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

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Options
1…1011131516…125

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,666 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    I have done so a number of times now. It's above your post.

    "Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.".

    That's in statutory instrument 182 / 1997.
    getting back to this, is there a different legal definition of 'overtake' when used in relation to a cyclist, versus when used in relation to overtaking a car? i suspect not, it'd mean the law was switching between meanings without switching terminology.

    where i am going with this - i cannot in any sense expect that the law in relation to overtaking other cars could mean that you pass them out without leaving your lane. this is what overtaking means, indicating, pulling out of your lane when oncoming traffic (or following traffic) is clear and visibly so, and passing.
    in that sense, whether a cyclist is 50cm from the kerb, or 120cm from the kerb, the point is moot, because to 'overtake' this road user, means an overtake, and not 'to skim them without leaving the lane'.

    otherwise to say i am preventing an overtake cycling my bike in the middle of the lane, whereas if i was in a car, i am not 'preventing' an overtake even though my vehicle is taking up even more of the lane, seems to be somewhat contradictory.


  • Options
    #363
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    It's gas the way the thread started off with people being outraged with cyclists on paths and has morphed into a thread moaning about cyclists legal right in using the roads. Bit disappointed "road tax", helmets or insurance didn't come up. I'll check back later.


  • Options
    #364
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,220 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    cbreeze wrote: »
    I was walking on a footpath and I heard a bicycle bell behind me. The female cyclist was actually expecting ME to get out of her way! Needless to say I held my ground and did not give way

    I was cycling on the Road and I heard a car beep its Horn behind me. The driver was actually expecting ME to get out of the way! needless to say i held my ground.


  • Options
    #365
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I was cycling on the Road and I heard a car beep its Horn behind me. The driver was actually expecting ME to get out of the way! needless to say i held my ground.
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Tough guy. Why not just move over?

    :)


  • Options
    #366
    flasher0030
    Registered Users Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭flasher0030


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I was cycling on the Road and I heard a car beep its Horn behind me. The driver was actually expecting ME to get out of the way! needless to say i held my ground.

    I thought that was a good comeback first. But thinking about it, cyclists and drivers are permitted to use the road. Whereas in the other scenario, the cyclist is not permitted to use the path. So can't compare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,928 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I thought that was a good comeback first. But thinking about it, cyclists and drivers are permitted to use the road. Whereas in the other scenario, the cyclist is not permitted to use the path. So can't compare.

    Right but they will use the path sometimes, and that's not going to change, lots of parents out during the nice weather with little kids on bikes with stabilisers, on the path. Who cares? Seriously. They're not harming anyone and it's good to have people out being active.
    I understand deliveroo cyclists flying around town on footpaths might be annoying and dangerous but this thread was started because of irrational hatred of cyclists.


  • Options
    #368
    ShyMets
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭ShyMets


    cbreeze wrote: »
    I was walking on a footpath and I heard a bicycle bell behind me. The female cyclist was actually expecting ME to get out of her way! Needless to say I held my ground and did not give way

    By and large cyclists on footpaths don't bother me as majority are cautious and considerate.

    But the above situation really annoys. Its only happened to me once and like you I held my ground.

    Pedestrians shouldn't have to give way to cyclists on a footpath


  • Options
    #369
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Right but they will use the path sometimes, and that's not going to change, lots of parents out during the nice weather with little kids on bikes with stabilisers, on the path. Who cares? Seriously. They're not harming anyone and it's good to have people out being active.

    Nobody, absolutely nobody,has any issue with a kid on a bike with their parents on a path. Why do people keep bringing it up??? It makes you look silly even mentioning it.


  • Options
    #370
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    ShyMets wrote: »
    By and large cyclists on footpaths don't bother me as majority are cautious and considerate.

    But the above situation really annoys. Its only happened to me once and like you I held my ground.

    Pedestrians shouldn't have to give way to cyclists on a footpath
    They don't bother me either, but no way do I move for them. If they are on the path then they will have to go around me and not think I should move.
    Most do though in fairness..


  • Options
    #371
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    I think pedestrians on footpaths are much more of an issue than cyclists, in my experience anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    donvito99 wrote: »
    I think pedestrians on footpaths are much more of an issue than cyclists, in my experience anyway.

    Dog walkers are the worst of the lot imo.


  • Options
    #373
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I was cycling on the Road and I heard a car beep its Horn behind me. The driver was actually expecting ME to get out of the way! needless to say i held my ground.

    This guy wasn't moving out of the way anyway!

    https://www.lep.co.uk/news/astonished-lancs-police-detain-cyclist-who-caused-crash-m58-2848239


  • Options
    #374
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,928 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    ewc78 wrote: »
    Nobody, absolutely nobody,has any issue with a kid on a bike with their parents on a path. Why do people keep bringing it up??? It makes you look silly even mentioning it.

    Because they're the only people I've seen cycling on footpaths, apart from those teenage bike gangs.


  • Options
    #375
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,220 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    flasher0030 wrote: »
    I thought that was a good comeback first. But thinking about it, cyclists and drivers are permitted to use the road. Whereas in the other scenario, the cyclist is not permitted to use the path. So can't compare.

    Yes but most motorists are of the opinion that cyclists are not permitted on the road and expect cyclists to move over.


  • Options
    #376
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the rules of the road which recommend that cyclists adopt a primary position in the centre of the road whenever necessary.

    ...a timely reminder to check the RoR.

    What RoR clearly says on page 195 of your link is that the normal position for cycling is on the left, and (for reasons unknown) they call this the 'secondary' position. You may go to the 'primary' position under certain circumstances only. So you'd be expected to back to the left hand side outside of those circumstances.

    It also says, and highlights in a big yellow box on page 192 that you should never listen to music, radio or phones whist cycling. Cutting off one of your primary senses - whilst navigating traffic, pedestrians, street furniture, roads in general is contributing to you-as-hazard and also exposing yourself to danger. Just look at the number of people on bicycles wearing earbuds on a daily basis.

    3 times since the weekend locally I have come across cyclists (rurally) not wearing high viz - one had it folded an on their carrier. Another not wearing a hi-viz whilst weaving in & out of a 60km/h carriageway outside a marked hard shoulder ...because they had their headphones on AND was either taking a selfie or live streaming as they - careened - along the road. And I met a cyclist who obviously thinks they're a pedestrian (otherwise explain why you're cycling against traffic on the wrong side of the road).

    The fine weather we've enjoyed has seen hi-viz in particular cast aside for some reason. I ride a 365kg motorcycle most of the time. It's big, heavy, makes a noise to announce it's presence, has mandatory headlight on always - and I wear hi-viz on that - even RoR advises to do so - but I do it to enhance my visibility to others. For Learners and N-plate holders it's legally mandatory by reason of fine and penalty points - so you could be doing that for 4 years. But people on 10kg bicycles see themselves as invincible it seems and don't seem to see the need for them.

    Great to see families and kids out cycling. But why aren't they wearing hi-viz & helmets as RoR says you should ?

    All of the above clearly shows a level of ignorance of not just RoR, but also basic traffic awareness and fundamental self-preservation. Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ?

    Pages 192-201 of your link should be required reading for everyone, including non-cyclists. This would also inform non-cyclists of what should be happening on the road, and an awful lot of it isn't.

    As for 'speeding', I think one thing you need to remember: the definition of 'speeding' by RSA and used in their statistics is not confined to those breaking the posted legal limit. It also includes anyone 'deemed' to have sped and were thus involved in an accident. For instance, the legal limit is 80km/h, but you were involved in an accident at, say 50km/h. The assessment by (someone official) is that 50km/h was too fast for the circumstances on the day (weather, traffic, visibility/whatever) and that accident gets recorded as 'speeding'. And subsequently used to form policy on what legal limits are posted in various locations. Which is a nonsense, frankly.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #377
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,220 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    ewc78 wrote: »
    This guy wasn't moving out of the way anyway!

    https://www.lep.co.uk/news/astonished-lancs-police-detain-cyclist-who-caused-crash-m58-2848239

    Cycling on a Motorway? Madness!


  • Options
    #378
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    I cycle to work daily, use the cycle lanes when possible and stay close to the kerb to allow traffic space to pass me.

    Well that's an awful thing to do, even when out on spins with kids I have to tell them not to do that, and explain why.


  • Options
    #379
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,666 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    galwaytt wrote: »
    The fine weather we've enjoyed has seen hi-viz in particular cast aside for some reason.
    Great to see families and kids out cycling. But why aren't they wearing hi-viz & helmets as RoR says you should ?

    https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1266129897078087681

    neither hi-vis nor helmets are mandatory. the government has repeatedly made clear that they're not going to be made mandatory, as doing so would have a *negative* impact on public health.

    anyway, that's two more ticks on the bingo card.


  • Options
    #380
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users Posts: 5,544 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Roger the cabin boy wrote: »
    Try cycling legally and correctly on the roads or where provided, cycle paths, and somebody is going to end up hurt.

    I'd rather non cycling people just be honest about cyclists and lobby for them to be banned rather the constant virtue signaling from them and pointing fingers at the cyclists behaviour before taking a long look at their own usage of roads and paths.

    How many of you car drivers feel that the roads are not enough and use the pavement to park?

    Those without sin and all that...


    More whataboutery. An eye for an aye makes us all blind.


  • Options
    #381
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,630 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    galwaytt wrote: »
    ...a timely reminder to check the RoR.

    What RoR clearly says on page 195 of your link is that the normal position for cycling is on the left, and (for reasons unknown) they call this the 'secondary' position. You may go to the 'primary' position under certain circumstances only. So you'd be expected to back to the left hand side outside of those circumstances.

    It also says, and highlights in a big yellow box on page 192 that you should never listen to music, radio or phones whist cycling. Cutting off one of your primary senses - whilst navigating traffic, pedestrians, street furniture, roads in general is contributing to you-as-hazard and also exposing yourself to danger. Just look at the number of people on bicycles wearing earbuds on a daily basis.

    3 times since the weekend locally I have come across cyclists (rurally) not wearing high viz - one had it folded an on their carrier. Another not wearing a hi-viz whilst weaving in & out of a 60km/h carriageway outside a marked hard shoulder ...because they had their headphones on AND was either taking a selfie or live streaming as they - careened - along the road. And I met a cyclist who obviously thinks they're a pedestrian (otherwise explain why you're cycling against traffic on the wrong side of the road).

    The fine weather we've enjoyed has seen hi-viz in particular cast aside for some reason. I ride a 365kg motorcycle most of the time. It's big, heavy, makes a noise to announce it's presence, has mandatory headlight on always - and I wear hi-viz on that - even RoR advises to do so - but I do it to enhance my visibility to others. For Learners and N-plate holders it's legally mandatory by reason of fine and penalty points - so you could be doing that for 4 years. But people on 10kg bicycles see themselves as invincible it seems and don't seem to see the need for them.

    Great to see families and kids out cycling. But why aren't they wearing hi-viz & helmets as RoR says you should ?

    All of the above clearly shows a level of ignorance of not just RoR, but also basic traffic awareness and fundamental self-preservation. Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ?

    Pages 192-201 of your link should be required reading for everyone, including non-cyclists. This would also inform non-cyclists of what should be happening on the road, and an awful lot of it isn't.

    Should we apply these restrictions to cars too - no stereos or radios blaring, no black/blue/burgandy cars - nice hi-vis stripes on the sides of all cars, hi-vis for drivers walking to/from cars - because otherwise - Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ?
    galwaytt wrote: »
    As for 'speeding', I think one thing you need to remember: the definition of 'speeding' by RSA and used in their statistics is not confined to those breaking the posted legal limit. It also includes anyone 'deemed' to have sped and were thus involved in an accident. For instance, the legal limit is 80km/h, but you were involved in an accident at, say 50km/h. The assessment by (someone official) is that 50km/h was too fast for the circumstances on the day (weather, traffic, visibility/whatever) and that accident gets recorded as 'speeding'. And subsequently used to form policy on what legal limits are posted in various locations. Which is a nonsense, frankly.
    What's your source for this please?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    ewc78 wrote: »
    Nobody, absolutely nobody,has any issue with a kid on a bike with their parents on a path. Why do people keep bringing it up??? It makes you look silly even mentioning it.

    Well, as long as said kid doesn't pull any mad wheelies. Evidently wheelies seem to trigger rage in some people, and jealously in others.

    Just look at these hooligans, the military even have to send helicopters and armed mutant pigs to chase them.

    16928993_1_92.jpg


  • Options
    #383
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Well, as long as said kid doesn't pull any mad wheelies. Evidently wheelies seem to trigger rage in some people, and jealously in others.

    Can you pull a wheelie with stabilisers on a bike?
    That would be cool.
    Though I'm sure any responsible parent wouldn't want their kid doing it down the middle of a busy road...


  • Options
    #384
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    galwaytt wrote: »
    ...a timely reminder to check the RoR.
    .........
    3 times since the weekend locally I have come across cyclists (rurally) not wearing high viz - one had it folded an on their carrier. Another not wearing a hi-viz whilst weaving in & out of a 60km/h carriageway outside a marked hard shoulder ...because they had their headphones on AND was either taking a selfie or live streaming as they - careened - along the road. And I met a cyclist who obviously thinks they're a pedestrian (otherwise explain why you're cycling against traffic on the wrong side of the road).

    The fine weather we've enjoyed has seen hi-viz in particular cast aside for some reason. I ride a 365kg motorcycle most of the time. It's big, heavy, makes a noise to announce it's presence, has mandatory headlight on always - and I wear hi-viz on that - even RoR advises to do so - but I do it to enhance my visibility to others. For Learners and N-plate holders it's legally mandatory by reason of fine and penalty points - so you could be doing that for 4 years. But people on 10kg bicycles see themselves as invincible it seems and don't seem to see the need for them.

    Great to see families and kids out cycling. But why aren't they wearing hi-viz & helmets as RoR says you should ?

    All of the above clearly shows a level of ignorance of not just RoR, but also basic traffic awareness and fundamental self-preservation. Putting yourself in harms way is contributing to the problem - why would anyone do this ?

    Pages 192-201 of your link should be required reading for everyone, including non-cyclists. This would also inform non-cyclists of what should be happening on the road, and an awful lot of it isn't.

    With all the absence of high vis you still managed to see all these people. I've always found this very strange.


  • Options
    #385
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,783 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Drivers don't accidentally speed, or pick up their phones, or drink drive. Cyclists don't accidentally decide to cycle on the path. Pedestrians don't accidentally decide to walk on the cycle section of the path. These are all deliberate actions, intentional actions.
    Re-read the dictionary. Negligent actions in the run-up to an accident don't make it any less accidental. Intent matters. Either the crash was caused on purpose or it wasn't. It's really very simple. There's no such thing as Schroedinger's collision, that was accidental and on-purpose at the same time. It's one or the other. There is no in-between.
    Because Irish motorists continue to kill two or three people each week on our roads.
    Which makes Irish motorists among the best in the world at not killing people. Demonstrably so. And by a VERY large margin.
    Now, here's another question for you to avoid - which of your family members would you choose to sacrifice to be killed for the greater good of the convenience of motorists not having to obey traffic laws - a parent perhaps, or the sibling you had a fight with, or the difficult child? Which one of your family will the the chosen one for the 'greater good'?
    Because the question is bull****. Public policy is not made on the basis of individuals, it is made on the basis of society as a whole. That's why every society tolerates road deaths. Usually far more than Ireland. Given that you are probably a left-wing collectivist yourself, you should understand that.

    FWIW I have lost relatives on the road, under varying circumstances. But I still take the roads on foot and by car as the case requires, as and when I want or need to. Because I know the risks and accept them. It could all be over for any of us tomorrow. But I am satisfied that the risk-reward ratio for walking or driving as needed is favourable. As do most, all over the world.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I don't focus solely on speed.
    Every time you hijack a thread, you start with your pointless platitudes about speed, and you keep hammering the point.

    Now, maybe you think that punishing all those awful, evil motorists who sail past cow pastures at 55kph in "core urban areas" is going to save any number of lives, but I for one am deeply skeptical. Look over the examples I provided of what Irish transport planners call "urban areas" and you'll see why I take your figures on "urban speeding" with a massive grain of salt.
    And enough with the Canada stories. It would be hard to pick a country LESS like Ireland in terms of geography, weather and culture. It's just of no relevance here, and if it was in any way relevant, you'd need to provide a much deeper analysis that you've shown here to prove anything.
    Both Ireland and Canada are Western societies with a strong English influence and many political, cultural, legal and ideological similarities. It IS relevant. Your kind always complain that motorists are not regulated enough, that more rules, more regulation and more restrictions are needed for motorists and their cars. Well guess what, places like Canada a lot of that, and MORE people die.
    Just like motorists then...
    You are aware of penalty points right? And their effect on drivers licenses and insurance?
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Because they're the only people I've seen cycling on footpaths, apart from those teenage bike gangs.
    I suspect you don't spend much time in Irish city centres then ... red light jumping and riding on the footpath is the rule, not the exception in our major city centres.

    And many of the lawbreakers who do that probably come home to whine on boards about lawbreaking motorists ...


  • Options
    #386
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    ewc78 wrote: »
    Can you pull a wheelie with stabilisers on a bike?
    That would be cool.
    Though I'm sure any responsible parent wouldn't want their kid doing it down the middle of a busy road...

    It would be quite easy to do so, so yes. I'm that cool.

    But why are you now talking about cool kids doing wheelies on roads when we were talking about them on footpaths? More shifting goalposts?


  • Options
    #387
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Hurrache wrote: »
    It would be quite easy to do so, so yes. I'm that cool.

    But why are you now talking about cool kids doing wheelies on roads when we were talking about them on footpaths? More shifting goalposts?

    Now you are just making stuff up.
    You mentioned kids doing wheelies, which obviously was a nod to my post earlier in the week where I said there is a group of teenagers near where I live that cycle down the middle of a busy road pulling wheelies.
    I never once mentioned them doing it on footpaths.
    If anyone is moving goalposts it's you.


  • Options
    #388
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    But imagine kids doing wheelies, on footpaths!

    It would be the third horseman of the apocalypse joining up with his buddies riding Covid-19 and racial tensions. We should be terrified as to what the 4th, and final, one would bring.


  • Options
    #389
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Hurrache wrote: »
    But imagine kids doing wheelies, on footpaths!

    It would be the third horseman of the apocalypse joining up with his buddies riding Covid-19 and racial tensions. We should be terrified as to what the 4th, and final, one would bring.

    But nobody mentioned kids doing wheelies on footpaths, well apart from you.
    You are a strange individual.
    You're making yourself look silly now, best thing you could do is admit you were wrong and move on.


  • Options
    #390
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    People complain about people on footpaths, people complain about kids doing wheelies on roads, ergo people would explode by people doing wheelies, on footpaths. Nothing wrong with that conclusion, and it's in keeping with the general nonsense-ness of the whole last few pages.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,220 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    galwaytt wrote: »

    3 times since the weekend locally I have come across cyclists (rurally) not wearing high viz - one had it folded an on their carrier. Another not wearing a hi-viz whilst weaving in & out of a 60km/h carriageway outside a marked hard shoulder ...because they had their headphones on AND was either taking a selfie or live streaming as they - careened - along the road. And I met a cyclist who obviously thinks they're a pedestrian (otherwise explain why you're cycling against traffic on the wrong side of the road).

    The fine weather we've enjoyed has seen hi-viz in particular cast aside for some reason. I ride a 365kg motorcycle most of the time. It's big, heavy, makes a noise to announce it's presence, has mandatory headlight on always - and I wear hi-viz on that - even RoR advises to do so - but I do it to enhance my visibility to others. For Learners and N-plate holders it's legally mandatory by reason of fine and penalty points - so you could be doing that for 4 years. But people on 10kg bicycles see themselves as invincible it seems and don't seem to see the need for them.

    Great to see families and kids out cycling. But why aren't they wearing hi-viz & helmets as RoR says you should ?
    .

    Glad to hear people are not falling for this nonsense! Hi-Viz? in Summer? on what have been some of the brightest/warmest days we've had so far.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement