Cyclists breaking lights!!

First Up · 20-08-2014 08:07PM

monument wrote: »

Do you cycle a lot?

As you can imagine, people are more likely to walk out in front of a cyclists than they on front of cars.

Any link to such studies?

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 08:11PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

Nearly bashed off a few people walking on the road or stepping onto it with earphones in. I'm very wary to watch people close to the curb/kerb.

I wish I had a camera so you could see the sheer amount of things cyclists have to deal with. It's horrendously stressful. People cutting in front of you, walking out in front of you, people parked in cycle lanes, beeping you because you're in the way, potholes bumps dips and manhole covers, people walking in the cycle lanes etc etc. Had a reasonably close call there yesterday that was the first time it made me think I wish I could have recorded that - 747 airport bus driver cut into the cycle lane on o Connell St, at penny's, they seem to have made it their unofficial stop (very bloody common of bus companies on o Connell St now) without indicating. Never mind that I had right of fcuking way. Cut me off completely.

Does O'Connell St have a dedicated cycle lane? I always thought it was an advisory lane rather than a mandatory one, must look next time in CC to see if it's solid or broken lane markings.....yes if you knew about roadmarkings there is a difference.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.348888,-6.259975,3a,75y,245.63h,73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syPAlOWR1biNyFytKyFEPOw!2e0

EDIT BTW is that a Dublin Bus stop I see outside Pennys, is the 747 run by Dublin Bus?

diomed · 20-08-2014 08:16PM

First Up wrote: »

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

You can pick the statistics you like ... but from that cyclist bashing article "One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured."
Have they trimmed the statistics by excluding deaths and injuries by drivers in rural areas?

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 08:17PM

dinneenp wrote: »

(might have been mentioned already)
<snipped>
Starting from a standstill on a bike means using energy, whereas coasting through doesn't. Does it mean it's ok? Legally no but most cyclists do it safely I'd like to think.

<snipped>

It takes energy to start a bus, lorry or car from standstill does that mean they should be able to coast through.

First Up · 20-08-2014 08:30PM

diomed wrote: »

You can pick the statistics you like ... but from that cyclist bashing article "One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured."
Have they trimmed the statistics by excluding deaths and injuries by drivers in rural areas?

The weightings used for the comparisons are clearly explained in the article.
I presume the urban stats were used because that is where pedestrians tend to be in the proximity of cyclists.

First Up · 20-08-2014 08:33PM

diomed wrote: »

You can pick the statistics you like ... but from that cyclist bashing article "One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured."
Have they trimmed the statistics by excluding deaths and injuries by drivers in rural areas?

The weightings used for the comparisons are clearly explained in the article.
I presume the urban stats were used because that is where pedestrians tend to be in the proximity of cyclists.

diomed · 20-08-2014 08:50PM

First Up wrote: »

The weightings used for the comparisons are clearly explained in the article.
I presume the urban stats were used because that is where pedestrians tend to be in the proximity of cyclists.

The article explains the 253 times greater deaths caused by cars compared to cyclists by saying cars cover greater mileage. Did I get it right?

Gongoozler · 20-08-2014 08:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does O'Connell St have a dedicated cycle lane? I always thought it was an advisory lane rather than a mandatory one, must look next time in CC to see if it's solid or broken lane markings.....yes if you knew about roadmarkings there is a difference.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.348888,-6.259975,3a,75y,245.63h,73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syPAlOWR1biNyFytKyFEPOw!2e0

EDIT BTW is that a Dublin Bus stop I see outside Pennys, is the 747 run by Dublin Bus?

Does dedicated mean mandatory now? There are very few mandatory cycle lanes in the city, but no it is not. Not sure if there's a point in that. And yes I do know the difference between mandatory and non mandatory cycle lanes, though if you knew your rules of the road you'd know they're all officially non mandatory now.

Yes there is a bus stop outside penny's, where the 38 and 123 stop. Again do you have a point?

B.A._Baracus · 20-08-2014 09:01PM

Not sure if this has been posted yet but ...

Yes. It's a little weird. But funny.

Roquentin · 20-08-2014 09:04PM

dinneenp wrote: »

I meant the energy and effort the cyclist needs to exert. A driver simple pushes their foot on a pedal...

yea i know, but the energy is tiny on a flat road. Its not a valid excuse for breaking lights.

First Up · 20-08-2014 09:10PM

diomed wrote: »

The article explains the 253 times greater deaths caused by cars compared to cyclists by saying cars cover greater mileage. Did I get it right?

Keep working on it.

ezra_pound · 20-08-2014 09:18PM

Irish drivers and cyclists are both, on average, atrocious. The difference is the lethal machine that drivers are equipped with.

Yes, too many cyclists are breaking the law consistently. This must change.

Much more serious however, is the reckless approach a lesser, but still large proportion of drivers have towards their use of the roads.

Sh1tbag OToole · 20-08-2014 09:19PM

As a fellow cyclist I break lights all the time. Particularly the orange street lamps, bloody things keep me awake at night

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 09:19PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

Does dedicated mean mandatory now? There are very few mandatory cycle lanes in the city, but no it is not. Not sure if there's a point in that. And yes I do know the difference between mandatory and non mandatory cycle lanes, though if you knew your rules of the r dooad you'd know they're all officially non mandatory now.

Yes there is a bus stop outside penny's, where the 38 and 123 stop. Again do you have a point?

No dedicated means that other vehicular traffic isn't allowed into the lane, demarked by a solid white line, as in it's mandatory that other traffic stays out of the lane.

Non dedicated or not mandatory for vehicles to stay out of are demarked by a broken line ie they are a shared facility

I DO know my rules and regulations but I'll give you that stop number 4496 isn't served officially by the 747 and he should be up the road at 4724

monument · 20-08-2014 09:32PM

First Up wrote: »

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

Interestingly the following is said in the original source linked to in that link:

"Research by the City of Westminster Council last year found that, in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, 60 per cent of the crashes were caused by the pedestrian."

That would seem to indicates that there's lots of people walking out on front of bicycles where the people cycling should be given the right of way. So, you've just after disproving one of your points with an answer to your other post.

Anyway, back to your claim:

You said "studies in the UK show that they cause about the same amount of injuries as cars", the article you linked to said "figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled" -- these two statements are not the same thing.

The fact is, as the source article said: "While the chances of a cyclist causing serious injury to pedestrians as a proportion of distance travelled are comparable to the risks posed by drivers, motor vehicles are responsible for a far higher number of deaths and serious injuries in absolute terms."

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does O'Connell St have a dedicated cycle lane? I always thought it was an advisory lane rather than a mandatory one, must look next time in CC to see if it's solid or broken lane markings.....yes if you knew about roadmarkings there is a difference.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No dedicated means that other vehicular traffic isn't allowed into the lane, demarked by a solid white line, as in it's mandatory that other traffic stays out of the lane.

Non dedicated or not mandatory for vehicles to stay out of are demarked by a broken line ie they are a shared facility

I DO know my rules and regulations but I'll give you that stop number 4496 isn't served officially by the 747 and he should be up the road at 4724

What has any of that got to do with buses illegally pulling in by the fact that they have not indicated and that they cut off somebody already in that lane?

Gongoozler · 20-08-2014 09:32PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No dedicated means that other vehicular traffic isn't allowed into the lane, demarked by a solid white line, as in it's mandatory that other traffic stays out of the lane.

Non dedicated or not mandatory for vehicles to stay out of are demarked by a broken line ie they are a shared facility

I DO know my rules and regulations but I'll give you that stop number 4496 isn't served officially by the 747 and he should be up the road at 4724

I'd like to see where that is written about dedicated lanes please.

Oh you'll give that to me will you? He was 100% wrong, because it was not a designated stop, because he didn't give right of way to traffic in the lane he was crossing over to and because he didn't indicate. You don't need to 'give' anything to me thanks, I know he was wrong.

Tony EH · 20-08-2014 09:34PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Are people driving about in cars made out of papier-mâché, or marshmallow perhaps, because that's the only possible explanation for all these credible experiences of cyclists (~70kg +12kg bike) slamming into their vehicles and walking away unscathed whilst causing €€€€ of damage to the car (>1000kg)?

They don't make them like they used to. :pac:

Wow, this thread again...

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 09:39PM

monument wrote: »

<snipped>

What has any of that got to do with buses illegally pulling in by the fact that they have not indicated and that they cut off somebody already in that lane?

There is no proof that the driver didn't indicate, as there is no proof that Gongoozler wasn't paying attention and the driver did indicate,

I'm merely stating the fact that

Gongoozler wrote: »

Had a reasonably close call there yesterday that was the first time it made me think I wish I could have recorded that - 747 airport bus driver cut into the cycle lane on o Connell St, at penny's, they seem to have made it their unofficial stop (very bloody common of bus companies on o Connell St now) without indicating. Never mind that I had right of fcuking way. Cut me off completely.

does not in itself mean the bus driver did anything illegal because it isn't a mandatory/dedicated cycle lane

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 09:44PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

I'd like to see where that is written about dedicated lanes please.

Oh you'll give that to me will you? He was 100% wrong, because it was not a designated stop, because he didn't give right of way to traffic in the lane he was crossing over to and because he didn't indicate. You don't need to 'give' anything to me thanks, I know he was wrong.

Try SI 332/2012 14 para 5 subsection a, it is only referenced to RRM 023 ( solid white line )

If you don't like that one I'll dig deeper for you at some stage, BTW despite requests in previous threads can ANYONE find an SI relating to ASL's I'm beginning to doubt their actual legality

Gongoozler · 20-08-2014 09:46PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no proof that the driver didn't indicate, as there is no proof that Gongoozler wasn't paying attention and the driver did indicate,

I'm merely stating the fact that does not in itself mean the bus driver did anything illegal because it isn't a mandatory/dedicated cycle lane

I looked as he was pulling over, he wasn't indicating. But then I could be making this whole scenario up

And yes he did do something illegal, you don't have the right to pull into a lane in front of another person, they have the right of way. Seriously...?

Oh and still waiting on that source for the 'dedicated cycle lanes' theory you have.

Roquentin · 20-08-2014 09:46PM

what will have to happen is some cyclist or cyclists will have to be killed for breaking lights and then the RSA and gardai will implement a tougher stance.

Now we dont know each other on this website, so what ever is said, doesnt carry much value. But for your own lives, you would stop at the lights like any road user should. You can laugh away at me, but its your life not mine.

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 09:50PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

I looked as he was pulling over, he wasn't indicating. But then I could be making this whole scenario up
And yes he did do something illegal, you don't have the right to pull into a lane in front of another person, they have the right of way. Seriously...?

Oh and still waiting on that source for the 'dedicated cycle lanes' theory you have.

Yes you could well be mistaken, as you are mistaken about your belief that a broken line RRM023 has the same meaning as a solid line RRM022

Tony EH · 20-08-2014 09:53PM

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I wouldn't mention intelligence.
People might point you to drink driving figures,speeding summons, mobile phone penalty points, uninsured driving statistics, unaccompanied learners, single vehicle "accidents", driving car without nct, leaving scene of accident statistics, bald tyres, parking on footpaths.....

or they might just point you instead to the graveyards and A&E.

Ah yeh whatever...

Cyclists breaking red lights though!

I MEAN REALLY!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

monument · 20-08-2014 09:58PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no proof that the driver didn't indicate, as there is no proof that Gongoozler wasn't paying attention and the driver did indicate,

I'm merely stating the fact that does not in itself mean the bus driver did anything illegal because it isn't a mandatory/dedicated cycle lane

Your point is made pointless by the other details given.

If you don't want to accept the detail in the poster's post without giving any good reason, then we might as well say that all of the post is fiction -- we might as well imagine that the poster was actually running at night in the cycle lane, dressed all in black, wheeling a black wheelbarrow without any lights on it... and there was no bus, its was a large green elephant which cut him off.

Gongoozler · 20-08-2014 09:58PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes you could well be mistaken, as you are mistaken about your belief that a broken line RRM023 has the same meaning as a solid line RRM022

I'm not mistaken. It's just a fact.

And no I'm not wrong about there being no mandatory cycle lanes. Too tired, going to bed. Someone else will probably provide proof as to what I'm talking about, before I get back to it.

ezra_pound · 20-08-2014 09:59PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah yeh whatever...

Cyclists breaking red lights though!

I MEAN REALLY!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

Even the idiotic light breaking cyclists are still statistically more awesome than the average motorist. True they need a good clip behind the ear but they're still awesome.

Gongoozler · 20-08-2014 10:05PM

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

There ya are spook, for starters.

Inquitus · 20-08-2014 10:45PM

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I traveled about 15 feet and am almost into the junction where I wanted to travel to and a cyclist smashes into the side of my car doing considerable damage to my door.

Interested to know how he could do considerable damage to your door and still be able to cycle off on his bike. That aside, guy sounds like a right asshole.

Tony EH · 20-08-2014 10:48PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

Even the idiotic light breaking cyclists are still statistically more awesome than the average motorist.

Given the choice of being clipped by a cyclist and some ejit ambler gambler motorist, I know the choice EVERYONE would make.

Spook_ie · 20-08-2014 11:02PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

There ya are spook, for starters.

Perhaps you'd like to revisit my posts and tell me where I said it was mandatory for cyclists to use cycle lanes. I believe I said it was mandatory for vehicles to avoid crossing Rrm022 whereas it isn't mandatory to avoid crossing Rrm022.

Perhaps you can also see why I also allow doubt of any one particular post unless there is supporting evidence considering you failed to understand the differences between mandatory and advisory lane markings despite being able to read my posts at leisure rather than relying on human memory of a situation you were involved in

Cyclists breaking lights!!

Comments