Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can you cycle up a one-way street?

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    trellheim wrote: »
    This is clearly illegal and you'd be done.
    Yes, it is illegal - but chance of being done for it are tiny, just like the chances of motorists being done for breaking red lights, phoning while driving, or going the wrong-way up one-way streets are tiny.


  • Options
    #93
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Yes, it is illegal - but chance of being done for it are tiny, just like the chances of motorists being done for breaking red lights, phoning while driving, or going the wrong-way up one-way streets are tiny.

    Ah the old cyclist get out, "we're morons but cars are worse".


  • Options
    #94
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    dubscottie wrote: »
    So How many €40 fines have you got for breaking lights etc..

    Its not normal behavior. Its breaking the law.

    And please don't reply with the usual "but in Holland" thing..

    Aggressive drivers in the winter.. More like lack of lights on bikes..

    Dubscottie, dont waste your time - galwaycyclist is the Chemical Ali of the biking morons.


  • Options
    #95
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Ah the old cyclist get out, "we're morons but cars are worse".

    Not really - more like "We're morons, but we don't kill 200 people each year and maim thousands of others ,unlike motorists".


  • Options
    #96
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Milly33


    AHh this annoys the crap out of me I hope the answers is no you cant.. It is so dangerous... I work on a one way street and the amount of near misses with cyclist as they cycle down the wrong way... When your on a one way street although you look before turning and all that goes you don't really expect to meet anything coming down...

    Cyclist need to pay attention to the rules of the road just like car do, I met one chap during the week who was cycling down the wrong way in the middle of the lane he was just asking to hit


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Milly33 wrote: »
    Cyclist need to pay attention to the rules of the road just like car do,


    Bwaaahaaahaaa


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgHmr8d--Bo


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on2m8sinavE


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3APqNA6rU


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4iXW05Ic


    Do you want me to keep going?

    If motorists generally paid attention to the rules of the road, they wouldn't be killing 200 people each year on the roads.


  • Options
    #98
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Milly33


    No they are just as stupid as the cyclist. But in fairness a cyclist is asking for a lot more trouble. Which one do you think does more damage car or bike..... A car is protected you hit a bike (haha had put bit my bad) and the person is fecked so they should be taking more care of themselves.


  • Options
    #99
    ceannair06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    Milly33 wrote: »
    No they are just as stupid as the cyclist. But in fairness a cyclist is asking for a lot more trouble. Which one do you think does more damage car or bike..... A car is protected you hit a bit and the person is fecked so they should be taking more care of themselves.

    Excellent point.


  • Options
    #100
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Milly33 wrote: »
    AHh this annoys the crap out of me I hope the answers is no you cant.. It is so dangerous...

    Have you got a source for that? If something is dangerous there must be numbers to back that up no?
    I work on a one way street and the amount of near misses with cyclist as they cycle down the wrong way... When your on a one way street although you look before turning and all that goes you don't really expect to meet anything coming down...

    If I understand correctly, you frequently encounter cyclists coming in both directions. However, even though this is the case, you still haven't learned to expect it or anticipate it?


  • Options
    #101
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Have you got a source for that? If something is dangerous there must be numbers to back that up no?



    If I understand correctly, you frequently encounter cyclists coming in both directions. However, even though this is the case, you still haven't learned to expect it or anticipate it?

    Expecting or anticipating something dosn't make anything less dangerous or OK to do either!

    Should we expect and anticipate everyone to break a red light aswell and then when they (who are in the wrong) hit us we are then in the wrong for not anticipating it?

    Good points in this:-

    http://bicyclesafe.com
    The Wrong-Way Wreck
    You're riding the wrong way (against traffic, on the left-hand side of the street). A car makes a right turn from a side street, driveway, or parking lot, right into you. They didn't see you because they were looking for traffic only on their left, not on their right. They had no reason to expect that someone would be coming at them from the wrong direction.

    Even worse, you could be hit by a car on the same road coming at you from straight ahead of you. They had less time to see you and take evasive action because they're approaching you faster than normal (because you're going towards them rather than away from them).

    How to avoid this collision:

    Don't ride against traffic. Ride with traffic, in the same direction.

    Riding against traffic may seem like a good idea because you can see the cars that are passing you, but it's not. Here's why:

    Cars which pull out of driveways, parking lots, and cross streets (ahead of you and to the left), which are making a right onto your street, aren't expecting traffic to be coming at them from the wrong way. They won't see you, and they'll plow right into you.
    How the heck are you going to make a right turn?
    Cars will approach you at a much higher relative speed. If you're going 15mph, then a car passing you from behind doing 35 approaches you at a speed of only 20 (35-15). But if you're on the wrong side of the road, then the car approaches you at 50 (35+15), which is more than twice as fast! Since they're approaching you faster, both you and the driver have lots less time to react. And if a collision does occur, it's going to be at a faster relative speed.
    Riding the wrong way is against the law and you can get ticketed for it.
    One study showed that riding the wrong way was three times as dangerous as riding the right way, and for kids, the risk is seven times greater. (source)

    Nearly one-fourth of crashes involve cyclists riding the wrong way. (source) Some readers have challenged this, saying if 25% of crashes are from going the wrong way, then riding the right way is more dangerous because it accounts for 75% of crashes. That idea is just wrong. First off, only 8% of cyclists ride the wrong way, yet nearly 25% of them get hit -- meaning wrong-way cyclists really are three times more likely to get hit than those who ride the proper way. Second, the problem with wrong-way biking is that it promotes crashes, while right-way biking does not. For example, cyclists running stop signs or red lights is 17% of their crashes. (source) But do we therefore conclude that not running signals causes 83% of crashes?! (Hint: No.)

    Good reading here also:-

    http://m.elkharttruth.com/living/Community-Blogs/Cycling-Sense/2014/10/01/Cyclists-riding-against-traffic-are-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-bicycle-motorist-accidents.html
    While wrong-way cyclists make up only five percent of bicycle traffic, they make up 21 percent of total car-bike collisions, according to the League of American Bicyclists.

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Well said,, And I do anticipate it all the time hence why I haven't hit into one yet. Must say with the evenings getting darker it is only a matter of time before someone gets knocked down there. In all fairness it is just stupid out of cyclist to do crap like this and if they get hit sorry but tis there own fault, they are putting their lives and the lives of people using the road at risk.. Fine nothing much as in injury will happen a driver who hits a cyclist but think of the emotional side of it for them, not a nice thing to do


  • Options
    #103
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    GM228 wrote: »
    Expecting or anticipating something dosn't make anything less dangerous or OK to do either!

    Should we expect and anticipate everyone to break a red light aswell and then when they (who are in the wrong) hit us we are then in the wrong for not anticipating it?

    Good points in this:-

    http://bicyclesafe.com



    Good reading here also:-

    http://m.elkharttruth.com/living/Community-Blogs/Cycling-Sense/2014/10/01/Cyclists-riding-against-traffic-are-one-of-the-leading-causes-of-bicycle-motorist-accidents.html



    GM228


    I think this came up before. You are confusing cycling on the wrong side of the road (on the right) with two-way cycling - where everyone cycles on the left for their direction of travel.

    Your examples are not relevant.


  • Options
    #104
    roverrules
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 331 ✭✭roverrules


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Have you got a source for that? If something is dangerous there must be numbers to back that up no?



    If I understand correctly, you frequently encounter cyclists coming in both directions. However, even though this is the case, you still haven't learned to expect it or anticipate it?

    So by that reasoning we shouldn't be concerned about muggings in ( insert favourite idea of mugging hotspot ) because we should be expecting it.
    If a one way street isn't designated 2 way for cyclists then its not something people should be expecting because it is illegal


  • Options
    #105
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I think this came up before. You are confusing cycling on the wrong side of the road (on the right) with two-way cycling - where everyone cycles on the left for their direction of travel.

    Your examples are not relevant.

    Going the wrong way weather it be up a one way street or in the wrong lane is one in the same, they are going against the flow of traffic, and the points in the first link regarding exiting a car park etc are just as valid. Needless to say they are not legal either way unless provided for in a cycle lane.

    In a two way street a person exiting onto the street is more likely to look both ways simply because there is two way traffic, they wont always do that on a one way street simply because they don't expect someone to be going the wrong way!

    GM228


  • Options
    #106
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Tis like kids arguing, So you have a one way street, why then would it be ok to use it they opposite way just because you want to...

    Like walking down a one way street, what do you think is going to happen, one person walks down a one way street in between masses of people who are walking the other way, bound to get knocked to the ground or lost cus well no one is expecting them to be going against the flow..

    I feel a movie coming on now after that..


  • Options
    #107
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Milly33 wrote: »
    they are putting their lives and the lives of people using the road at risk..
    When was the last time that a cyclist took the life of another road user in Ireland?
    Milly33 wrote: »
    No they are just as stupid as the cyclist.
    Thanks for the clarification. I thought that you were suggesting that cyclists as a group are generally reckless and that motorists as a group are generally law-abiding. We both now that both sides of that suggestion are incorrect.


  • Options
    #108
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Thanks for the clarification. I thought that you were suggesting that cyclists as a group are generally reckless and that motorists as a group are generally law-abiding. We both now that both sides of that suggestion are incorrect.

    Indeed there are plenty of reckless cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and drovers (I added in the last two for fairness) out there, the question is however which group has the higher proportion of recklessness?

    GM228


  • Options
    #109
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed there are plenty of reckless cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and drovers (I added in the last two for fairness) out there, the question is however which group has the higher proportion of recklessness?

    GM228

    It's a fairly academic question, to be honest. But if you do want to go there, let's start with the percentage of drivers that break the speed limit. I think the recent RSA survey showed 80% or similar?

    But if you do want to focus on groups, the more important question would be - which group kills and maims most other road users. It's not cyclists.


  • Options
    #110
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    RainyDay wrote: »
    It's a fairly academic question, to be honest.

    That's fair enough, the point I'm making is I agree that it's not just cyclists who are reckless, it's all road user groups, but that dosn't mean all groups are equally reckless. Problem is some cyclists (just like some motorists) break the law and give the rest a bad name, but there are also plenty who do obey the law.
    RainyDay wrote: »
    But if you do want to go there, let's start with the percentage of drivers that break the speed limit. I think the recent RSA survey showed 80% or similar?

    That's true, but it doesn't mean that motorists are more reckless than any other group, at a guess I'd say the average speed of a cyclist is about 20 km/h which means they simply can't speed, rather than they don't speed (unless going down a really steep hill I suppose). A cyclist can't normally break any speed limits whilst most motorists can break all speed limits.
    RainyDay wrote: »
    But if you do want to focus on groups, the more important question would be - which group kills and maims most other road users. It's not cyclists.

    Again that doesn't mean motorists are any more reckless than any other group, it just shows that motoring is the biggest cause of death and suffering mostly due to the fact that they go faster and weight more and naturally enough will create a bigger mess.

    The problem with users of the roads is:-

    Some users don't know the rules.
    Some users don't want to know the rules.
    Some users think they know the rules.
    Some users don't think the rules apply to them.
    Some users know the rules, but don't understand them or when they apply.
    Some users know the rules, but ignore them.
    And other users know the rules, understand them and follow them.
    GM228 wrote: »
    which group has the higher proportion of recklessness?

    Not necessarily down to recklessness, but there's a very interesting study here from the US which shows accident rates per kilometer are 26 to 48 times higher for cyclists than for motorists. In the case of cyclist-motorist accidents the motorists are to blame more often than the cyclist.

    Anyway back to the original thread please as it has gone off topic.

    GM228


  • Options
    #111
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GM228 wrote: »
    A cyclist can't normally break any speed limits whilst most motorists can break all speed limits.

    Not necessarily down to recklessness, but there's a very interesting study here from the US which shows accident rates per kilometer are 26 to 48 times higher for cyclists than for motorists. In the case of cyclist-motorist accidents the motorists are to blame more often than the cyclist.
    it's not just that cyclists cannot normally break speed limits; they cannot generally break them as speed limits do not apply to bikes.

    also, there's a debate to be had about whether accident rate per kilometre is a reasonable measure; perhaps it should be accident rate per hour of travel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    GM228 wrote: »
    That's fair enough, the point I'm making is I agree that it's not just cyclists who are reckless, it's all road user groups, but that dosn't mean all groups are equally reckless. Problem is some cyclists (just like some motorists) break the law and give the rest a bad name, and there are planty who obey the law.
    I don't subscribe to the 'collective responsibility' thing, particularly when it seems to mainly focused on cyclists. Do the motorists who kill 200 people on the roads each year give other motorists a bad name?
    GM228 wrote: »
    That's true, but it doesn't mean that motorists are more reckless than any other group, at a guess I'd say the average speed of a cyclist is about 20 km/h which means they simply can't speed, rather than they don't speed (unless going down a really steep hill I suppose). A cyclist can't normally break any speed limits whilst most motorists can break all speed limits.
    I'm not sure why you seem to be giving motorists a free pass on speeding, because they can speed, but not giving cyclists a free pass on breaking red lights, because they can break red lights?
    GM228 wrote: »
    Again that doesn't mean motorists are any more reckless than any other group, it just shows that motoring is the biggest cause of death and suffering mostly due to the fact that they go faster and weight more.
    It shows that motorists are reckless enough to kill 200 people each year and maim thousands of others. Yes, that's because they go faster and weigh more than other road users, but wouldn't expect motorists to take that impact into account when they are driving?
    GM228 wrote: »
    The problem with people using the roads is:-

    Some people don't know the rules.
    Some people think they know the rules.
    Some people don't think the rules apply to them.
    Some people know the rules, but don't understand them.
    Some people know the rules, but ignore them.
    Some people know the rules, understand them and follow them.
    Personally, I think that "Some people don't think the rules apply to them." is the single biggest issue. Rules are for other people.
    GM228 wrote: »
    Not necessarily down to recklessness, but there's a very interesting study here from the US which shows accident rates per kilometer are 26 to 48 times higher for cyclists than for motorists. In the case of cyclist-motorist accidents the motorists are to blame more often than the cyclist.
    I try to avoid calling them 'accidents' as generally, they are largely preventable. Yes, the rates per kilometre may be higher, but motorists would generally do way more distance than cyclists - so I'm not sure this is a great comparative measure. Incidents per hour or per year for regular users might be a more useful comparator.


  • Options
    #113
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it's not just that cyclists cannot normally break speed limits; they cannot generally break them as speed limits do not apply to bikes.

    also, there's a debate to be had about whether accident rate per kilometre is a reasonable measure; perhaps it should be accident rate per hour of travel.

    "Ordinary" speed limits can apply to any vehicle.

    RTA 2004:-
    (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing a speed limit (“ordinary speed limit”) in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, for any class of mechanically propelled vehicle.

    (2) Regulations under this section may prescribe different speed limits for any class of vehicle using particular categories of public roads.

    (3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the exemption

    GM228


  • Options
    #114
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    RainyDay wrote: »
    I don't subscribe to the 'collective responsibility' thing, particularly when it seems to mainly focused on cyclists. Do the motorists who kill 200 people on the roads each year give other motorists a bad name?


    I'm not sure why you seem to be giving motorists a free pass on speeding, because they can speed, but not giving cyclists a free pass on breaking red lights, because they can break red lights?


    It shows that motorists are reckless enough to kill 200 people each year and maim thousands of others. Yes, that's because they go faster and weigh more than other road users, but wouldn't expect motorists to take that impact into account when they are driving?


    Personally, I think that "Some people don't think the rules apply to them." is the single biggest issue. Rules are for other people.


    I try to avoid calling them 'accidents' as generally, they are largely preventable. Yes, the rates per kilometre may be higher, but motorists would generally do way more distance than cyclists - so I'm not sure this is a great comparative measure. Incidents per hour or per year for regular users might be a more useful comparator.

    Just to clarify I have not given motorists a free pass with speeding, I'm not sure why you think that?

    I don't agree with speeding in the exact same way that I don't agree with a cyclist breaking a red light!

    The rules are there for everyone and there should be no exceptions.

    GM228


  • Options
    #115
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    as of 2013, the only speed limits for cyclists in ireland applied to the clontarf bike path:

    http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/new-us-style-speed-limit-specifically-for-cyclists-to-be-introduced-for-first-time-in-ireland/


  • Options
    #116
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    as of 2013, the only speed limits for cyclists in ireland applied to the clontarf bike path:

    http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/new-us-style-speed-limit-specifically-for-cyclists-to-be-introduced-for-first-time-in-ireland/

    The problem is how do you enforce it especially when a cyclist has to guess their speed?

    GM228


  • Options
    #117
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GM228 wrote: »
    "Ordinary" speed limits can apply to any vehicle.

    RTA 1994:-



    GM228
    the principal act for the 1994 RTA is the 1968 RTA.

    from the 1968 one:

    44A (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing, in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, a speed limit (which shall be known as a general speed limit) for all mechanically propelled vehicles.

    my emphasis.


  • Options
    #118
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the principal act for the 1994 RTA is the 1968 RTA.

    from the 1968 one:

    44A (1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing, in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, a speed limit (which shall be known as a general speed limit) for all mechanically propelled vehicles.

    my emphasis.

    Sorry that was a typo-should be the RTA 2004, not 1994! (Typo now fixed).

    Your quote from the RTA 1968 is no longer valid.

    RTA 1968 Section 44A was repealed by the 2004 Act as per my quote to allow all vehicles including cyclists be covered by ordinary speed limits.

    A huge problem with RTAs is sections regularly get repealed or amended but are kept as per the original inacted wording on the books, a lot of people don't realise that.

    GM228


  • Options
    #119
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    anyway, it does play into a debate about how we treat bikes; i would argue, that on a continuum from pedestrians, through bikes and motorbikes, to cars and then to HGVs, that bikes are much nearer to pedestrians than they are to cars. but the circumstances in which you're meant to cycle place cyclists in the same context as cars, and subject to most of the same rules.

    alternatively, if a cyclist runs a red light on a bike and is subject to a €40 FPN, why aren't we doing the same to pedestrians who are jaywalking or running on the path?
    i know more people who have been knocked over by other pedestrians than i know people knocked over by cyclists.


  • Options
    #120
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    anyway, it does play into a debate about how we treat bikes; i would argue, that on a continuum from pedestrians, through bikes and motorbikes, to cars and then to HGVs, that bikes are much nearer to pedestrians than they are to cars. but the circumstances in which you're meant to cycle place cyclists in the same context as cars, and subject to most of the same rules

    It's the same in most countries, the United Nations who to be fair are very for "rights", agreed a bike is a vehicle and a cyclist is a driver and as such must be treated the same as other road traffic under the Convention on Road Traffic 1968 (as ratified by 73 countries-Ireland didn't ratify it mind you, but it was already covered in the 1961 RTA).

    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201042/volume-1042-I-15705-English.pdf

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,440 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i like to think that whatever was the thinking 50 years ago might have moved on today.


Advertisement