yes there wrote: » On dame street this morning a car decided to take a left turn and clattered into a cyclist. No great damage done except to the bike. Completely the drivers fault and acted as if it was the cyclists fault. Not the first incident ive witnessed where cyclists are completely ignored and are just an afterthought to motorists. in saying that I hate cyclists that run red lights, sneakily edging out. Grinds my gears that does. So to sum up there are gob****es on both sides.
RainyDay wrote: » I overtook a cyclist holding his phone to his ear along the narrow Marlborough Road in Ranalagh yesterday evening coming home. When I stopped at the lights, he flew past me, through the red light, with the phone still held to his year. Nice...
SMacX wrote: » Do you know that idiots exist in all walks of life? How many drivers have you seen on a phone? How many drivers eating, putting on makeup, staring out the window, breaking lights etc..... One twat on a bike with his phone to his ear and breaking a light does not mean all cyclists are the same. Please don't let people jump on this as evidence we are all like him. I have had "conversations" with cyclists who have disobeyed the rules of the road, up to being physically threatened. I have had similar "conversations" with other road users. Stop blaming the mode of transport and instead focus on the idiocy of the users of that mode. You'll probably find that it is the same idiots across all modes of transport who perpetrate the offences.
blackwhite wrote: » I think if you actually took the time to read back even one page of posts you'd see that RainyDay isn't here to try and have a pop at cyclists or to "blame the mode of transport" (more so the opposite if anything)- try actually reading more than one post before jumping in with a two-footed lunge. Reactionary posts and attitudes like the above are exactly why its so difficult for any civil debate on road behaviour to be had.
SMacX wrote: » I have done, and it was a generalised reaction that I should not have directed at Rainyday.@RaindyDay, my apologies. But my point still stands and is valid, idiots on roads cross all mode of transport boundaries
RainyDay wrote: » No offence taken - yes, there are idiots all around us. Sometimes I feel like the kid in the Sixth Sense - I see stupid people. I forgot to add one other aspect of the Marlborough Road story - there was a Garda car coming the opposite way, who completely ignored the dangerous idiot cyclist. I was kicking myself for not being quick enough to flag down the Gardai and ask them to take some action.
yes there wrote: » Theres no need for that. Its not your job to police the roads. Would make you look like a dick to other people and more than likely to the guards themselves.
RainyDay wrote: » I gave up worrying about 'looking like a dick to other people' sometime around 5th year in secondary school. Cycling while holding a phone to your ear is dumb and illegal, and is most definitely a matter for the Gardai. I've reported others to the Gardai for dangerous driving, usually after the fact rather than when it happens.
Spook_ie wrote: » Is it? Dumb yeah, illegal, not so sure unless you can be charged with not being in control of the bicycle, certainly in the UK it's not illegalhttps://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q604.htm
RainyDay wrote: » Good question. I assumed that it was illegal. ROTR says "Don’t ever use a mobile phone while cycling"
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » the Garda just enforced the rules that are already in place.
More than two-thirds of fatal pedestrian collisions happen at night. Although you can hear a car coming and see its lights, the driver may not see you (and certainly won’t hear you). To protect yourself make sure you:Always wear a pair of reflective armbands, high-visibility belt or other reflective or fluorescent clothing which will help you to be seen from a distance Carry a torch on country roads
check_six wrote: » Maybe someone will look up the exact wording, but bells are required on bicycles, unless the bike has been adapted for racing (try defining that!). So maybe a bell inspector grade in the Traffic Corps should be instituted to catch all the non-bell weilding hooligans?
check_six wrote: » Maybe someone will look up the exact wording, but bells are required on bicycles, unless the bike has been adapted for racing (try defining that!)
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.
All bikes are legally required to have a reflector on the back and a working bell
S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963. 93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » I'm almost certain that that law applied to retailers, who cannot sell bikes without a bell fitted. I got a £1,000 mountain bike not too long ago, for serious off road riding, and it came with the most ridiculous and out of place bell. Doesn't ring at all....rather just makes a kind of clunking noise. And it fell off pretty quickly anyway. Obviously fitted just to tick the box.
CroatoanCat wrote: » I'm sure cyclists have many quite legitimate complaints about driver behaviour; I would personally be far too nervous to cycle in Dublin city centre. It seems like a good thing in general that more people are cycling. As other posters have pointed out, it reduces the volume of motorised vehicles on the road and has health benefits for individuals and the overall environment from reduced traffic emissions. However, as someone who walks to work in the city centre every morning, I am increasingly pissed off at having to exercise ever greater caution before proceeding to cross any busy junction. The green man is certainly not adequate assurance that all is safe; more and more, it is necessary to pause for three or four seconds to accommodate the two or more cyclists sailing through the red light. This is reckless, selfish behaviour and seriously fupping annoying at junctions with lengthy signal sequences. Cyclists, as vulnerable road users, deserve respect and consideration from motorists. Pedestrians, as the most vulnerable road users of all, deserve the same- from motorists and cyclists.
looking_around wrote: » Personally though, I find lorry drivers the worst. They rarely ever properly over take and seem totally oblivious to the fact they're passing a tweeny bike that could be sucked up under them.
looking_around wrote: » My partner dislikes that I cycle on the road, the other day we were driving on back roads, and a guy, must've been doing 110km coming towards us on a bend. Narrowly misses us, had there been a cyclist on that road, there's no way the oncoming car would've been able to avoid him.
Daith wrote: » He narrowly misses a car but would have hit a cyclist? How big are bikes these days? You are right there are alot of terrible road users, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. My particular dislike at the moment are cyclists who are in row of traffic stopped by traffic lights who decide to cycle along the pavement to get to the top of the queue.
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » My dislike right now in my commute home in London is drivers who stop in the cycle box, leaving nowhere for cyclists to go, and motorcyclists who drive down the cycle lane and then block it when they get to a gap which is too narrow (hence cyclists cycling along the pavement to get to the safety of the front of the line)
looking_around wrote: » according to http://dublinbikeblog.com/understanding/cycling-and-the-law-in-ireland/ yes bells are required. and the law, I think. However the majority of "road bikes" used would be mountain bikes and racers, and these are exempt, lolz. Not that anyone would pay attention to a bike bell, anyway.
S.I. No. 190/1963 - Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963. 93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle being used for an authorised organised cycle race ) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance And regulatory lighting , and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.
