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

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

Grade-separated junctions have fcuk-all to do with it. Motorway status has to do with 100 mph safe cruising speed. This incorporates curve rates, access-ramp lengths and a couple of other things.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/misc/standards.html

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

I know it's a safe cruising speed. Depending on where you are.

On what stretch of road in this country is it even permissible to do 100 mph?

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

On what stretch of road in this country is it even permissible to do 100 mph?

100 mph is illegal, obviously. Dog-With-Mallet-Up-Hole knows that.

Jawgap

jimgoose wrote: »

100 mph is illegal, obviously. Dog-With-Mallet-Up-Hole knows that.

Sounds like it's not cyclists who need to be taking theory tests

jimgoose

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like it's not cyclists who need to be taking theory tests

Sound's like some peeple need 25 years, a million miles of road, and some real power before they talk through their holes.

Pinch Flat

jimgoose wrote: »

Sound's like some peeple need 25 years, a million miles of road, and some real power before they talk through their holes.

What's always interesting in these debates is cyclists - look at them two abreast breaking red lights holy mother of god. And 2 abreast and not even a theory test between them.

Earlier in the thread we had someone justify red light breaking in a car and now someone advocating travelling at 25% over the legal speed limit.

I'm not doubting your driving skills or horse power on tap - reading the motoring thread it seems to be encouraged and even a badge of honour how fast some claim to travel on our road network - but these are clearly illegal yet the cyclist is being held up as the pariah on the roads. An interesting insight into the car centric minds

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Tens of millions for signage !!??!

For 30 brand new gantry signs, easily 10m

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

For 30 brand new gantry signs, easily 10m

It's about €50k for a gantry sign - so more like €1.5m, not 10.

jimgoose

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's always interesting in these debates is cyclists - look at them two abreast breaking red lights holy mother of god. And 2 abreast and not even a theory test between them.

Earlier in the thread we had someone justify red light breaking in a car and now someone advocating travelling at 25% over the legal speed limit.

I'm not doubting your driving skills or horse power on tap - reading the motoring thread it seems to be encouraged and even a badge of honour how fast some claim to travel on our road network - but these are clearly illegal yet the cyclist is being held up as the pariah on the roads. An interesting insight into the car centric minds

I would never in a mad fit advocate or practice breaking traffic lights, or endangering two-abreast cyclists - there's a good reason for cycling two-abreast. Regarding speeding however, my carry-on on a motorcycle would quite horrify you.

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

Cycling on a motorway is madness. Any cyclist who tries this should be stopped and charged. Anyone who sees a cyclist on a motorway should report it to 999.

But just the keep it in context, the vast majority of the danger involved is to the cyclist themselves. One drunk cyclist got killed on the M1 last year, and while I'm sure this was difficult and traumatic for the driver, there was no permanent injury involved. While there a possibility that the appearance of the cyclist on a motorway could distract a driver, or other freak scenario could arise, these are fairly unlikely. The vast majority of the risk is to the cyclist.

While motorists kill about 200 people each year, for a range of reasons.

I came off my bike on ice a few years back. I didn't and I don't blame the council. It was purely my own fault. Where specifically have you seen cyclists blaming the council for falls on black ice?

This is a poor attempt at one of those 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of questions - an attempt to slur and defame others other the guise of asking a question.

So given that road incidents are widely reported at the time, and when a coroner's inquest happened, perhaps you could come up with case where someone was killed trying to avoid a cyclist?

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year. As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

It's about €50k for a gantry sign - so more like €1.5m, not 10.

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

2 stroke

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

That's a one-off cost - you really reackon it's €8.5 million?

I know a Cork people think they're God's chosen, but do they really expect Gucci signs? Even for the piddly bit of road used to ring the town?

Jawgap

dubscottie wrote: »

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year. As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.

Where are these threads?

RainyDay

dubscottie wrote: »

Again with the motorists kill 200+ each year.

Indeed, the deaths just keep on coming.

dubscottie wrote: »

As for blaming the council.. You should look at the posts on another forum here.. "Came of the bike, who do I sue" threads. Never the cyclists fault.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a series of such threads and this is a common issue. I found two threads in the cycling forum, where the general consensus is that there is no liability on the council, and that previous such cases have failed, though motorists are fairly routinely reimbursed for damage caused by potholes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88379250
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58211149

Are you aware of a pile of such threads, or are they just a matter of your imagination?

dubscottie wrote: »

I asked you to prove that the 200+ deaths on the roads are all the result of motorists. Still waiting.. You are making the claim again and again so back it up with proof.

That's kind-of the definition of deaths on the road, so I'm not sure why you're quibbling. I could claim that that aardvarks were to blame for deaths on the road, and push you to provide evidence that there were no aardvarks involved. This is really just clutching at straws now.

dubscottie wrote: »

The rules of the road are not the law.. The Road Traffic Act is.

That's true. Are you suggesting that the requirement to stop when safe to do so at an amber light is not covered under the Road Traffic Acts?

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not when you add on all the bits and pieces and sign colour consultants ...

Colours are set out in the Dept Transport traffic sign manual - no consultants involved.

2 stroke wrote: »

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

I saw a man with his 5-year-old daughter in the front seat of his car driving away from Lidl yesterday. The adult-sized seatbelt is more likely to injure her than help her in a collision. Guy should be arrested for child endangerment.

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

That's a one-off cost - you really reackon it's €8.5 million?

I know a Cork people think they're God's chosen, but do they really expect Gucci signs? Even for the piddly bit of road used to ring the town?

Ah sure throw in a bit of petty Irish parochial interregionalism.

Did I say anything about Gucci signs?

If you changed 30+ gantry sign panels (2 years after a major resigage project to make it the N40) it would cost stupidly big amounts of money and would cause disruption as its a lot more than just patching. It actually has a lot of large backlit gantry signs as well as a whole load of variable signage using rotating sections around the tunnel lead up which would need complete re-doing.

There could easily be 60 major signs involved and replacing those panels sections is serious money and would be a complete waste of funds.

That's the main reason they just put up 120 kph speed limits and left the rest as is.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

Ah sure throw in a bit of petty Irish parochial interregionalism.

Did I say anything about Gucci signs?

If you changed 30+ gantry sign panels (2 years after a major resigage project to make it the N40) it would cost stupidly big amounts of money and would cause disruption as its a lot more than just patching. It actually has a lot of large backlit gantry signs as well as a whole load of variable signage using rotating sections around the tunnel lead up which would need complete re-doing.

There could easily be 60 major signs involved and replacing those panels sections is serious money and would be a complete waste of funds.

That's the main reason they just put up 120 kph speed limits and left the rest as is.

Ah, we've gone from 30 to 60 signs now.

Keep going and you'll soon get to your €10m valuation

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah, we've gone from 30 to 60 signs now.

Keep going and you'll soon get to your €10m valuation

Meh!
Did I claim to be a motorway signage valuation expert?

Point still stands - it's not done because it's too expensive!

I have no interest in getting into Irish regional petty squabbles - it's one of the issues that keeps this country back and undermines proper infrastructure planning.

I was simply making a point about the dangers of cycling on a fast moving, urban DC / motorway with merging, grade segregated junctions.

I don't think cycling on the N40 is any safer than the M50 - the colour of the gantry signs or the letter prefix doesn't change the laws of physics.

It's the fact that you've the odd cyclist using the hard shoulder and attempting to cross merging, high speed traffic that's scary.

In some of the N40 junctions you've multiple merging lanes and 3 traffic lanes. It's by no means a safe place to be cycling on the shoulders.

You've also got sections where the hard shoulders have been removed to allow for extra lanes. Those areas (just between Mahon and Douglas) are totally unsuitable for cycling.

There are also parts of the south link into the city which have no hard shoulders as its built into an old railway cutting. That's pretty seriously dangerous to cycle on too as its almost just like a tunnel without a roof.

There should be adequate cycling provision built into new road projects but that hasn't been the case.

I'd favour building proper cycle ways that use other routes away from heavy traffic. Inhaling he exhausts of cars on a multi lane road at rush hour isn't too good for you anyway.

A lot more could be done to make use of an promote the green ways built on old rail routes around cork for example.

Public_Enema

lickme wrote: »

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Yes I think so, but that said. A lot of drivers out there, could also do with doing a theory test.

RecordStraight

2 stroke wrote: »

Yesterday I met a man and his 5 year old daughter both cycling against trafic up a narrow one way street. I stopped, bringing all cars behind me to a standstill. I pointed out to the guy that it was a one way street, his response was that he wasn't driving. Guy should be arested for child endangerment.

On the continent, in more progressive countries, it's legal for bikes to travel either way on one way streets.

Just by way of info. Makes sense if you want to cut traffic and get everybody out of traffic jams.

CramCycle

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd favour building proper cycle ways that use other routes away from heavy traffic. Inhaling he exhausts of cars on a multi lane road at rush hour isn't too good for you anyway.

Just a point of interest, sitting in a car in rush hour, you will inhale far more toxic fumes, while true a cyclists will probably be inhaling deeper breaths by the nature of doing exercise, a motorists in rush hour traffic will be exposed to a far higher level of pollution.

SpaceTime

CramCycle wrote: »

Just a point of interest, sitting in a car in rush hour, you will inhale far more toxic fumes, while true a cyclists will probably be inhaling deeper breaths by the nature of doing exercise, a motorists in rush hour traffic will be exposed to a far higher level of pollution.

It's a point but most modern cars have pollen filters that probably capture a good % of diesel particulates.

Single biggest risk to lungs is probably poorly maintained diesel cars. Focusing only on climate change and CO2 emission forgot a kit particulate emissions.

Sitting in heavy traffic on a still day definitively can't be good for you though.

rubadub

MadDog76 wrote: »

Hahahahaha!!!!!

Recreational drug use is different to recreational alcohol drinking

Wow, apt smiley, you certainly are very one confused individual. Alcohol IS a recreational drug.

Keep that head firmly buried in the sand Mr. Cop-out

RainyDay

Public_Enema wrote: »

Yes I think so, but that said. A lot of drivers out there, could also do with doing a theory test.

Eh the drivers HAVE done a theory test, which confirms how useless it is.

cournioni

Met another idiot cyclist cycling straight at me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault because cars cause more fatalities on the road than bicycles.

ThisRegard

cournioni wrote: »

me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault

Sounds like it was being honest.

JJayoo

Ireland should follow the example of Denmark and provide children with bike playgrounds. These allow young children to learn how to cycle and practice manoeuvring around real world obstacles such as different gradients, different surface types, wet conditions, other cyclists. The also learn the rules of the road and become familiar with hazards and road signs.

cournioni

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sounds like it was being honest.

You're very clever altogether. If you put as much time into educating fellow cyclists how to conduct themselves on our roads as you did into thinking up that post then we might not have as many cyclists creamed out of it after breaking red lights.

RainyDay

cournioni wrote: »

Met another idiot cyclist cycling straight at me going the wrong way on a one way street.

But then it's probably my fault because cars cause more fatalities on the road than bicycles.

Were you worried that he was going to kill you or your car in the collision?

Pinch Flat

RainyDay wrote: »

Eh the drivers HAVE done a theory test, which confirms how useless it is.

Not all of them have done the theory test

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/learner-drivers-face-penalty-points-if-unaccompanied-1.2029309