extra points for them taking over both sides of the road.

I was counting the two heads between the four

Pinch Flat

gadetra wrote: »

Jawgap that's only 4. Must try harder. Although extra points for them taking over both sides of the road.

At least they're wearing helmets. But no hi-vis..and they broke a red light at Westland Row

Jawgap

Pinch Flat wrote: »

At least they're wearing helmets. But no hi-vis..and they broke a red light at Westland Row

.....and cycled on the wrong side of the road

Look at this shower blocking traffic - surely they must see the driver flashing his lights

Pinch Flat

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and cycled on the wrong side of the road

Look at this shower blocking traffic - surely they must see the driver flashing his lights

Bloody Mamils. Who do they think they are.

Jawgap

Six across (at least) - city centre road - at least one not wearing a helmet ........and JACKPOT! They're on Dublin bikes.......

Fozzydog3

Far too many martyrs on this, I cycle a lot and the cycle lanes are grand (in Dublin). I can get from Malahide to Dun Laoghaire and about 95% of it is clearly marked and safe cycle lanes and for the other 5%? ......... I cycle on the left side of the road ::eek: !

[Deleted User]

Jawgap wrote: »

Six across (at least) - city centre road - at least one not wearing a helmet ........and JACKPOT! They're on Dublin bikes.......

And not a piece of hi-viz amongst them all, unless we include the illuminous runners on one of them. :mad:

Tony EH

Jawgap wrote: »

Six across (at least) - city centre road - at least one not wearing a helmet ........and JACKPOT! They're on Dublin bikes.......

...and just look at the arrogance all over their faces! Laughing as they hold up all of those completely law abiding motorists!

Cyclists are just an odd bunch of people.

(wait a sec...where have I heard that before?)

Jawgap

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

And not a piece of hi-viz amongst them all, unless we include the illuminous runners on one of them. :mad:

i was giving them the benefit of the doubt on the pink and classing it as hi-viz......

endacl

Jawgap wrote: »

Yep - in Merrion Square recently I saw 6 abreast......and I've photo evidence to back it up.......

.......what do I win?

Feckin' Stephen Kelly wannabes.

:mad:

TonyStark

Jawgap wrote: »

Six across (at least) - city centre road - at least one not wearing a helmet ........and JACKPOT! They're on Dublin bikes.......

A cunning plan to assassinate the Mayor it would seem.

eeeee

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and cycled on the wrong side of the road

Look at this shower blocking traffic - surely they must see the driver flashing his lights

Bastweards. Did ya not get their reg's?

I'd be straight onto the guards Joe :pac:

Jawgap wrote: »

I was counting the two heads between the four

Nope, the other 2 are behind. It's hard to look beyond Kittel's awesomeness though. His deadly pain face just draws you in.

eeeee

endacl wrote: »

Feckin' Stephen Kelly wannabes.

:mad:

Aww I really want to be Stephen Kelly. She was class. I shall only be responding to Stephen from this point on. :cool:

No Pants

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah jaybus

I'm guessing the following have been covered:
Red lights
Headphones
Hi-vis
Cycling 2 abreast
Having fun with each other / talking
Lycra
Mamils
Insurance / tax
Tolls for bikes
Bike registration
Nct for bikes
Buy a car / why can't you afford a car
Sweat / body odour
Arrogance

Am I close?

About 50%, but there's plenty of life in the thread yet.

I'm taken your input and added a couple of my own. I can't post the actual link image here, but in future I suggest that this gets pasted into this sort of thread early on and we can have some fun with it.

http://i58.tinypic.com/5krq0x.jpg

Ideally I'd like to have a fifth column (ooh err); can anyone suggest five more to add?

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Headphones
Tolls for bikes
Nct for bikes
Buy a car / why can't you afford a car
Arrogance

5 left

topper75 wrote: »

Is somebody posting in July 2014 writing about wannabe Lance Armstrongs?!

I have as many tour de france titles as he has, how many Audax events has he completed, that where the competition lies.

oak5548 wrote: »

Every car driver knows that driving at slow speeds is dangerous and impedes every other road user.

And everyone excepts that speed kills.

Infact, you FAIL your driving test for being too slow.

You fail for lack of progression, huge difference

So what gives cyclists the right to refuse to move 1 meter to the left,

Safety and the law.

stop getting in peoples way,

When cars stop parking on yellow boxes and blocking through traffic as i commute, I'll stop getting in ... wait a minute, i'm not n your way, the only impediment is your inability to leave on time and to overtake safely.

stop ignoring cycle lanes which were built costing millions,

I don't ignore them, I avoid the dangerous/poor quality ones, I use the safe ones which are few and far between.

Yes the road has to be shared, but its a two way street. Truck drivers have to take up as much space as possible and manouver their truck in a way that often straddles 2 lanes and they have to assert themselves over other road users.

? Having driven a 8 wheeler rigid body truck, just like my father, this is so wrong its unbelievable. Despite what many Irish drivers believe, a truck should always give way to smaller traffic for safety reasons when needed. The only thing I can think you meant is hook turning at tight junctions, they should always be cautious in these scenarios and complete the maneuver when safe and clear.

blackwhite wrote: »

Yet, there's a serious attitude problem with most on here whereby anyone saying anything negative about any individual cyclist's behaviour is immediately attacked by people who position themselves on the "cyclists' side" of the debate. Same thing happens, albeit it seems to a lesser degree, in the reverse scenario also.

I think its more the fact that many present it as "cyclists" do this, not a cyclists done this. This annoys me, I know some break the law, as do some car drivers, and some bus drivers and some pedestrians. But not all of them.

In regard to the speeding enforcement v RLJ enforcement argument:
I think someone doing 130kmph, or even 140kmph, on the M9 is less of a danger to others than a cyclist RLJing at a busy pedestrian crossing.

I have never seen a garda doing speed checks on the motorway unless tailing and doing averages as they know its a waste of time, but wait until a tyre blows out at 140kmph and see how it goes.

TBH, a garda sitting on his own in a marked car with a "hairdryer" is usually an extremely inefficient use of resources. Speed surveillance should be carried out by unmarked vans, and be primarily targeted at accident black spots

Agree with this, I am in favour of permanent speed cameras the only negative being is that drivers learn tpositions and speed in between them which is the reason the permanent ones are avoided.

and at areas of high volumes of traffic/cyclist/pedestrian interaction.

Unlikely to be much speeding in these scenarios

Guards in marked cars should only be involved in traffic matters for visible checkpoints where tax/insurance/NCT/tyres and lights should all be checked.

The majority of the traffic corps should be in unmarked cars or on motorbikes, and enforcement should be on all traffic offences, not just whatever the latest media campaign is about.

agreed

Jawgap

CramCycle wrote: »

.....

I have as many tour de france titles as he has, how many Audax events has he completed, that where the competition lies.

.....

I beat him.......

.......in a testicle counting competition :pac: