# Should cyclists have to pass a test / be insured / be licensed ?



## MrEarl (18 Apr 2013)

Hello,

I was wondering what peoples opinions are, with regards to cyclists.   Obviously, there are good and bad, as with any other category of people in life but thats not quite what I'm getting at....

I'm sure we've all seen regular incidents with cyclists doing things wrong, such as: cycling on footpaths, traveling the wrong direction down a one way street, breaking a red at a set of traffic lights etc.  Obviously, this is not to say that all cyclists are bad ... but in order to help cut this out, save lives and accidents occuring, do you think that:

A) all cyclists should have to pass a test (theory and practical), before being permitted to cycle a bike in Ireland, or perhaps just in the cities ?

B) all cyclists should be required to have a licence, once they have passed their test, to confirm they have passsed their test, perhaps record points much the same as on a driving licence for road offenses etc ?

C) perhaps have a level of insurance, to cover accidents (to include personal injury / 3rd party) ?

... following from the above, the State could also consider introducing specific laws for cyclists to obey, with appropriate penalties for those found breaking those rules.

I must admit, as a road user who owns a petrol engine car I pay significant road tax and do feel all road users should contribute to the upkeep of the roads and related services - not to suggest my road tax be reduced radically by charging significant road tax for cyclists, but a small annual fee payable by all cyclists would be no harm and help the country in it's time of need, perhaps.

One could also consider the creation of employment, with professional cycle instructors and examiners required, to test those wishing to use bikes etc.

No doubt specific arrangements could be made for those holidaying in Ireland, renting the bicycles available in some of the cities etc - with a little sensible thinking.

I'm not looking to turn Ireland into a "police state", but I do genuinely think the above ideas would help with (i) ensuring a certain safe standard for both cyclists and others using the same roads, (ii) helping to establish firm rules to be obeyed and later enforced by the Gardai or other appropriate parties (perhaps expand the role of a yellow cap or alternative) etc.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts,

Regards

Mr. Earl.


----------



## bullbars (18 Apr 2013)

Should parents be subject to a test to ensure they can safely push a pram? What if I want to use a wheel barrow?
Where would unicyclists fit in with the rules? Should we force them to carry a spare wheel just in case they buckle one also? 

From the ages of 3-8 I operated a peddle tractor. Would this require a bicycle license or an tractor license? I did haul away a few loads of cut grass to be dumped, would I therefore have to also tax it as a commercial vehicle?


----------



## Firefly (18 Apr 2013)

bullbars said:


> Should parents be subject to a test to ensure they can safely push a pram? What if I want to use a wheel barrow?
> Where would unicyclists fit in with the rules? Should we force them to carry a spare wheel just in case they buckle one also?
> 
> From the ages of 3-8 I operated a peddle tractor. Would this require a bicycle license or an tractor license? I did haul away a few loads of cut grass to be dumped, would I therefore have to also tax it as a commercial vehicle?



I hope the Revenue aren't reading this 

My wheelbarrow would never pass the NCT either..


----------



## TarfHead (18 Apr 2013)

When I drive, I think like a driver, when I cycle, I think like a cyclist.

Last year I spent some time using a bike in Dublin city centre. Sometimes my own, other times a Dublin Bike.

At junctions where the light is red, I have no issue with cyclists proceeding forward provided the junction is clear and they're not a hazard to oncoming traffic. IMHO it is equivalent to pedestrians jaywalking.

As a cyclist and as a driver, I have issue with the other type, cyclists blithely ignoring oncoming traffic and moving past red lights at speed. I experience this regularly, specifically in Booterstown where cyclists heading in to the city have to leave Blackrock park and cross over to the other side of the Rock Road.

Motorists have to pass a test, have to be insured and have to be licenced, yet bad driver behaviour is endemic.  Driving to work this morning, I saw 3 cars ignore a No Right Turn sign to avoid having to queue at a traffic light.  At various stages in the journey, I saw road markings being ignored, motorists in a bus lane, motorists overtaking over a solid white line.


----------



## bullbars (18 Apr 2013)

Firefly said:


> I hope the Revenue aren't reading this
> 
> My wheelbarrow would never pass the NCT either..



In my defence, my pocket money for hauling a few loads of cut grass is surely below the taxation threshold!

Wheel barrow could be classed as an industrial vehicle - would require an annual DOE test - should get cheaper tax though


----------



## The_Banker (18 Apr 2013)

My young fella is 2.5 years old and he cycles a bicycle on the road outside our house. 

His pocket money wouldnt cover the payment of tax.

We should be encouraging more people to cycle. Not penalise them.


----------



## Leo (18 Apr 2013)

MrEarl said:


> I must admit, as a road user who owns a petrol engine car I pay significant road tax and do feel all road users should contribute to the upkeep of the roads and related services


 
You don't, you pay motor tax. This is just another form of central government revenue, it is not a fund used to finance road maintenance. If you extend the idea that road tax is for roads, and so gives those who pay is some entitlement, then we should tax pedestrians to walk along or cross roads, use footpaths, etc. 



MrEarl said:


> but a small annual fee payable by all cyclists would be no harm and help the country in it's time of need, perhaps.


 
Awful idea, we have enough problems with obesity without putting more red tape or expense barriers in place. 

I'm both a driver and a cyclist, so would like to think I have some balance on this. I drive far more than I cycle, and I prefer my cycling of the off-road variety, but my opions might be informed by how vulnerable cyclists are on the road.

There's another thread at the moment on how to overtake on a multi-lane road, and what is/isn't ok. I think it's clear from this, and other threads, that the level of abuse of all road users here is high. Red lights mean only one or two more cars can race through, no right turns only apply if there's a Garda car in sight, a significant portion of road users don't seem to know how to use roundabouts, the list just goes on and on. 




MrEarl said:


> I'm not looking to turn Ireland into a "police state", but I do genuinely think the above ideas would help with (i) ensuring a certain safe standard for both cyclists and others using the same roads, (ii) helping to establish firm rules to be obeyed and later enforced by the Gardai


 
I think this one comes down to policing, we already have all the laws/rules, just not the enforcement.

With regard to safety, cyclists are the most vulnerable road user group. Cyclists doing stupid things generally only put themselves at risk. The last Garda report shows all recorded cyclist deaths were the fault of the driver, the majority of these trucks turning left while unaware of cyclists on their inside. The biggest single cause of accident involved cars turning right driving into oncoming cyclists, closely followed by side swipes caused by overtaking too closely, and next stationary car doors opening in front of oncoming cyclists. In 7% of incidents, the cyclist was at fault, either hitting a pedestrian or cycling into oncoming traffic.

So, clearly, if safety is the concern here, it's driving standards/enforcement that needs to addressed.


I'm with TarfHead on cyclists being allowed to proceed through red lights, provided there is no other traffic approaching, including pedestrians. When a number of bikes congregate at a red light, especially at the junctions where there is the bicycle area in front of the stop line for other traffic, it can cause a hazzard as cars try to squeeze past the cyclists in the race to the next red light.


----------



## BillK (18 Apr 2013)

Here in England many cities and towns have cycle paths which share the pedestrian footpath. As a result of this cyclists in the main assume the right to cycle on any pedestrian footpaths. I have seen, on a fair number of occasions, cyclists riding their bikes on footpaths past police officers who just ignore the fact that these people are breaking the law.


----------



## Knuttell (18 Apr 2013)

TarfHead said:


> At junctions where the light is red, I have no issue with cyclists proceeding forward provided the junction is clear and they're not a hazard to oncoming traffic. IMHO it is equivalent to pedestrians jaywalking.



What an idiotic thing to say.

The rules of the road are black and white,they are not open to your interpretation or whether or not you have an issue with it.

The light is red this means stop,it does not mean you mentally absolve yourself and proceed blithely though the junction.

A few weeks back I nearly ran over some halfwit of a cyclist who felt he too had "jaywalking privileges"a 30 second conversation with him post a near miss has,I am pretty certain, cured him of this illusion for life.


----------



## Firefly (19 Apr 2013)

bullbars said:


> should get cheaper tax though



That would depend on the emissions though (of the person pushing it)


----------



## TarfHead (19 Apr 2013)

Knuttell said:


> What an idiotic thing to say.


 
That's a strong reaction. I hope you drive with a lower level of testosterone .



Knuttell said:


> The rules of the road are black and white,they are not open to your interpretation or whether or not you have an issue with it.


 
And are regularly disregarded by all road users, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, so that point is not a differentiating factor in this discussion



Knuttell said:


> The light is red this means stop,it does not mean you mentally absolve yourself and proceed blithely though the junction.


 
That doesn't match what I referred to, so not relevant to the opinion I posted.



Knuttell said:


> A few weeks back I nearly ran over some halfwit of a cyclist who felt he too had "jaywalking privileges"a 30 second conversation with him post a near miss has,I am pretty certain, cured him of this illusion for life.


 
As above, if a cyclist passed through a red light without consideration to oncoming traffic, then that person is cuplable to behaving in an irresponsible manner. So too would a pedestrian who chose to cross the road in the face of oncoming traffic.

If a cyclist rolls through a red light across a junction that is clear and there is no oncoming traffic, what's the harm ?  Apart from the seething resentment of motorists who don't have the same liberty .


----------



## Purple (19 Apr 2013)

Excellent post Leo, I agree 100%.


----------



## wavejumper (19 Apr 2013)

Knuttell said:


> What an idiotic thing to say.
> 
> The rules of the road are black and white,they are not open to your interpretation or whether or not you have an issue with it.
> 
> ...



Cool story.


----------



## michaelm (19 Apr 2013)

MrEarl said:


> I was wondering what peoples opinions are, with regards to cyclists.


No to A, B & C.  Idiot and unlucky cyclists probably have a short half-life, let the rest of them get on with it.  It would be more useful if motorists did a cycling course . . however methinks that cyclists who have never driven have little idea just how invisible they can be in the dark.


----------



## Leo (19 Apr 2013)

Knuttell said:


> The rules of the road are black and white,they are not open to your interpretation or whether or not you have an issue with it.


 
I believe what TarFHead was suggesting, and certainly what I was condoning what a change in traffic law to allow this, much like how the right turn on red in the US and has a positive affect on traffic flow. Done right, cyclists and motorists benefit.




Knuttell said:


> A few weeks back I nearly ran over some halfwit of a cyclist who felt he too had "jaywalking privileges"


 
If you had hit them, they would have been at fault, and there's plenty of case law showing cyclists being convicted in such circumstances. Remember the guy convicted last year after cycling in front of a car on Dame St.?


----------



## MrEarl (19 Apr 2013)

Hello,

With some regret, I must post comment on my very strong feeling, that some people here are cyclists and are voicing strong objections to my suggestions simply because they may think all cyclists are safe & reliable road users.  

*Simply put, you are wrong cyclists - there are significant numbers of people using bikes on the streets (and footpaths !) of Dublin, who are dangerous ... something needs to be done, if only to bring the rest of the cyclists of Ireland, up to the incredibly high standards which the AAM cyclists would like us all to believe, they maintain ....*.

Stupidity on a bike, can result in a death - most likely, that of the person cycling the bike but quite possibly, with another party like a car driver feeling the responsibility, right or wrong, for the rest of their lives !

Regards

Mr. Earl.


----------



## gianni (20 Apr 2013)

MrEarl said:


> *Simply put, you are wrong cyclists - there are significant numbers of people using bikes on the streets (and footpaths !) of Dublin, who are dangerous ... something needs to be done, if only to bring the rest of the cyclists of Ireland, up to the incredibly high standards which the AAM cyclists would like us all to believe, they maintain ....*.



What do you mean by significant ?

Are you talking about all the streets of Dublin or just the city centre ?

Are you talking about all times of day ?

Or is your statement of fact above just your opinion based on your personal experiences in Dublin city centre ?


----------



## Knuttell (20 Apr 2013)

gianni said:


> What do you mean by significant ?
> 
> Are you talking about all the streets of Dublin or just the city centre ?
> 
> ...



I am unaware of any quango charged with capturing and measuring this metric,though its likely there are several.

I would guess the OP is speaking from personal experience because I have observed similar and would agree with him.


----------



## Leo (22 Apr 2013)

MrEarl said:


> Stupidity on a bike, can result in a death - most likely, that of the person cycling the bike but quite possibly, with another party like a car driver feeling the responsibility, right or wrong, for the rest of their lives !


 
You seem to be missing the point above that 100% of the recorded cyclist deaths were found to be the fault of the motorist. Your suggestions to address this are completely ignoring the cause.


I really don't think people are missing the point, multiple people have said cyclists do stupid things putting themselves, and at times others in danger. I'm voicing strong objections to your ideas because they don't target the core issue. Your failure to address this means your arguments/ideas come across like you just have an issue with cyclists.


----------



## Complainer (22 Apr 2013)

Given that the requirement for drivers to be tested, licensed and insured doesn't stop drivers speeding, phoning, texting, drifting without indicating, zooming past cyclists leaving nanometres of passing space, I'd suggest that it would foolish to expect that a system for testing, licensing and insuring would do much for cycling behaviour.

How about we start enforcing existing laws, which apply to cyclists, drivers and pedestrians before we go making bad new laws?


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2013)

Complainer said:


> Given that the requirement for drivers to be tested, licensed and insured doesn't stop drivers speeding, phoning, texting, drifting without indicating, zooming past cyclists leaving nanometres of passing space, I'd suggest that it would foolish to expect that a system for testing, licensing and insuring would do much for cycling behaviour.
> 
> How about we start enforcing existing laws, which apply to cyclists, drivers and pedestrians before we go making bad new laws?



Excellent post.


----------



## bazermc (23 Apr 2013)

Complainer said:


> Given that the requirement for drivers to be tested, licensed and insured doesn't stop drivers speeding, phoning, texting, drifting without indicating, zooming past cyclists leaving nanometres of passing space, I'd suggest that it would foolish to expect that a system for testing, licensing and insuring would do much for cycling behaviour.
> 
> How about we start enforcing existing laws, which apply to cyclists, drivers and pedestrians before we go making bad new laws?


 
Excellent post


These so called qualified drivers need to lead by example and show what good road behaviour is really like and obey lights, indicate properly, not talk and text while driving, not apply make up or eat while driving, keeps kids in the back seats with seat belts on, not speed, park on double yellow lines blocking thraod, drift between lanes with no  consideration for the car already in the lane, performs u-turns at no notice.  Jeeze the list goes on and on.


----------



## delgirl (23 Apr 2013)

They have a great system in Switzerland where the obligatory licence 'Vignette' costs between CHF5 and CHF7 depending on where you buy it.

It covers up to CHF2m damages done to others (not to yourself). If you scratch a car or hurt a pedestrian without having a "Velovignette" you'll have to cough up for all the damages.


According to the Swiss Bicycle Advocacy Association, every bicycle must have by law: 

The mentioned license
Two functional brakes
White front reflector patch, red back reflector (the latter is often part of the backlight)
Reflectors on the pedals
Bicycle bell (no horns, sirens etc.)
Bike lock
At night: headlamp and backlight
If you're stopped by the police, they will fine you if you don't have a Vignette on display and if your bicycle doesn't conform to the above standards.


----------



## TarfHead (23 Apr 2013)

On my drive to work this morning ..

- motorists turning right against a No Right Turn sign to avoid having to queue at lights to get onto Clontarf Road.
- Being delayed at green light onto Clontarf Road because the yellow box was blocked with motorists.
- Yellow box blocked with motorists because cars ahead were holding back to allow motorists get onto Clontarf Road from a lane which they accessed by ignoring a No Right Turn sign (as above)
- a line of cars, longer than 100 metres, in bus lane to turn left. Solid white line ignored.
- motorist in Electronic Tag lane at Eastlink blocking other motorists because first motorist either had no tag, or tag wasn't read.

If only there were laws against this type of motorist behaviour . Most of this activity occurs daily with a couple of hundred metres of Clontarf Garda station.

Have to say I didn't notice any cyclists making kamikaze runs through red lights or scattering pedestrians like skittles on footpath.


----------



## W200 (27 Apr 2013)

Hello,

I was wondering what peoples opinions are, with regards to [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT].    Obviously, there are good and bad, as with any other category of people  in life but thats not quite what I'm getting at....

I'm sure we've all seen regular incidents with [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] doing things  wrong, such as: running on footpaths, traveling the wrong direction down  a one way street, breaking a red at a set of traffic lights etc.   Obviously, this is not to say that all [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] are bad ... but in order  to help cut this out, save lives and accidents occuring, do you think  that:

A) all [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] should have to pass a test (theory and practical),  before being permitted to walk in Ireland, or perhaps just in  the cities ?

B) all [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] should be required to have a licence, once they have  passed their test, to confirm they have passsed their test, perhaps  record points much the same as on a driving licence for road offenses  etc ?

C) perhaps have a level of insurance, to cover accidents (to include personal injury / 3rd party) ?

... following from the above, the State could also consider introducing  specific laws for [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] to obey, with appropriate penalties for those  found breaking those rules.

I must admit, as a road user who owns a petrol engine car I pay  significant road tax and do feel all road users should contribute to the  upkeep of the roads and related services - not to suggest my road tax  be reduced radically by charging significant road tax for [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT], but a  small annual fee payable by all [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] would be no harm and help the  country in it's time of need, perhaps.

One could also consider the creation of employment, with professional walking instructors and examiners required, to test those wishing to use SHOES etc.

No doubt specific arrangements could be made for those holidaying in  Ireland, renting the SHOES / RUNNERS available in some of the cities etc - with  a little sensible thinking.

I'm not looking to turn Ireland into a "police state", but I do  genuinely think the above ideas would help with (i) ensuring a certain  safe standard for both [FONT=&quot]WALKERS[/FONT] and others using the same roads, (ii)  helping to establish firm rules to be obeyed and later enforced by the  Gardai or other appropriate parties (perhaps expand the role of a yellow  cap or alternative) etc.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts,

Regards
w200


----------



## werner (29 Apr 2013)

delgirl said:


> They have a great system in Switzerland where the obligatory licence 'Vignette' costs between CHF5 and CHF7 depending on where you buy it.
> 
> It covers up to CHF2m damages done to others (not to yourself). If you scratch a car or hurt a pedestrian without having a "Velovignette" you'll have to cough up for all the damages.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely spot on, is it a requirement for cyclists to also wear safety helmets?

 If anyone here thinks they should not wear a safety helmet whilst cycling well, 99% of the cyclists I witness everyday as I walk to work behave like crazed lunatics, ignoring red lights, zig-zagging  through pedestrians against the red light at traffic lights and behaving with their usual  anti-social thuggish behaviour, well I would suggest that they face forward and run very fast against the nearest wall using their head as a brake. If they recover they could then try falling against the kerb using their head as a buttress and then see if a helmet may have helped protect them.

The last fool I gave first aid too was cycling the wrong way against oncoming traffic along College Green and she had made a right old mess of her scalp line.


----------



## wavejumper (1 May 2013)

werner said:


> Absolutely spot on, is it a requirement for cyclists to also wear safety helmets?



*No*

...behaving with their usual  anti-social thuggish behaviour...

*You are an idiot.*

The last fool I gave first aid too...
*
With that attitude I am sure you are a very qualified first aid officer, I hope she sued you.*


----------



## Complainer (4 May 2013)

It seems that across the water, killing a couple of cyclists is considered to be a minor inconvenience,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918


----------



## Marion (18 Jul 2013)

On the spot fines soon for breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths:


http://www.thejournal.ie/cyclists-fines-red-lights-laws-ireland-998072-Jul2013/

Marion


----------



## BillK (18 Jul 2013)

I actually saw a cyclist riding his bike on the road yesterday in the small town in the English Midlands where I live. I was thinking of informing the police, but then remembered that we all rode on the road and not the footpath when I was a cyclist.


----------



## MrEarl (19 Jul 2013)

Delighted with this 



Here's hoping it's the first step towards forcing those who refuse to obey the rules of the road, to either adjust their bad behavior ... or pay a fine each time they get caught


----------



## mugga (19 Jul 2013)

I think it would be a good idea for cyclists to have to have insurance as previously mentioned.
What do people think of cyclists who cycle two abreast on narrow country roads??  Especially at this time of year this is particularly annoying--no one can pass them out and they cause long line ups of traffic. They don't seem to care about other road users and try and keep in


----------



## bazermc (19 Jul 2013)

MrEarl said:


> Delighted with this
> 
> 
> 
> Here's hoping it's the first step towards forcing those who refuse to obey the rules of the road, to either adjust their bad behavior ... or pay a fine each time they get caught


 
I would not hold your breath MrEarl.  There are plenty of rules of the road in place for car drivers and sure they are never enforced nor do the car drivers pay attention to them.  

I personally would consider texting while driving a heck of a lot more dangerous than cycling on the footpath.  So, that should probably be given priority, from a human life perspective.


----------



## TarfHead (19 Jul 2013)

mugga said:


> I think it would be a good idea for cyclists to have to have insurance as previously mentioned.


 
What problem is that intended to address ? I wonder would rogue cyclists behave with an even greater level of inpunity if they were backed up by an insurance policy ?



mugga said:


> What do people think of cyclists who cycle two abreast on narrow country roads?? Especially at this time of year this is particularly annoying


 
I rarely drive on narrow country roads, but is that really a problem that has to be addressed ? Is it any worse of a problem than tractors ? There was a columnist from Image magazine on RTE yesterday talking about this behaviour, though she referred to cyclists cycling three abreast. She then made all her arguments redundant with a crass comment about organ donation .


----------



## Boyd (19 Jul 2013)

bazermc said:


> I personally would consider texting while driving a heck of a lot more dangerous than cycling on the footpath.  So, that should probably be given priority, from a human life perspective.



Saw a guy rolling a cigarette while driving this morning!

How many drivers (myself included) speed up when light is orange and clearly go through on a red. Difference = cyclists don't kill people, cars do.


----------



## Marion (19 Jul 2013)

Cyclists can and do seriously injure people. A number of years ago, I was walking on a footpath with a friend when a cyclist lost control at speed on loose stones at the start of the footpath and crashed into her. She was seriously injured and was in and out of hospital for a long time afterwards. She was lucky to make a full recovery. 

Marion


----------



## TarfHead (19 Jul 2013)

Marion said:


> Cyclists can and do seriously injure people. A number of years ago, I was walking on a footpath with a friend when a cyclist lost control at speed on loose stones at the start of the footpath and crashed into her. She was seriously injured and was in and out of hospital for a long time afterwards. She was lucky to make a full recovery.
> 
> Marion


 
That's one incident. Bad cases made for bad law. Fortunately your friend made a full recovery. Cyclists in Dublin City centre have been less fortunate after incidents with cars and lorries.


----------



## Boyd (19 Jul 2013)

Marion said:


> Cyclists can and do seriously injure people. A number of years ago, I was walking on a footpath with a friend when a cyclist lost control at speed on loose stones at the start of the footpath and crashed into her. She was seriously injured and was in and out of hospital for a long time afterwards. She was lucky to make a full recovery.
> 
> Marion



Fair enough, but this is surely the exception, whereas hospital would be the norm for any accident involving car/bus/lorry.


----------



## Leo (23 Jul 2013)

mugga said:


> What do people think of cyclists who cycle two abreast on narrow country roads??



Yes, it's annoying, but it's perfectly legal, and actually a lot safer for cyclists to cycle two abreast as it discourages drivers from squeezing past cyclists while there's on-coming traffic. I usually go single-file myself (I drive a lot more than I cycle), but as a result, I've been clipped more than a few times by wing mirrors as cars squeeze past where there is no room.


----------



## RainyDay (30 Jul 2013)

mugga said:


> What do people think of cyclists who cycle two abreast on narrow country roads??  Especially at this time of year this is particularly annoying--no one can pass them out and they cause long line ups of traffic. They don't seem to care about other road users and try and keep in



If they cycle one abreast, they are roughly the same size and shape, just a vertical rectangle instead of a horizontal one. Is it really that much easier to safely pass two cyclists in line, leaving the RSA-recommended 1.5m clearance than two cyclists abreast.

Try holding back for the 10 seconds or so that it will take you to find a safe place to pass, then overtake safely until you are held up by the car ahead of you. It won't add any time to your journey. It's cars that hold up cars, not bikes.


----------



## Vanilla (30 Jul 2013)

Surely cyclists cycling two or three abreast will hold up a car significantly longer than another car since they travel far slower? 

I regularly come across cyclists in twos or threes or bigger cycling groups on my way to work and I do believe it takes longer to pass them out because it takes longer to get to the next spot where I can pass out safely. 

I understand why they do it though and it doesnt bother me much anyway as I am never in that much of a rush. I could see why a bus driver or truck driver might find it frustrating though.

If roads and traffic lights etc were also designed for the use of cyclists along with motor cars things would be much better but as it is they are designed for motor cars and the cyclists are put at risk.


----------



## RainyDay (31 Jul 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Surely cyclists cycling two or three abreast will hold up a car significantly longer than another car since they travel far slower?


The main reason why drivers get so irritated sitting behind cyclists is because it happens so rarely. Drivers spend large amounts of their time on the road sitting behind other drivers, whether moving in traffic or in traffic lights. They are quite happy to wait behind other cars.

But for some strange reason, when faced with a 10 or 20 second delay behind a cyclist or two, many drivers seem to get outraged, and feel a need to rush past a cyclist so they can wait behind a car instead. In urban traffic, the cyclist may well have a faster average speed than the driver, but many drivers feel the need to rush past the cyclist to get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds earlier than would otherwise be the case.


----------



## liaconn (26 Aug 2013)

We drove from Clonmel to Mount Mellory at the weekend. What should have been a relaxed pleasant drive turned into a stress fest because of some cycling event which meant that every few feet there were groups of cyclists, all cycling 2, 3, or 4 abreast and 4-5 lines deep, and not bothering to move into single file to allow cars to pass. This went on for miles, caused huge delays and was a complete display of selfishness by the cyclists concerned. On only about 2 or 3 occasions did groups move aside a bit to make space for cars to get past. Some of the cyclists were unbelievable, veering and swerving around and paying no attention to cars behind them.
No doubt some of these cyclists are the ones who bang angrily on cars if they dare to infringe in any way on the cyclist's rights, but will quite happily sail through red lights, fly the wrong way up one way streets and mount the pavement anytime it suits them.

Not saying there aren't plenty of ignorant car drivers around, but many cyclists should also be taken off the roads.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

If you come across an event, would it not make more sense to pull over, get a map out and find a different route to where you are going. Rather then complaining about delays if only out for a drive. I don't get all the impatience.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Surely cyclists cycling two or three abreast will hold up a car significantly longer than another car since they travel far slower? ..



What is a significant hold up on a 30 min journey in a car. 30sec, a minute, 5 mins? Do people usually travel with no allowance for delays.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

Vanilla said:


> ...I understand why they do it though and it doesnt bother me much anyway as I am never in that much of a rush. I could see why a bus driver or truck driver might find it frustrating though....



Consider that bus gate removed the cars and trucks, and kept the cyclists and massively reduced bus journey time.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bus-gate-halves-journey-times-in-capital-26576538.html

What causes congestion is cars. Bicycles are part of the solution. At least in the city centers.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

MrEarl said:


> ...With some regret, I must post comment on my very strong feeling, that some people here are cyclists and are voicing strong objections to my suggestions simply because they may think all cyclists are safe & reliable road users....l.



Actually its because you've done no research and not backed any of it up with any facts or statistics. 

Considering a good many cyclists are drivers, with one or more vehicles. So they pay tax, have a license, done a test. There are rules, laws and the Garda can enforce them. Same with drivers. When you look at a cyclist you have no idea if they've paid more tax than you for the up keep of the roads.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

delgirl said:


> They have a great system in Switzerland where the obligatory licence 'Vignette' costs between CHF5 and CHF7 depending on where you buy it.
> 
> It covers up to CHF2m damages done to others (not to yourself). If you scratch a car or hurt a pedestrian without having a "Velovignette" you'll have to cough up for all the damages.
> 
> ...



Googling suggests the Swiss dropped the obligatory bike insurance/Vignette in 2012. Have you checked the rest of that is up to date?

In Ireland by law you should have

Front light (during lighting up hours)
Rear Light (during lighting up hours)
Rear reflector
Functional brakes
Bell

The cost of registering/insurance schemes for bikes seems to cost more than the revenue gained from it.


----------



## liaconn (27 Aug 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> If you come across an event, would it not make more sense to pull over, get a map out and find a different route to where you are going. Rather then complaining about delays if only out for a drive. I don't get all the impatience.


 

Would it not make more sense for cyclists to show consideration to other road users, rather than expecting all car drivers to put up with lengthy delays or find alternative - often longer - routes?

And it's not always 'impatience'. Sometimes people have to be somewhere by a specific time, have planned their journey accordingly and then find they are going to be very late, or even possibly miss something, because of cyclists behaving as if their right to cycle 3 or 4 abreast is more important than actually sharing the road with car users.


----------



## AlbacoreA (27 Aug 2013)

Legally they can't cycle 3 or 4 wide. 



> Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.
> ...
> Pedal Cyclists
> 47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.



Someone cycling and obstruct other traffic for no good reason is no different than a car that won't pull out of the overtaking lane on the motorway. 

But that wasn't my point. If I come up behind a funeral, or a tractor convoy, or a running/cycle race, its just common sense to find a different route. 

I can't see how anything like that would delay you more than 5~15 mins, or indeed how that delay would be so critical on a regular basis. If it was you'd leave earlier all the time. I expect though being caught like that isn't that regular thing.

If I find one guy hogging the overtaking lane on the M50 I don't lump all drivers as behaving the same. Ditto cyclists.


----------



## Leo (27 Aug 2013)

I think this, and most of the other threads here relating to road use (cyclist behaviour, no one knowing how to use roundabouts, motorway lane usage, etc.) can be summarised simply as there are a lot of inconsiderate road users out there. Padestrians, cyclists, car/taxi/van/bus/truck drivers, all have their percentage who don't give due consideration to other road users or the rules of the road. 

I'd imagine the percentage of each who always obey every law, and consistently show consideration to other road users are roughly similar across all categories, and is sadly, a very low number (and no, I'm not saying I'm any better than anyone here).

We already have all the laws and very little enforcement, so I don't think making more is the solution.


----------



## W200 (27 Aug 2013)

. 

*Simply put, you are wrong drivers - there are significant numbers of people using cars on the streets (and footpaths !) of Dublin, who are dangerous ... something needs to be done, if only to bring the rest of the drivers of Ireland, up to the incredibly high standards which the AAM drivers would like us all to believe, they maintain ....*.

Hmm !


----------



## RainyDay (27 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> Would it not make more sense for cyclists to show consideration to other road users, rather than expecting all car drivers to put up with lengthy delays or find alternative - often longer - routes?
> 
> And it's not always 'impatience'. Sometimes people have to be somewhere by a specific time, have planned their journey accordingly and then find they are going to be very late, or even possibly miss something, because of cyclists behaving as if their right to cycle 3 or 4 abreast is more important than actually sharing the road with car users.



There were hundreds of cars slowing me down as I cycled in heavy traffic on the roads around Dublin today. Shouldn't they all have shown consideration and gone somewhere else to let me pass. I had things planned, places to go, people to see.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2013)

RainyDay said:


> There were hundreds of cars slowing me down as I cycled in heavy traffic on the roads around Dublin today. Shouldn't they all have shown consideration and gone somewhere else to let me pass. I had things planned, places to go, people to see.



 Excellent.


----------



## liaconn (29 Aug 2013)

RainyDay said:


> There were hundreds of cars slowing me down as I cycled in heavy traffic on the roads around Dublin today. Shouldn't they all have shown consideration and gone somewhere else to let me pass. I had things planned, places to go, people to see.


 
Eh, not quite the same. These cyclists were breaking the law by cycling 3-4 abreast, which was the point I was making - not that they should have 'gone somewhere else'.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> Eh, not quite the same. These cyclists were breaking the law by cycling 3-4 abreast, which was the point I was making - not that they should have 'gone somewhere else'.



It was still a funny post though.


----------



## RainyDay (29 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> Eh, not quite the same. These cyclists were breaking the law by cycling 3-4 abreast, which was the point I was making - not that they should have 'gone somewhere else'.



Ah, I see - so it's only the law-breaking motorists who should have got out of my way then. So given the number of motorists that break speed limits, skip through lights that have 'recently' gone red (where 'recently' is anything between 0 and 30 seconds), fail to indicate, overtake dangerously, phone/text/surf while driving or in traffic, it's just about 50%-75% of the motorists who should have moved out of my way when they were slowing me down, following your logic?

As it happens, it is legal to cycle 3 abreast when the 3rd one is overtake the other 2. But more importantly, they were probably doing you a favour by bunching up across the road ('horizontally' if you like) rather than lining up in single file ('vertically' if you like). It is easier to pass a horizontal object on the road than a vertical object. You'll get pass a horizontal object quickly once you find a safe spot to overtake. You don't have to worry too much about oncoming bends or oncoming traffic. With a vertical object, you'll have to think about how close you are to the next bend, and what might be coming round the bend. It's easier to overtake a wide truck than a very long truck. It's easier to overtake cyclists in a row than in a line.


----------



## liaconn (30 Aug 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Ah, I see - so it's only the law-breaking motorists who should have got out of my way then. So given the number of motorists that break speed limits, skip through lights that have 'recently' gone red (where 'recently' is anything between 0 and 30 seconds), fail to indicate, overtake dangerously, phone/text/surf while driving or in traffic, it's just about 50%-75% of the motorists who should have moved out of my way when they were slowing me down, following your logic?
> 
> As it happens, it is legal to cycle 3 abreast when the 3rd one is overtake the other 2. But more importantly, they were probably doing you a favour by bunching up across the road ('horizontally' if you like) rather than lining up in single file ('vertically' if you like). It is easier to pass a horizontal object on the road than a vertical object. You'll get pass a horizontal object quickly once you find a safe spot to overtake. You don't have to worry too much about oncoming bends or oncoming traffic. With a vertical object, you'll have to think about how close you are to the next bend, and what might be coming round the bend. It's easier to overtake a wide truck than a very long truck. It's easier to overtake cyclists in a row than in a line.


 
If you read my original post I made it clear there are inconsiderate motorists out there. I was recounting a particular experience I had with a large group of inconsiderate cyclists last weekend. I presume that's allowed?

I disagree re overtaking horizontal cyclists. With one or two you can get past without having to go right over to the other side of the road; with 3 or 4 on a country road this is not possible.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> ...I disagree re overtaking horizontal cyclists. With one or two you can get past without having to go right over to the other side of the road; with 3 or 4 on a country road this is not possible.



Sometimes cyclists keep out from the kerb or cycle abreast to force motorists to give them proper space when overtaken as too often drivers cut it too close, trying to squeeze by, rather than waiting for space to overtake properly. 



> The most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just fewer than 20 per cent of incidents.
> 
> The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.



https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> We drove from Clonmel to Mount Mellory at the weekend. What should have been a relaxed pleasant drive turned into a stress fest because of some cycling event which meant that every few feet there were groups of cyclists, all cycling 2, 3, or 4 abreast and 4-5 lines deep, and not bothering to move into single file to allow cars to pass. This went on for miles, caused huge delays and was a complete display of selfishness by the cyclists concerned. On only about 2 or 3 occasions did groups move aside a bit to make space for cars to get past. Some of the cyclists were unbelievable, veering and swerving around and paying no attention to cars behind them.
> No doubt some of these cyclists are the ones who bang angrily on cars if they dare to infringe in any way on the cyclist's rights, but will quite happily sail through red lights, fly the wrong way up one way streets and mount the pavement anytime it suits them.
> 
> Not saying there aren't plenty of ignorant car drivers around, but many cyclists should also be taken off the roads.


 
There's a difference between an organised event that has been planned months in advance through discussion with the Gardai and Local Authority and local residents that you happened to stumble on and commuting cycling.

I would say those that take cycling serious enough to partake in events are actually not the casual cyclists you see commuting who disregard the rules of the road. 

As to the selfishness of those partaking in the event, not really selfish as stated above, there are very clear and strict Codes of Practice that must be followed for an event after all of those hoops and consultations, it's reasonable to expect that the event can run as planned and as an actual race. You unfortunately happened to stumble upon it, though it wouldn't have been too difficult to find that information out prior to the drive.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Aug 2013)

Latrade said:


> though it wouldn't have been too difficult to find that information out prior to the drive.





Does each driver have to check the web for events etc on road before _every _ drive?


----------



## RainyDay (31 Aug 2013)

liaconn said:


> I disagree re overtaking horizontal cyclists. With one or two you can get past without having to go right over to the other side of the road; with 3 or 4 on a country road this is not possible.



If you're passing 1 or 2 cyclists (about 1.25m) in a car (about 2m) without going 'right over to the other side of the road', you are almost certainly not leaving enough overtaking space.

http://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/thebasics/width/#

 The RSA ask drivers to leave 1.5m overtaking space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB9d-c-M7D0

A gust of wind, or a pothole, or a branch on the road can all cause a cyclist to wobble significantly. If you're closer than 1.5m, you may well end up getting to know that cyclist ( and their family, and their solicitor) much more than you intended. Leave room.


----------



## Latrade (2 Sep 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Does each driver have to check the web for events etc on road before _every _drive?


 
 yes that's exactly what I said.

However, if you're the type of person easily frustrated by traffic delays then given how easy it is to get immediate and accurate information on delays, then why not? 

As someone who does hate delays I find Google Maps and Waze easy and accurate ways of checking for traffic or delays. Waze (now part of Google Maps) even has live updates. Or given that most (granted not all) organisers for cycling events alert AA Roadwatch, you could check there to.

The point being that as the information on the events or any delay is available, if it is such an issue to individuals five minutes checking a planned route isn't that much of an issue.


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Sep 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Does each driver have to check the web for events etc on road before _every _ drive?



Isn't that the reason for traffic reporting? 



> Ireland[edit source | editbeta]
> TMC for Dublin went live in November 2010.[5] The service was extended to provide national coverage later that year. The service is provided by TrafficNav,[16] the Budapest traffic information company and is available on RTÉ Radio 1, a national FM network of Ireland's State Radio. Data sources include real time traffic information provided by Dublin City Council. The service can be accessed by most Garmin navigation devices and will soon be featured in several built-in car navigation devices.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_message_channel#Ireland

[broken link removed]


----------



## Gordanus (12 Sep 2013)

RainyDay said:


> A gust of wind, or a pothole, or a branch on the road can all cause a cyclist to wobble significantly. If you're closer than 1.5m, you may well end up getting to know that cyclist ( and their family, and their solicitor) much more than you intended. Leave room.



Twice in two day I have wobbled on the bike: once when being overtaken in a combined bus/bike/taxi lane by a double decker bus which sped past giving me about 1.5cm clearance; I got such a fright I started wobbling before it was entirely past.  

The second occasion was when taking a bend in the road and leaning over to the left, I was overtaken by a BMW with so little clearance that if I'd been upright his wing mirror would have hit me.  I did remonstrate with him (calmly, although I had got an awful fright again) at the next traffic light and fair enough he did apologise.   I think he got a fright when he realised the cyclist with the helmet and the fluoro jacket was in fact a middle-aged woman.

Dangerous driving is the cause of many more cyclist accidents than cycling behaviour!


----------

