Spook_ie wrote: » No you just don't like free radical thought if it doesn't agree with your thoughts. I just point out relevant motor law, like checking behind BEFORE changing lanes etc.
blacklilly wrote: » Also I must add, I was witness to an horrific accident a few years ago which resulted in a cyclist being severly brain damaged and paralysed. I witnessed the whole thing and was at the scene with this cyclists trying to help before emergency services arrived. This cyclists was wearing every possible protection possible yet they did something stupid that resulted in the accident, it was 100% the cyclists fault. Every road user must take responsibility and unfortuantely we can only count on ourselves to be safe because there will always be people who take silly chances.
The vehicle does not have greater right-of-way than any other road user, so, for safety reasons, you should drive defensively. This means expecting the unexpected and making way for other road users when necessary............. ....To make sure all road users are safe, be aware of your responsibilities towards: pedestrians, children, older people, people with disabilities and wheelchair users, cyclists and motorcyclists, and any animal traffic on the road. This helps drivers to become safer and more socially responsible, not only tothemselves, but to their families and other road users.
Never put a cyclist or motorcyclist at risk and know your duty to be aware of them [my emphasis added]. They are especially vulnerable if there is a crash. In particular, watch for cyclists and motorcyclists: at junctions, where cycle tracks merge with roads, when you change lanes when opening your door to get out of a vehicle, when stopping and turning, especially when making a left turn, and when reversing. The best way to take care near cyclists and motorcyclists is to use your mirrors and recheck blind spots.
Tenzor07 wrote: » "Free radical thought", nah I live in reality...
Jawgap wrote: » Just about every time I drive the M1 I always see at least one motorcyclist go between vehicles to overtake - cars travelling in excess of 100 km/hr and these idiots go between them??
Jawgap wrote: » 'Lucky' for them a trained judge / barrister was on the scene, saw the totality of the event and was able to apportion responsibility so quickly :rolleyes:
cournioni wrote: » As opposed to a cyclist standing on the bar knocking over drinks I presume.
blacklilly wrote: » This provides zero detail on the correlation of driver error/cyclist error in respect of accidents involving cyclists. We are taking about cyclists here. You'd have to be living under a stone for the past 10 years not to reailse that speed is one of the main reason for fatal road collisions. I'd liek to know the % of cyclists error in respect to fatal accidents involving cyclists
cournioni wrote: » Seeing as the poster outlined that the incident was a couple of years ago, how do you know that it hasn't already been to court and the cyclist was 100% to blame for the collision?
blacklilly wrote: » ........did something stupid that resulted in the accident, it was 100% the cyclists fault. .......
Spook_ie wrote: » Why's it a fictitious class, just a logical extension to increase the general taxation base of Ireland. Do you not like the idea of equitable taxation? I do. While we're on the subject of radical thoughts, why not another! Use the money raised by (let's be fair) a €52 taxation class on cycles ( yeah €1 a week would bring in circa €364000 per year, based on just the 7000 Dublin cyclists in your post, to bring in a pseudo free registration scheme for any cyclist over the age of criminal responsibilty, I dunno maybe kill another 2 birds by a 6 digit hexadecimal number on a high viz jacket, and making it compulsary to wear the registration number when not in a certified and organised race. As for 7000 cyclists, who cares, you want to revolt, then revolt away, as long as you obey the traffic laws in your cars it'll be legal As to any countries springing to mind, did any spring to mind before smoking bans?
blacklilly wrote: » This provides zero detail on the correlation of driver error/cyclist error in respect of accidents involving cyclists.We are taking about cyclists here. You'd have to be living under a stone for the past 10 years not to reailse that speed is one of the main reason for fatal road collisions.I'd liek to know the % of cyclists error in respect to fatal accidents involving cyclists
cournioni wrote: » That is two incidents in the space of three days involving five cyclists breaking the rules on my 30 minute commute.
cournioni wrote: » Fixed your post there.
20 per cent, a full fifth, of respondents said that they ‘often’ use their phone for texting and calls when driving. 46 per cent said that they seldom use their phones behind the wheel while 35 per cent claimed never to do so. Sadly, that shows that there remains a significant gap between people’s acceptance of the legislation and their adherence to it.
CramCycle wrote: » Is that all, I guess 5 amber gamblers and 3 RLJers and a dangerous overtake at my first set of lights this morning. All motorists as I was one of only two cyclists there. I had another car beep me out of it for using the bus lane, he was not a PSV and should not have been there himself, just undertaking traffic for the craic I suppose. One cyclists jumped a red at waterloo road that I noticed, one bus pulled out into a yellow box and blocked traffic on the canal, which worked well for me as it meant I could cross easily as he stalled all traffic, and several pedestrians just wandered out into moving traffic near the baggot st bridge. Seen a huge number of cyclists jumping a red light at the canal cycle path and a moron on a dublin bike wobbling all over the road while on the phone. Followed by at least two peds stepping out into traffic looking the wrong way with headphones on and 2 cars overtaking me as I stopped on a red at a t junction. At the next left i took, two cars ran reds that crossed the green filter light I had and a MC who undertook a turning aircoach at the same junction. If you open your eyes you will find there is a sub group of every vehicle operator who gives a total of 0 f*cks about the law and road safety. I recalled the above from memory, not counting on the way, imagine how many I could have seen if I was looking for this type of behaviour
Tenzor07 wrote: » As with my previous post, it's not about introducing a Tax on bicyclists, it's about Taxing something so it makes too costly an option, therefore reducing the numbers involved.
rubadub wrote: » Some people seem to think cyclists not being taxed was some overlooked loophole or something, or that they just couldn't figure out a good way to implement it. Is there anyone who honestly cannot understand why cyclists are in amongst the wide group of non-motor tax paying motorists.
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » Only 35% of drivers claim never to break one road traffic law,
Spook_ie wrote: » Good for you, well when the reality of, "if something costs something, it has to be paid for" sinks in, do let us know.
rubadub wrote: » No, you broke it. I said moaners, why would you single out law obeying motorists, I expect many people moaning own bicycles and are law breakers, especially when on foot. This mutually exclusive look at things is quite bizarre. Many make a presumption if someone supports/defeneds cyclists they must be one. It only really happens in cycling threads too, if someone defends say the rights of black people or women they do not automatically presume they are black or female.
Red Nissan wrote: » This means EXACTLY what it says. That's a pretty good percentage actually. You cannot take that percentage and extract the opposite form it. You can ONLY ASK THE QUESTION. You may ask more questions, but you can only take the answer from each question. A: How many don't use the phone? = 35% B: How many do use the phone? =
Pinch Flat wrote: » Jesus where do you start. Lol your hatred of cyclists is driving you barmy. I had a flavour of driving on Dublin last week for the first time in ages and it is soul destroying - I'd crack up as well if I was stuck on that day on day out, watching all those cyclists who zing by in their Lycra. Anyway, we're on to the smoking ban now. The last time I checked Smoking had a direct link to cancer, whereas cycling has positive health benefits - according to the media this morning we're (well, some of us) one of the most obese countries. So taxing something that had such obvious benefits would seem a tad retrograde. If anything we need more to cycle - the numbers are increasing exponentially and hopefully we'll be up there with more advanced European nations.
cournioni wrote: » Considering that I have met at most 8 cyclists on my commute in that time it is quite a lot. That is 62.5%. Are you telling me that 62.5% of motorists have broken the law in your three days?
RobbieTheRobber wrote: » 20% of drivers regularly use their mobile phones while driving 46% Seldom use their mobile phones but do use them. 35% dont use their phones while driving. So either i can say 64% percent of respondents claim to use phones while driving. Or I can say only 35% of drivers claim to not endanger others by using their mobile phones while driving.
cournioni wrote: » Here's some stats for you on cyclists:http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/dont-shoot-messenger-rules-of-road-for-everyone-26826612.html Unfortunately that doesn't include cyclists using their phone while cycling. Saw one texting a couple of weeks ago myself.
Pinch Flat wrote: » I can guarantee you more motorists would sail through red lights if they could get away with it. It's the traffic coming the other way that physically stops them, but doesn't put off the odd moron. Just my own experience on Dublin - especially on the on the quays. Wexford st junction is also fun to watch as is the cluster fcuk at st Stephens green / harcourt at junction. Kudos to Dublin bus, the odd car and taxi driver who clog the yellow box at the James Joyce bridge almost every morning with our fail. Makes my getting through this junction much easier.
cournioni wrote: » Maybe they would if they could get away with it, but they don't. Cyclists generally do get away with it though. This is the issue a lot of motorists will have.
Spook_ie wrote: » Now back to rational thought processes, if cyclists are to be accepted as part of traffic, is it not better to help adjust other road users mindsets to think of them as traffic by ( if required ) getting them to pay taxation for the use of the road
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
