Those damn cyclists again!

SeanW · 18-07-2014 03:30PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think that point has already been made but some people seem to equate an insurance company paying out with the attachment of liability.

Umm, if the insurance company pays out on the motorists' behalf, the result will be that the motorist will not get sane rates again for a very long time.

That is not the same as "attachment of liability" it is effectively the equivalent of a multi-year criminal conviction for dangerous driving. In one case, you can't get insurance for ~5 years, in the other, you're banned from driving for ~5 years. Either way, you cannot legally drive again for a very long time.

Advocates of strict liability, i.e. RLJing footpath riding cyclists, think this is fair. I do not.

Pinch Flat · 18-07-2014 03:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a good thing for our towns and cities, driving out infront of busses or up beside moving busses trying to pass them out causing the driver to break hard or swerve to avoid them, they are a dangerous nucence that needs to be banned in our towns and cities

50 odd pages later and the voice of reason. Welcome!

blackwhite · 18-07-2014 03:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, my intention was not to put words in your mouth.

Originally someone made a rather ridiculous suggestion about an incident they had witnessed - and made it sound very serious in an attempt to make it sound convincing but the story was pretty thin so I called them on it.

How about the poster in question calls up the story in question and posts a screen shot of it, with any identifying information redacted?

I've no problem apologising if I'm wrong.

Apology accepted

That's one thing people do on boards that really gets my blood up!

SMacX · 18-07-2014 03:55PM

I really hate coming into a discussion of this kind late

I am an experienced cyclist, commuter, leisure and erstwhile racer....

I find that there is good and bad on both sides of these types of debates.

The problem is that people forget a number of things:

1. The vulnerability of cyclists to other road users should preclude any argument where it would appear that people advocate harm in any way.
2. Most cyclists are more aware of the road than other road users. To a car that bump was barely felt, to the cyclist it could have thrown them from the bike. Cyclists are encouraged to ride defensively so that they can protect themselves.
3. All road users are encouraged to treat each other with respect. All, not just buses, cars, taxis or bicycles.
4. There is no such thing as "Road Tax". Everybody pays for the upkeep of the road infrastructure through general taxation. The motor tax that is paid, is a levy on the use of a carbon producing engine. Yep, unfair, but that is the reality. Road tax does not exist and motor tax does not create an entitlement to the use of the road.
5. People are generally idiots at some time in their lives. Some are idiots for longer than others. This applies to all road users as well. Do not judge all cyclists by the actions of an idiot, just as you do not judge all motorists by the actions of one. Not saying that the cyclist in the OP was one, just don't paint all cyclists with the one brush.
6. Get some perspective. One moment of inattention, one moment of madness can seriously injure or kill someone. Please don't be that person. The only one responsible for your actions is you. That applies to all road users. For example, if you make the choice, whether consciously or not to pass a cyclist on a road and cross an unbroken white line and happen to hit the cyclist or the oncoming car, that was your choice to make, not the cyclists whose right it was to use the road.

Anyway here's to using the road safely together. Keep an eye out for each other and don't let bias or ignorance ruin yours or someone else life.

rubadub · 18-07-2014 03:56PM

jimgoose wrote: »

So, assuming people are clamped properly into their seats by functioning seat-belts, as they should be, helmets in cars would cause more issues than they'd solve, I expect.

Same can be said about helmets on bikes causing issues, e.g. falling down etc, many are wearing them incorrectly. Rally drivers wear them, the helmet suggested for regular car users is usually an open face cycling style helmet and I think all the studies I saw were suggesting it be used in addition to current seatbelts & airbags.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So shouldn't we all just wear helmets and padding all the time?

If I wore a helmet all day long I reckon I would crack about 5 a year. If it was mandatory you would get all the ignorant people out there saying "My helmet cracked when it hit off that low doorway, lucky I was wearing it, otherwise that would have definitely been my skull that cracked wide open with that minimal force, my brain would be on the floor right now if it wasn't for my miraculous helmet, all these idiots are going around with out them". Cycling helmets were out in the 80s but it was rare to see people with them, many calling people idiots for not wearing them would have to call themselves idiots as they did not wear them when they were young, but they are bigger idiots for their irrational poorly thought out stance & understanding.

MajesticDonkey · 18-07-2014 04:03PM

rubadub wrote: »

If I wore a helmet all day long I reckon I would crack about 5 a year.

Do you frequently jump off really tall buildings or something?

jimgoose · 18-07-2014 04:09PM

rubadub wrote: »

Same can be said about helmets on bikes causing issues, e.g. falling down etc, many are wearing them incorrectly. Rally drivers wear them, the helmet suggested for regular car users is usually an open face cycling style helmet and I think all the studies I saw were suggesting it be used in addition to current seatbelts & airbags...

Mmm. Yeah, I couldn't see those being worth the bother in a modern car, though. Seems to me the only way you can really hit your head hard is if you hit an awful clatter altogether in such a way that the roof or an A-pillar caves in. That's rare.

rubadub · 18-07-2014 04:11PM

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Do you frequently jump off really tall buildings or something?

Nope, it requires very little force to crack a helmet, they are designed to crack on impact just like a car bumper. I bump my head a few times a year. The helmet however would effectively increase the size of my head, so I would be hitting a lot more things, just like if I strapped thick bubble wrap around my body I expect I would be more likely to hit things and pop them. I would not equate the strength of a helmet with my skull, in fact I have done finite element analysis in college about this very subject as coursework. I would also not presume I would have gotten badly cut if one of my bubblewrap pockets burst.

Your jumping off buildings brings up a good point too. With protection people put themselves in danger. So if someone says "my helmet saved my life, I was doing extreme mountainbiking and crashed and the helmet was cracked, that could have been my skull", I am left thinking "if you had no helmet or forgot it that day you probably would not have been doing such a dangerous activity, or taken better care" and thats not even getting into the plastic designed to crack = skull nonsense.

I remember when shin pads came out first in my school, lads with legs in bits since others no longer held back on tackles. Same with hurley helmets, lads clattering people over the head for the laugh.

end of the road wrote: »

would be a good thing for our towns and cities, driving out infront of busses or up beside moving busses trying to pass them out causing the driver to break hard or swerve to avoid them, they are a dangerous nucence that needs to be banned in our towns and cities

And ban footwear in cities too. What are otherwise sane people turn into law breaking lunatics the moment they slap these contraptions on their feet.

ThisRegard · 18-07-2014 04:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a good thing for our towns and cities, driving out infront of busses or up beside moving busses trying to pass them out causing the driver to break hard or swerve to avoid them, they are a dangerous nucence that needs to be banned in our towns and cities

You finally got bored with Garth Brooks and this is your new obsession ? It's a better class of debating skills here, you need to improve on your spelling, grammar, ah feic it, on everything.

AntiVirus · 18-07-2014 04:31PM

Ok I've read all the replies about wearing or not wearing helmets and I can see your points so the fines is not a good idea. I myself do feel safer wearing one and I do have to admit most people I know do wear one. I do see the dangers that come with wearing one and being more confident and taking a bit more risks because you feel safer. So I'm now against fines for not wearing helmets!

Maybe if he wasn't wearing a helmet he wouldn't have been doing dangerous stunts in the first place? Who knows....

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 04:38PM

AntiVirus wrote: »

Ok I've read all the replies about wearing or not wearing helmets and I can see your points so the fines is not a good idea. I myself do feel safer wearing one and I do have to admit most people I know do wear one. I do see the dangers that come with wearing one and being more confident and taking a bit more risks because you feel safer. So I'm now against fines for not wearing helmets!

Maybe if he wasn't wearing a helmet he wouldn't have been doing dangerous stunts in the first place? Who knows....

I'll think you'll find most people think helmets are good idea - or at least they are not a bad idea. It's the idea of compelling people to wear them that's bad.

I wear a helmet every time I cycle. I find it's 100% effective at preventing nagging from other members of the family......

As for the kid - kids do silly things with or without helmets. Mine once tried to jump his mountain bike from the garage roof, figuring the suspension would cushion his landing! Thankfully I stopped him before he had a chance to test his theory.

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 05:23PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Taxochism. Spooks probably the very man who moans to a passenger about the water charges as well.

"Them cyclists, they should be taxed to the hilt. Have hexidecimal numbers tattooed on their foreheads. And die them hi-vis so we can see them.

But those bleedin' water charges, don't get me started".

Actually wrong, I support water charges and local rates, so now back to licensing and taxation of cyclists. First of all no where have I said tax them to the hilt, a nominal tax set at a €1 per week isn't going to break your bank now is it?

How to deal with faked numbers, probably the same way as you'd deal with a cloned car number, you catch them and you prosecute them, quite simple really.

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 05:33PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually wrong, I support water charges and local rates, so now back to licensing and taxation of cyclists. First of all no where have I said tax them to the hilt, a nominal tax set at a €1 per week isn't going to break your bank now is it?

How to deal with faked numbers, probably the same way as you'd deal with a cloned car number, you catch them and you prosecute them, quite simple really.

A tax of €1 per week would cost more to collect, administer and enforce than it would ever raise in revenue.

As for the fake numbers that would have to be done 'in person' - ANPR technology would be useless if someone clones a number. Making the proposed tax even more expensive to enforce and reducing the probability and potential of sanctions.

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 05:33PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Recent studies have shown that head injuries in motoring collisions would be significantly reduced if people wore helmets while in a car. Yet no one is asking for that.

I presume that recent studies don't take into account the proliferation of SRS systems such as side airbags, curtain airbags, knee airbags etc. that are now proliferating in the mid section car market

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 05:37PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

Were you not looking in front of you as you were driving. It's important for cyclists to take up a proper position in the road. Often this is in the middle of the lane. Your duty is to drive safely.

You sound like a bad driver with a sense of entitlement.

Tarzana · 18-07-2014 05:37PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

You finally got bored with Garth Brooks and this is your new obsession ?

Well, the two threads intertwined for him. Once he found out Owen Keegan was pro-cyclists and cycle lanes, it was another stick to beat him with.

tonyka · 18-07-2014 05:41PM

Is this an anti cyclist thread ? ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 05:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

A tax of €1 per week would cost more to collect, administer and enforce than it would ever raise in revenue.

As for the fake numbers that would have to be done 'in person' - ANPR technology would be useless if someone clones a number. Making the proposed tax even more expensive to enforce and reducing the probability and potential of sanctions.

Why, cost savings in numbers, how many cyclists in Ireland? according to Cian Ginty's report
http://irishcycle.com/2012/12/16/cycling-today-in-ireland-highlights-from-census-2011/

60000 x 52 = €3.12 million excluding people cycling to school or college still gives €2.069 million

That's a signifcent revenue stream for a cash starved Ireland.

If the idea of a six digit number on a vest isn't to your liking then just putting an RFID into the frame of the bike and charging per cycle would also have the benefits of tracking stolen cycles, just incorporate RFID readers in strategic locations

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 05:47PM

tonyka wrote: »

Is this an anti cyclist thread ? ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

Yes......

Please note the "No logic, rational argument and common sense" sign has been illuminated......

Make sure your stereotypes are secured in place

In the event a moderate view is expressed please default to immediate outrage and post an anecdote.

Enjoy the thread.....

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 05:47PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

Were you not looking in front of you as you were driving. It's important for cyclists to take up a proper position in the road. Often this is in the middle of the lane. Your duty is to drive safely.

You sound like a bad driver with a sense of entitlement.

Only if they change lanes/direction whatever with due consideration to other road users

Stokolan · 18-07-2014 05:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

If the idea of a six digit number on a vest isn't to your liking then just putting an RFID into the frame of the bike and charging per cycle would also have the benefits of tracking stolen cycles, just incorporate RFID readers in strategic locations

If we're going all out why not restrict sale of bicycles to registered shops and you are required to bring your passsport, pps number and a copy of a bill to be able to purchase the bike.

Once your I'd has been varified and registered up to 14 working days you can collect your bike.

Jawgap · 18-07-2014 05:57PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why, cost savings in numbers, how many cyclists in Ireland? according to Cian Ginty's report
http://irishcycle.com/2012/12/16/cycling-today-in-ireland-highlights-from-census-2011/

60000 x 52 = €3.12 million excluding people cycling to school or college still gives €2.069 million

That's a signifcent revenue stream for a cash starved Ireland.

If the idea of a six digit number on a vest isn't to your liking then just putting an RFID into the frame of the bike and charging per cycle would also have the benefits of tracking stolen cycles, just incorporate RFID readers in strategic locations

So your expecting 100% compliance? What about the cost of admin? cost of enforcement? - Incidentally, who would carry out this enforcement? Dog licences cost more than this and the Guards don't touch those, so where's the enforcement coming from!

And if your RFIDing the frame how does that fit with the notion that that the tax should apply to the cyclist, not the bike? Plus, wouldn't you have to set up a system to allow bikes to be registered and transferred when sold?

If I'm a thief couldn't I just get an RFID reader, locate the chip and remove it?

€2m is a significant revenue stream.........LOL! That wouldn't pay for the paper clips in the HSE.

EDIT: Ireland's national debt (gross) at the end of June was €204 Billion - something that represents 0.0000098% of it is not significant.

twowheelsgood · 18-07-2014 06:03PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Can they turn around and say they have never stayed out in front of a car when they could have let them pass?

The difficulty is that some drivers will attempt to pass when it is patently not safe to do. (Only a lunatic would go over the other side of a road to over-take at a corner but for some reason, doing do and having a bit of your car across the central line is only a venial sin!).

Unless there is a hard shoulder or a cycle lane or some scenario where it is possible for a car to overtake without moving out then there is no material difference (should not be!) between been a foot rather than 2-3 foot from the road edge, but a cyclist is far safer in the case of the latter.

And contrary to what some motorist might think, I do not like have a car right behind me. I will do everything I can (short of taking a header in to a field!) to see them go safely past ASAP.

ThisRegard · 18-07-2014 06:17PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

I presume that recent studies don't take into account the proliferation of SRS systems such as side airbags, curtain airbags, knee airbags etc. that are now proliferating in the mid section car market

They've been in cars in that segment a lot longer then what could be called recently. Have you just upgraded your taxi to an early 90s Corolla, white and a jap import of course, to be just noticing them?

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 06:21PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So your expecting 100% compliance? What about the cost of admin? cost of enforcement? - Incidentally, who would carry out this enforcement? Dog licences cost more than this and the Guards don't touch those, so where's the enforcement coming from!

And if your RFIDing the frame how does that fit with the notion that that the tax should apply to the cyclist, not the bike? Plus, wouldn't you have to set up a system to allow bikes to be registered and transferred when sold?

If I'm a thief couldn't I just get an RFID reader, locate the chip and remove it?

€2m is a significant revenue stream.........LOL! That wouldn't pay for the paper clips in the HSE.

EDIT: Ireland's national debt (gross) at the end of June was €204 Billion - something that represents 0.0000098% of it is not significant.

Keep the blinkers on, and we'll see what happens when the finance minister is looking to balance the books

The original thought was to license/tax the cyclist but you convinced me otherwise, so per cycle it is, after all if you can afford several bikes, like if someone can afford several cars you can afford to pay per bike

So that would be an even bigger revenue stream, running it costs very little extra if we went with the motor tax system and used the same computers and numbering system.

The little Johnny on his bike playing might need some leeway building into the system but as a whole it's doable

MajesticDonkey · 18-07-2014 06:25PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

The original thought was to license/tax the cyclist but you convinced me otherwise, so per cycle it is, after all if you can afford several bikes, like if someone can afford several cars you can afford to pay per bike

So if you have multiple televisions in your house, you'd have a TV license for each of them? (which you legally were supposed to have up to the new "broadcasting" charge)

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 06:26PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

They've been in cars in that segment a lot longer then what could be called recently. Have you just upgraded your taxi to an early 90s Corolla, white and a jap import of course, to be just noticing them?

Being facetious does little for the credabilty of your arguments

The minimum date for ANY taxi now would be 1999 and as the taxis reach 15 years old are replaced by maximum 9 years old and thereafter

hsilgnede · 18-07-2014 06:27PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

1 - most cyclists are motorists as well so already paying road tax
2 - taking the lane in busy traffic is legal and legitimate way for cyclists to stay safe. In the city centre they are moving as fast as the traffic much of the time anyway.
3 - no, they shouldn't break the lights but motorists shouldn't use mobile phones and that doesn't appear to stop it happening, stone, glass houses and all that.

If you're swerving out into the other lane to get around a cyclist that's on you. Have some more patience.

Spook_ie · 18-07-2014 06:31PM

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

So if you have multiple televisions in your house, you'd have a TV license for each of them? (which you legally were supposed to have up to the new "broadcasting" charge)

Talk to the telecom minister, maybe he should talk to the enviroment minister and if you have more than one car only pay one motortax, but until then if you have to pay on multiple cars then I'm convinced by the arguments put forward that it should be per cycle rather that per cyclist.

This does lend itself to solving the child cyclist side of it by not RFIDing childrens cycles, of course you could go down the path and ask about midgets or circus performers but I'm not here to discuss each and every potential conflict, that would be for junior ministers and their staff to work on

Chips Lovell · 18-07-2014 06:34PM

I see no flaws in these excellent and practical suggestions.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments