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

blacklilly

Jawgap wrote: »

I wasn't asking you to betray a confidence - but to post a link to publicly accessible information.....

......and again, if the cyclist was, as you stated...100% at fault....

why was there even a court case Did they prosecute the cyclist?

The court case involved around the awarding of damages to the cyclists due to their injuriues. Like all personal injury cases apportioning of blame is a large part of it.
I don't expect you to be happy with this response but I'm not comfortable posting a link to the case for various reasons. You can choose to believe me or not, either way it's of no consquence to me.

diomed

SeanW wrote: »

diomed
Car drivers, van drivers, and HGV drivers drive the vehicles that kill. Usually when the driver or another road user breaks or disregards road law.
FYP.

Don't "fix" my post.
You are adding something to it that suggests that an error by car, van, and HGV drivers and an error by a cyclist are equal.

Tony EH

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I imagine Dubscottie, way up there on his high harley horse, though blanks all the stuff his fellow engined road users get up to and I'm sure he's never done anything illegal on the road.

It's a high horse built of bullshit, but, hey, it's still a high horse. :pac:

It's always hilarious, when these threads come up. The amount of unbelievably stupid (and incredibly petty) posts by motorists really makes me wonder if an IQ test shouldn't be required for driving too.

AntiVirus

I don't mind cyclist using the road if there is no cycle lane but I think cyclists should be fined if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

ThisRegard

AntiVirus wrote: »

I don't mind cyclist using the road if there is no cycle lane but I think cyclists should be fine if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

C'mon man. If you're going to partake in the madness at least be up to date with this thread anyway.

"I don't mind cyclists using the road". Why thank you sir

magicbastarder

AntiVirus wrote: »

I think cyclists should be fine if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

i agree, cyclists *are* fine when using the road when there is already a cycle lane there!

Bio Mech

AntiVirus wrote: »

I don't mind cyclist using the road if there is no cycle lane but I think cyclists should be fine if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

Did you leave out a "d" that completely changes the whole point of your post?

Do you think they should be fine?

Do you think they should be fined?

The devil is in the D!

Jawgap

blacklilly wrote: »

The court case involved around the awarding of damages to the cyclists due to their injuriues. Like all personal injury cases apportioning of blame is a large part of it.
I don't expect you to be happy with this response but I'm not comfortable posting a link to the case for various reasons. You can choose to believe me or not, either way it's of no consquence to me.

Well if the cyclist was 100% wrong why would they get any damages?

I find it hard to believe that no matter how tragic the case might be any insurance company would consent to the payment of damages in a situation where the driver was 0% liable?

And if there is a report in the public domain why not post a link to it?

Sorry, but your story fails the sniff test....better luck next time - my go easy on the hyperbole

Jawgap

AntiVirus wrote: »

I don't mind cyclist using the road if there is no cycle lane but I think cyclists should be fine if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

I think they should be fine too - and grand!:D

magicbastarder

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if the cyclist was 100% wrong why would they get any damages?

I find it hard to believe that no matter how tragic the case might be any insurance company would consent to the payment of damages in a situation where the driver was 0% liable?

And if there is a report in the public domain why not post a link to it?

Sorry, but your story fails the sniff test....better luck next time - my go easy on the hyperbole

maybe they were claiming off their own insurance?

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe they were claiming off their own insurance?

can you do that if you're 100% in the wrong???;)

MayoAreMagic

People are way too militant on this topic. I appreciate that cyclists are road-users too, but may I ask, how would they respond to loads of pedestrians walking side by side or in long lines, cutting them off and slowing them down? People are supposed to share the road, not take it over, and that goes for all parties. I commented on a similar topic about cyclists allowing cars to overtake them, and get a torrent of abuse for simply stating that cyclists should be understanding to drivers if they want drivers to be understanding to them. I was told about the legal distances required to overtake a cyclist (the figures quoted were incorrect also). Yet may I ask, where are these same regulations when you come to a set of traffic lights and cyclists go up the white line in between the lines of traffic? That point isn't even having a go at cyclists, it is about being fair. If people want good treatment, then they should first offer it. Can they turn around and say they have never stayed out in front of a car when they could have let them pass? Can a driver say they never cut off a cyclist? People need to grow up a bit and be a bit more responsible.

SeanW

diomed wrote: »

Don't "fix" my post.
You are adding something to it that suggests that an error by car, van, and HGV drivers and an error by a cyclist are equal.

I'm merely pointing out that cars, HGVs etc don't just "kill" unceremoniously and for no apparent reason. Many accidents involving a car or HGV will have as a root cause an error by either the driver or another road user, such as a reckless lane change, disregard for traffic lights and so on.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if the cyclist was 100% wrong why would they get any damages?

Because Ireland unofficially has Strict Liability which means that in an accident between a motor user and a non-motorist, the motorist is automatically fully liable for all damage. Regardless of fault. So yes, a cyclist can is free to totally disregard something like a red light or make an dangerous lane change without looking, cause an accident with a motorist, even if fault can be fully attributed to the non-motorist with witnesses, dash cams etc. it's unlikely to matter. The motorist will be found guilty.

blacklilly

Jawgap wrote: »

]Sorry, but your story fails the sniff test....better luck next time - my go easy on the hyperbole

No need to apologise, I don't particularly care that you don't belive me and if you can't understand why I don't want to post a link to the case, even though these cases are in the public domain, maybe you should think about it harder.

endacl

SeanW wrote: »

Because Ireland unofficially has Strict Liability which means that in an accident between a motor user and a non-motorist, the motorist is automatically fully liable for all damage. Regardless of fault. So yes, a cyclist can completely disregard something like a red light or make an dangerous lane change without looking, cause an accident with a motorist, even if fault can be fully attributed to the non-motorist it won't matter. The motorist will be found guilty.

In the real world though, do you really think cyclist think "feck it. I'll take a chance. The driver will pay to have my leg sellotaped back on, so that's ok"? In what version of reality will the fact that somebody else's insurance covers your potential death or serious injury influence risky behaviour?

Risky behaviour is down to stupidity. It doesn't need a bicycle. I don't want to be killed or injured. I don't care who's paying the bill.

endacl

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

People are way too militant on this topic. I appreciate that cyclists are road-users too, but may I ask, how would they respond to loads of pedestrians walking side by side or in long lines, cutting them off and slowing them down? People are supposed to share the road, not take it over, and that goes for all p

Phoenix Park cycle lane on Chesterfield Avenue? It's a pain, but we get over it. Certainly don't call for pedestrians using the Park to be licensed and insured.

They don't even wear hi-viz!

blacklilly

endacl wrote: »

In the real world though, do you really think cyclist think "feck it. I'll take a chance. The driver will pay to have my leg sellotaped back on, so that's ok"? In what version of reality will the fact that somebody else's insurance covers your potential death or serious injury influence risky behaviour?

Risky behaviour is down to stupidity. It doesn't need a bicycle. I don't want to be killed or injured. I don't care who's paying the bill.

I don't think that's what Seanw was getting at. (ok maybe I was wrong from reading his post below)

When a driver takes out a fully comprehensive policy, should that driver be involved in a collision whereby their vehicle/person is damaged/injured, their insurance will cover the damages.

SeanW

@endacl You would be surprised how often I see fellow pedestrians blatantly walk out into traffic - against red-man lights or other controls - on the basis that the traffic is going slow and "sure I can make the cars stop for me."

The 30kph limits are a large part of this, I can only assume that Strict Liability is another motivator.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

The motorist will be found guilty.

There is no automatic payout to cyclists, enough of this BS.

blacklilly

CramCycle wrote: »

There is no automatic payout to cyclists, enough of this BS.

Agreed however more often than not, there is

Knasher

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That point isn't even having a go at cyclists, it is about being fair.

The title of the thread is "those damn cyclists again!".

endacl

SeanW wrote: »

You would be surprised how often I see fellow pedestrians blatantly walk out into traffic - against red-man lights or other controls - on the basis that the traffic is going slow and "sure I can make the cars stop for me."

The 30kph limits are a large part of this, I can only assume that Strict Liability is another motivator.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't buy it. Seriously? People will risk being hit by a ton of metal at 30kph because they consciously consider strict liability, either in the moment or with stupidity aforethought? I don't think so.

I don't deny the existence of stupidity of course! I just don't buy that people will 'not avoid' accidents simply because somebody else will pay for their medical treatment.

PeadarCo

blacklilly wrote: »

Agreed however more often than not, there is

If they pay out its means the drivers has been judged at fault. No person is going take an increase in there insurance premium for the craic. If a person isn't at fault it can be proved in a court setting.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

It's always hilarious, when these threads come up. The amount of unbelievably stupid (and incredibly petty) posts by motorists really makes me wonder if an IQ test shouldn't be required for driving too.

AntiVirus wrote: »

I don't mind cyclist using the road if there is no cycle lane but I think cyclists should be fine if they are caught cycling on the road when there is already a cycle lane there.

Jesus H Christ...

sarkozy

It should be pointed out there that, as a pedestrian waiting for the green man, I've been nearly mown down a number of times on the north quays (Manor St., Heuston) and Baggot St. Bridge by motorists speeding through red lights. If I hadn't got into the habit of looking before walking out when the green man sounds, I'd be dead. But why should I have to look when I'm being given the signal that it's my safe time to cross the road?

I've also noticed how having a brightly-coloured pram right in front of me is never taken as a signal by motorists to slow down and drive cautiously.

Is killing a parent and child really worth those few seconds?

Tenzor07

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

but may I ask, how would they respond to loads of pedestrians walking side by side or in long lines, cutting them off and slowing them down?

The area(s) where this happens daily is called "Cycle-Lanes"...

Jawgap

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

People are way too militant on this topic. I appreciate that cyclists are road-users too, but may I ask, how would they respond to loads of pedestrians walking side by side or in long lines, cutting them off and slowing them down? People are supposed to share the road, not take it over, and that goes for all parties.

A quick trip to the Phoenix Park or Clontarf - will give you the answer to that question. Most cyclists just mooch around them, usually with a polite "excuse me......lovely day for it."

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I commented on a similar topic about cyclists allowing cars to overtake them, and get a torrent of abuse for simply stating that cyclists should be understanding to drivers if they want drivers to be understanding to them.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.....
.....from the much lauded Rules of the Road

The vehicle does not have greater right-of-way than any other road user, so, for safety reasons, you should drive defensively

Never put a cyclist or motorcyclist at risk and know your duty to be aware of them.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Distances required to overtake a cyclist (the figures quoted were incorrect also). Yet may I ask, where are these same regulations when you come to a set of traffic lights and cyclists go up the white line in between the lines of traffic? That point isn't even having a go at cyclists, it is about being fair. If people want good treatment, then they should first offer it. Can they turn around and say they have never stayed out in front of a car when they could have let them pass? Can a driver say they never cut off a cyclist? People need to grow up a bit and be a bit more responsible.

Please tell me you're not talking about the Advanced Stop Line.....

If you are at a junction where there is an advanced stop line for cyclists, you should allow cyclists to move off ahead of you.

If traffic is stalled or stopped you are allowed overtake on the right....

Overtake only on the right, unless traffic is travelling in slow moving queues and the traffic queue on your right is travelling more slowly than you are

blacklilly

PeadarCo wrote: »

If they pay out its means the drivers has been judged at fault. No person is going take an increase in there insurance premium for the craic. If a person isn't at fault it can be proved in a court setting.

I know of many incidents and have heard of many others where insurance companies have paid out. Perhaps this is not as common in the reecnt past.

sarkozy

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The area(s) where this happens daily is called "Cycle-Lanes"...

And on this topic, which is a daily occurrence for cyclists following the rules ... why do cyclists in Ireland just not fix and use bicycle bells. The most effective, and politest/least confrontational, way to tell people to get out of the way is this humble invention. Instead, we prefer to creep up on people or yell at people about our right of way. Seriously, get a bell. It works. It will improve cycling culture. You're not a sissy having one.

CramCycle

blacklilly wrote: »

Agreed however more often than not, there is

As someone who has been through the process, that's simply not true.The only time it happens is if the cost of the case outweighs the expected payout, makes no sense for the insurer to bother. If the cyclist is in the wrong, the Judge will award in the motorists favour and vice versa.