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

Cyclists should do a theory test!

lickme

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, not needed and not going to happen.....

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

No, not ok to damage property and cycle off but if they cycle off and you get no details it's immaterial whether they have insurance or not.

If you get them you can still sue and they still have to pay if found liable.

If they fell off their bike and you're not liable why would you be paying over anything

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

No, not ok to damage property and cycle off but if they cycle off and you get no details it's immaterial whether they have insurance or not.

If you get them you can still sue and they still have to pay if found liable.

If they fell off their bike and you're not liable why would you be paying over anything

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

If your car hits them then you're potentially liable. If they fail to unclip and fall into your car then you are not liable and they are potentially liable for any damage caused.

We're not talking rocket science here:D

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

If your car hits them then you're potentially liable. If they fail to unclip and fall into your car then you are not liable and they are potentially liable for any damage caused.

We're not talking rocket science here:D

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Grandpa Hassan

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

In your opinion. Wouldn't necessarily be mine. Speeding by cars plays a big part, or overtaking too tight to them, or drifting into the cycle lane and squeezing them against the kerb (buses are bad for doing this)

There is fault on both sides, even if you have an agenda and don't want to admit that drivers are not perfect

222233

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

In your opinion. Wouldn't necessarily be mine. Speeding by cars plays a big part, or overtaking too tight to them, or drifting into the cycle lane and squeezing them against the kerb (buses are bad for doing this)

There is fault on both sides, even if you have an agenda and don't want to admit that drivers are not perfect

Im a terrible driver, will be the first to admit that and for that reason I travel slow. But cyclists...

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Well the there's no issue - if it's their the they'll have to bear the costs of their injuries.

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

Im a terrible driver, will be the first to admit that and for that reason I travel slow. But cyclists...

Shouldn't be too long before you lose your licence then;)

222233

Jawgap wrote: »

Shouldn't be too long before you lose your licence then;)

That won't be happening I drive within my capabilities

and I obey the rules of the road, i just don't park in small parking spaces is all!

Jawgap

222233 wrote: »

That won't be happening I drive within my capabilities and I obey the rules of the road, i just don't park in small parking spaces is all!

Well then, you can't be that terrible a driver.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

I still stand to my point if I am answerable in court or can be issued with penalty points as a driver, then so should cyclists, they too need to able to be punished and definitely need insurance !!

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off or its okay for them to sue me because they fell off their bike and have no insurance to cover injuries?

222233 wrote: »

Have seen it happen, where they don't take there feet out of those special pedal things and fall in traffic, what if its my car that hits them.

Here's a mad idea - instead of worrying about theoretical issues that could possibly arise from time to time, could we focus on the carnage on the road caused by motorists - 200+ people killed each year and thousands more maimed?

222233 wrote: »

Most of the time they are hit through their own fault..

Not true, but I'm sure that you're interested in any mere facts;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-cause-less-than-10-of-bikecar-accidents.html
ece

222233

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

Jimoslimos

I cycle.

Like most cyclists, I also drive.

When I cycle, any accident I have will most likely affect me physically. Financial cost isn't that much of a consideration (my road bike only cost a couple of hundred quid), although that might be different for some folk with fancy bicycles. I know that if I'm involved in a collision (through my fault or not) that I will most likely end up injured to some degree. That could include, cars, trucks, buses, walls and pedestrians - yes even pedestrians, because either way I'm coming off my bike at speed and will hurt myself. Therefore I cycle defensively and am aware of all these hazards.

When I drive any accident I have will most likely affect me financially. City driving mostly. There is a minuscule risk that hitting pedestrians and cyclists will cause me injury. A car or larger vehicle hitting me has the potential to cause injury, but given the speeds most likely it'll just be (hopefully) nothing worse than a fender bender. As I mentioned financial cost is a factor but insurance negates this slightly. Therefore my main focus when I drive is other drivers - since their mistakes are most likely to do financial and physical damage to me.

Even as a cyclist I become less aware of other cyclists when I drive, though I do make a conscious effort to try not to.

In short.
Cyclist messes up - cyclist injured/dead
Driver messes up - bodywork damaged and/or cyclist/pedestrian dead/injured

dellas1979

I was only thinking this the other day OP when a(nother) cyclist whizzed over a pedestrian crossing, while I moved on (didnt stop to check if it was safe. More over bikes are not supposed to be used on pedestrian crossings).

Sadly, there was actually a cyclist killed there 2 years ago, doing the exact same thing.

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This particularly bad spot is near the uni in Limerick, so I would think a lot are probably erasmus students pedding around the place.

UCDVet

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I think you should bring your very erudite opinions to the Cycling Forum, where no doubt they will be welcomed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=410

As a cyclist, I'd welcome such a test. I'm sure lots of other decent, reasonable cyclists who want the entitlements of being treated as any other vehicle on the road would also welcome such a test.

RainyDay

222233 wrote: »

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

That's true. You are indeed entitled to hold whatever opinion you like. But don't expect public policy or traffic law to change based on opinions that have no connection to reality.

RainyDay

dellas1979 wrote: »

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This is often repeated, but it is pure fiction.

Has there ever been one single case where the cyclist is 'acting the idiot' breaking the lights and the driver gets prosecuted?

jjpep

222233 wrote: »

I really don't care being honest, i have an opinion and that is that. My opinion I don't have to be right but thats how I happen to feel

Yep, opinions are way more betterer than facts.... ðŸ˜

SHOVELLER

beauf wrote: »

http://dublinobserver.com/2010/10/cycle-lane-highlights-in-dublin/
http://irishcycle.com/2012/08/24/cycling-against-traffic-legally/

No excuse for cycling dangerously.

Often to get around the one way system, or to get on off cycle paths, you have to cross footpaths, due to the poor design and layout.

Well yes but I mean in general footpaths are not for cyclists.

mojesius wrote: »

I frequently get 'tutted' at by other cyclists behind me for stopping at a red light. No, the green man doesn't include you. Your light is still red.

Also, wearing headphones while cycling should be banned.

Please don't pull in front of me at the lights when I recently overtook you. You're clearly cycling at a slower pace than I am.

I should have gone to to ranting and raving forum but fcuk it

Dead right but without enforcement it will never happen. If Gardai had a more physical presence around and actually enforced the law then we would not be seeing any cyclists speeding on footpaths. I mean they now have bicycles.

http://dublinbikeblog.com/understanding/cycling-and-the-law-in-ireland/

ardmacha

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I cycle.
In short.
Cyclist messes up - cyclist injured/dead
dead/injured

Cyclist messes up - pedestrian injured, cyclist swears at pedestrian, escapes and isn't subject to any loss or prosecution whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C-pZxAz0H0

ballyharpat

dellas1979 wrote: »

I was only thinking this the other day OP when a(nother) cyclist whizzed over a pedestrian crossing, while I moved on (didnt stop to check if it was safe. More over bikes are not supposed to be used on pedestrian crossings).

Sadly, there was actually a cyclist killed there 2 years ago, doing the exact same thing.

Its getting to the point of ridiculousness. The thing is, they are the ones acting the idiot, yet if I hit them, Im the one prosecuted.

This particularly bad spot is near the uni in Limerick, so I would think a lot are probably erasmus students pedding around the place.

I'm sure you know the rules of the road, having done your theory and full driving test, cyclists are allowed to use pedestrian crossings while on the bike, they do not have to be on foot….I think that enforcing rules of the road regarding cycling to motorists, would reduce the fatalities.
Unfortunately, there will always be dumbasses that will break red lights, cycle on footpaths, wrong way down one way streets etc, just as there will always be drivers that speed, drive drunk, use cell phones etc.

I cannot tell you the amount of times, when I am coming off a roundabout and decide, because of the poor layout of debris strewn cycling path, that I will cycle on the road, the drivers that beep and try to force me off the road, I have had drivers actually stop half a dozen times, telling me the 'rules of the road', I should be on the cycle path-no, buddy, I don't have to be on the cycle path…..the whole system needs an overhaul, but yes, drivers that don't use indicators and cyclists lack of hand signals is another pet peeve. Testing should be mandatory for anyone over 15 riding a bicycle….

darkpagandeath

Theory test.

Can a car break the laws of physics and stop instantly ?

Answer.

Is a cars mass lower than that of a bike ?

Answer.

Clearlier

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the 'similar speed' thing, given the ability of many motorists to spot law-breaking cyclists while being largely blind to law-breaking motorists. Maybe it is more to do with your last point, that most drivers are not cyclists, and feel it is OK to attack another group of people, simply because they choose a different mode of transport on a particular day?

I drove in this morning and came across 6 cyclists. I encountered maybe at most a dozen cars travelling the same direction. As it happens nobody did anything too stupid this morning

. The last time that I cycled in to work I came across one other cyclist. I expect that there were other cyclists that I would have come across if I had been driving but because there's not a huge difference in the speed at which I cycle compared to others I didn't see any. OTOH I probably encountered well over 100 cars during my journey.

My point was simply that when I cycle I see a lot more motorists than I do when I drive and the law of averages says that I'm much more likely to see an idiotic manoeuvre from a motorist when I encounter 100+ than when I encounter a dozen or so and vice versa with cyclists. People who cycle and drive will have some insight into this. People who drive may not.

KilOit

Love when cyclists take up the whole road when driving through the Wicklow mountains, not moving over to the side and insist on cycling in pairs so they can chat.
Nothing but a nuiscance up on the hills! Tour de France wannabes :pac:

jimgoose

I saw a chap on a bicycle this morning using a pair of motorcycle-style bar-end mirrors. Fantastic idea, and about sodding time! :cool:

rubadub

222233 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclists is not needed????

Correct, the majority of the worlds governments have decided that it's not needed, doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off

Nope, just like its not okay for pedestrians to do the same. I have seen people scrapping buggies off illegally parked cars. People do it in supermarket car parks all the time too with trolleys, probably moreso than cyclists. Maybe we should have shop trolley insurance and theory tests of the use of them. And pedestrian insurance.

Grandpa Hassan

222233 wrote: »

So its okay for them to scrape the side of my car and cycle off?

Seriously, how many times that this happened to you?

grundie

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

Lyaiera

grundie wrote: »

Give every cyclist an ID card, load it with 5 'strikes'. No need for a test, just simply provide a photo, pay a small fee, acknowledge that you have read and understand the rules of the road for cyclists and the ID card is yours.

Every time a cyclist breaks a rule and a Garda sees it. the Garda takes away a strike (more if a serious violation). Once they lose all their strikes then they can't cycle on the road anymore. Just like losing a car licence for dangerous driving.

The problem with that is you'd legitimise cyclists. Then they'd start expecting other road users to treat them with respect. Cheeky cyclists.