HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

beauf wrote:

Sounds like my normal route to work.

beauf wrote:

Is there something remarkable about this that I'm not getting.

But you've ridden motorbikes so you're used to rear observations, life savers, anticipation and all round eyes up your backside!;-)
Unfortunately a lot of road users don't have that gift, and I'm including ALL road users in that (but especially car drivers!)

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

Rave.ef wrote: »

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

You mention common sense then make a huge generalization about an imaginary Lycra brigade. Who are they?
Most posters here agree on the fault in the video despite the fabric they wear while transporting themselves. Please bring your ignorance elsewhere

Rave.ef wrote: »

No matter how many mirrors or cameras you can't watch every single one of them at the same time.

Am I the only HGV driver ere

That's why I mentioned an extra banksman too. If you're unable to take your equipment out onto the public road without putting people's lives at risk, you need to take whatever steps are necessary to fix this.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why do cyclists bang on windows? its terribly annoying.

Annoying? Somebody puts your life at risk to get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds early, and you're worried about 'annoying'?

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

And attempted murder.

And most importantly, seven years bad luck.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well no. Manslaughter at most. The cyclist should have made a complaint to the Guards, not taken the law into his own hands by breaking the law.

It's a nice theory, but have you ever tried it? It is very difficult to get the Gardai to take safety of cyclists seriously. If you have helmetcam evidence, and there is a direct, immediate, specific breach of the law, you might get some action - but something anyway debateable like a close overtake is a waste of time.

Rave.ef wrote: »

It's nice to see that the majority of people here have common since. Must really annoy the lycra brigade

Lycra brigade? Do you mean the mammies wearing lycra to Lidl and for the school run in their SUVs?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's why I mentioned an extra banksman too. If you're unable to take your equipment out onto the public road without putting people's lives at risk, you need to take whatever steps are necessary to fix this.


Annoying? Somebody puts your life at risk to get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds early, and you're worried about 'annoying'?

And most importantly, seven years bad luck.


It's a nice theory, but have you ever tried it? It is very difficult to get the Gardai to take safety of cyclists seriously. If you have helmetcam evidence, and there is a direct, immediate, specific breach of the law, you might get some action - but something anyway debateable like a close overtake is a waste of time.


Lycra brigade? Do you mean the mammies wearing lycra to Lidl and for the school run in their SUVs?

You can't have it both ways, however difficult it might be to prove. If you expect motorists to respect the law then motorists are entitled to expect the same from cyclists. Unless you think it's ok for a cyclist to smash my mirror? In which case, you'll have no problem when a cyclist breaks the rules of the road and I get out and throw his bike over the wall.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't make any comment about the rights or wrongs of mirror-smashing, except the '7 years bad luck' point. But please don't equate a cyclist breaking the rules of the road with a motorist endangering the cyclists' life. You don't hear of many cases of cars or drivers killed by cyclists breaking the rules of the road. It is a false equivalence.

I was simply pointing out that enforcement of traffic law against motorist, and indeed cyclists is abysmal. We wouldn't have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits if they had any real expectation of being caught.

I'm saying all road users should respect all laws. Would you agree?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I will answer, but before I do, please clarify if you ever break a speed limit while driving?

Sometimes. When I notice, I immediately slow down.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sometimes. When I notice, I immediately slow down.

But you get my point, right? Isn't it strange how animated people get about those terrible cyclists breaking red lights, when most of those people speed, use their phone, break red lights (though in a slightly different way) when driving.

82% of motorists break speed limits, and speed is a key factor in many road deaths, unlike cyclists breaking red lights.

Which issue would you want the Gardai to focus on?

Weepsie wrote: »

Hold on. You can't claim that your law breaking doesn't endanger others, and then claim the others definitely does.

Anyway, this has turned into another mess of a thread and you and a few other posters are a part of the reason why. It was about the HGV and the cyclist. Go have a debate via pm ffs.

It's the degree of endangerment that's being discussed. I think you missed that point. Unless you equate breaking a red light at 200kmph with a motorist going 105kmph for a few seconds on a dual carriageway. But you're not that stupid.

Are you an undercover mod?

Weepsie wrote: »

And again, there you are trying to deflect.

Your words "when I notice, I slow down" you also gave those figures not me.

You never condemned the driver, condemning only the cyclists. Your posts give the impression that you only care about laws when cyclists, or rather people on bikes break them. Zero leeway, yet we should expect leeway for you. I've made my mind up through your various posts. As I said, I don't think your alone, and there are as bad on the other side of the argument too. You dress it up as I want the laws to be obeyed by all, but it's nothing more than faux concern to thinly veil your disregard and dislike of cyclists.

I've already said, I think this thread should be locked, and I'm not helping by dragging this on with you. You've previous form in this spurious nonsense posting too, so I'm out.

Wow! Previous form???? I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I've been on cycling forums maybe once or twice before.

Actually I don't hate cyclists and give them as much leeway as possible and drive with all due consideration for them. Personally, I think Irish roads aren't safe for cyclists but it's a free country. However, I'd like to see roads made safer for cyclists primarily for their own sake and because it would stop them cycling on the pavement.

I'm just trying to have a balanced discussion. My central point, which nobody seems to want to engage with, is that the cyclist should not have smashed the mirror and that all road users should obey all laws. I can't understand why that's a problem.

Anyway, if you're off, bye.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

However, I'd like to see roads made safer for cyclists primarily for their own sake and because it would stop them cycling on the pavement.

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

psinno wrote: »

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists society just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements flout the law whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

FYP. Drove between Dublin 15 and Dublin 8 today, and saw as much of this carry on from drivers as cyclists, so it's not a shortcoming that is unique to cyclists. Chief among the drivers being the clown who decided to make this a two-lane slip from St John's Road onto SCR, and cut off the queue of traffic on his left

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've never broken a red light. Getting up to 105km on a 100 km road for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat. So leave me out of it.

That's an interesting change in criteria and emphasis from "all road users should respect all laws" to "for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat". This really seems to expose your hypocrisy, that we hear outrage from you about cyclists on pavements and breaking red lights (which has killed zero people in the last 15 years in Ireland) while speeding (which is a significant factor in many road deaths each year) is not 'a major threat'. Do you really not see the issue here?
And just for curiosity, if you've never broken a red light, have you ever driven through an amber light where you could have stopped safely?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But it's a bit rich to hear about outrage from cyclists when I constantly see cyclists pedalling on footpaths. That seriously endangers children and old people who might step out onto the path.

Cyclists who break lights (a norm now) are endangering themselves and are in danger of causing an accident if a motorist has to swerve suddenly.

I'm curious as to why you treat cyclists as a collective group? Why do you get outraged about SOME cyclists not wanting to get killed on the road, while SOME cyclists break red lights? What is this collective responsibility all about? Should we take the same approach with motorists, and say all bets are off on all safety initiatives as long as we have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits?
And if you think cyclists breaking red lights is the norm, check out the results of the Luas Red Light camera which will tell exactly who normally breaks red lights;
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rave.ef wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea of a banks man, be nice to have someone else to talk to during the day other then yourself😂 but it's not feesiable for most company's.
On putting people's lives at risk is the wrong way to look at it. People have to look out for themselfs and each other regardless if your a cyclist hgv driver or a yummy mummy in a suv going to Lidl.
Always give room even if you think the driver can see you. Who knows might have a load of new bikes to deliver🀣

Sorry, but you don't get away with ignoring safety risks by saying 'it's not feasible'. The legislation is very clear on the responsibilities of employers and business operators. And do you expect people with sight loss, people with intellectual disabilities and primary school children to 'look out for themselves' around HGVs?

psinno wrote: »

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

Probably won't stop motorists driving on pavements either, probably won't stop motorists killing 1 pedestrian each week on our roads.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, they should be prosecuted. I saw a cyclist clatter into a woman on the pavement recently (abroad as it happens) and I thought the husband was going to kill the cyclist. If you think about it, the cyclist could have just pedalled off having possibly seriously hurt the woman (she seemed very shaken but was still standing). No number plate or way of identifying him. It's fine and innocent until a toddler steps out.

I saw a guy on a skateboard clatter into somebody on the pavement recently - should they have registration numbers? I saw a mum with a buggy scrape against a car recently - should they have registration numbers? Do we need registration numbers for every possible, potential risk, or should we focus on the actual, real problems on the road that are killing and maiming people every day?