Cyclists

[SoundMan]

If only cyclists behaved the Rules of The Road - they'd be so much safer on it. It would be in cyclists' own interests for EVERYBODY to obey the ROTR. Maybe if Cyclists (who have THE most vested interest) were to lead such a campaign the roads would be so much better for us all.

 

[Corcaigh32]

A cull of cyclists is a bit much. Just get them to be insured and cycle single file at all times unless the road is closed for a race. If cycle lanes available they must use those.

The problem isn't cyclists who cycle responsibly. The problem is cyclists who think they are in some kind of existential never-ending battle with motorists.

 

[Smaug]

If only cyclists behaved the Rules of The Road - they'd be so much safer on it. It would be in cyclists' own interests for EVERYBODY to obey the ROTR. Maybe if Cyclists (who have THE most vested interest) were to lead such a campaign the roads would be so much better for us all.

They seem to be dead set on breaking every conceivable rule of the road.

 

[c'mere timmy]

I believe that the vast majority of motorists overtake cyclists in a safe manner and that the so called "punishment pass" is a total and utter myth. Only a psychopath would risk passing that close to someone and seriously injuring one or killing them. Tjis is a thing made up by nervous cyclists.

Tell that to the lad with a double axle trailer that passed me on a double white line yesterday. Happens to me every time I go out on a bike, there's no myth.

Min distance passing law is un-enforceable.

You might want to tell several UK police forces they're wasting their money then. Personally, and from what I've read, enforcement is low down on the list of priorities on this. Once the legislation has been passed, it creates awareness of the need to provide a safe distance when passing cyclists. As with most road traffic legislation, the Gardaí would prefer if there were no prosecutions.

How many cyclists obey this when they are passing (er i mean rubbing up against) slow moving ques of traffic.

Conjecture, at best. You're somehow comparing a relative speed of 5 kph with 60 kph and more.

Orange or green high visability vests are a simple, cheap and easily enforceable measure that could help lives. These will help in daylight, nighttime, mist or fog etc.

No, they won't. Consistently proven across many studies on PPE. In fact, helmet use has been shown to decrease the space provided by motorist to cyclists

It is a fairly open and shut case if the cyclist is wearing one or not when they are getting their 50 or 100 euro fine.

Again, how can you legislate to make someone wear something that has no basis in law? Why not car drivers then, or even cars themselves? It's an idiotic, victim-blaming argument.

 

[c'mere timmy]

A cull of cyclists is a bit much. Just get them to be insured and cycle single file at all times unless the road is closed for a race. If cycle lanes available they must use those.

The problem isn't cyclists who cycle responsibly. The problem is cyclists who think they are in some kind of existential never-ending battle with motorists.

So you want 6-year-olds to be insured to cycle? Sounds legit.

Two abreast is in the rules of the road for a reason. It's far quicker to pass a group of cyclists (more than 70% quicker, if the RSA are to be believed) cycling two abreast than single file.

I'd have no problem using cycle lanes if they were actually fit for purpose. Or not full of parked cars and ambling pedestrians.

I think you'll find the problem is with motorists that think they own the road, actually.

 

[SoundMan]

So you want 6-year-olds to be insured to cycle? Sounds legit.

Two abreast is in the rules of the road for a reason. It's far quicker to pass a group of cyclists (more than 70% quicker, if the RSA are to be believed) cycling two abreast than single file.

I'd have no problem using cycle lanes if they were actually fit for purpose. Or not full of parked cars and ambling pedestrians.

I think you'll find the problem is with motorists that think they own the road, actually.

What cycle lanes around town are not "actually fit for purpose"? Reason I ask is they're not currently of use to motorists, so if they're not fit for cyclists would you be in favour of them reverting to part of motor lanes?

As for ambling pedestrians - given the amount of cyclists cycling on footpaths it's more than a bit rich for cyclists to be complaining about the odd pedestrian walking across the cycle lanes.

Cyclists should be told "Either use the cycle lanes or lose them back to motorised lanes for good".

Too many cyclists are looking for confrontation on the road with their "I'm perfectly entitled to cycle any way I feel like it, and irrespective of whether or not there's a cycle lane or not" attitude.

 

[Corcaigh32]

So you want 6-year-olds to be insured to cycle? Sounds legit.

Two abreast is in the rules of the road for a reason. It's far quicker to pass a group of cyclists (more than 70% quicker, if the RSA are to be believed) cycling two abreast than single file.

I'd have no problem using cycle lanes if they were actually fit for purpose. Or not full of parked cars and ambling pedestrians.

I think you'll find the problem is with motorists that think they own the road, actually.

So we are on opposite ends of the argument here.
The ideal is that everyone can use the road in safety are we agreed on that?

Cyclists need to accept their place on the road. And by that I mean not as second class road users but their physical place on the road. It is not in the middle it is by the left hand margin and while the rules of the road allows 2 abreast they should merge back into single file when traffic approaches. Why? Not because as a motorist it would suit me, but because it is safer for both the motorist AND the cyclist. It allows the motorist extra room to pass the cyclist safely.

 

[c'mere timmy]

What cycle lanes around town are not "actually fit for purpose"? Reason I ask is they're not currently of use to motorists, so if they're not fit for cyclists would you be in favour of them reverting to part of motor lanes?

As for ambling pedestrians - given the amount of cyclists cycling on footpaths it's more than a bit rich for cyclists to be complaining about the odd pedestrian walking across the cycle lanes.

Cyclists should be told "Either use the cycle lanes or lose them back to motorised lanes for good".

Too many cyclists are looking for confrontation on the road with their "I'm perfectly entitled to cycle any way I feel like it, and irrespective of whether or not there's a cycle lane or not" attitude.

Pretty much all of them, exceptions being the ones running from Infirmary Road to Parnell Place and the one on the Western Road. Full of potholes and road debris. Would you drive into a massive pothole or would you try to avoid it, as a matter of interest?

Too many motorists are looking for confrontation on the road with their "I'm perfectly entitled to drive any way I feel like it, and irrespective of whether or not there's a cyclist there or not" attitude.

 

[Shan]

So you want 6-year-olds to be insured to cycle? Sounds legit.

Two abreast is in the rules of the road for a reason. It's far quicker to pass a group of cyclists (more than 70% quicker, if the RSA are to be believed) cycling two abreast than single file. I'd have no problem using cycle lanes if they were actually fit for purpose. Or not full of parked cars and ambling pedestrians.

I think you'll find the problem is with motorists that think they own the road, actually.

Not when they are doing it on narrow roads preventing anybody at all passing.

 

[c'mere timmy]

So we are on opposite ends of the argument here.
The ideal is that everyone can use the road in safety are we agreed on that?

Cyclists need to accept their place on the road. And by that I mean not as second class road users but their physical place on the road. It is not in the middle it is by the left hand margin and while the rules of the road allows 2 abreast they should merge back into single file when traffic approaches. Why? Not because as a motorist it would suit me, but because it is safer for both the motorist AND the cyclist. It allows the motorist extra room to pass the cyclist safely.

Rules of the road allow for cyclists to 'take the lane'. Reasons could be an oncoming obstacle in the carriageway, intent to turn left, or is more likely the case in Ireland, the road is in total shite. Road positioning is a skill that needs to be taught better to all road users, TBH.

On your second point, it's been consistently proven that two abreast is quicker and safer for both cyclists and motorists. So your argument kinda falls apart after that. Don't have time to look for the RSA ad, but this is one from the UK: