# Cyclist in collision with car - damage!



## emeralds (3 Nov 2013)

Car stopped at junction. Cyclist coming at speed. Doesn't see car. Hits car. Damages car (dents and scratch)! No damage to cyclist thankfully. What is the story with getting damage fixed.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Nov 2013)

This seems very clear to me. 

The cyclist was negligent and so is liable to pay for the damage. 

If the driver has comprehensive insurance, he could claim against the insurance company, who may, or may not pursue the cyclist. 

Brendan


----------



## emeralds (3 Nov 2013)

Cyclist picked himself up and pedalled off while driver was still thanking god that cyclist was not splattered all over his car!


----------



## mercman (3 Nov 2013)

emeralds said:


> was not splattered all over his car!



Very considerate of the car driver. Never mind if the cyclist was injured, just check how big a scratch there was on the car. Lovely.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (3 Nov 2013)

I read it the other way mercman ... that the driver was relieved that the cyclist wasn't injured.


----------



## W200 (3 Nov 2013)

*Rushing to judgement*



Brendan Burgess said:


> This seems very clear to me.
> 
> The cyclist was negligent and so is liable to pay for the damages
> 
> Brendan


 
The ability of MR Burgess to deduce from such scant information that the cyclist “was negligent “is most impressive. 
We are lucky in this country that cases of negligence are normally decided upon in court where a judge will hear BOTH sides of the case before rushing to judgement - unlike Mr Burgess.
I would hope that a general dislike of cyclists would not colour the opinion of Mr Burgess on an incident about which he has very little information.
W200


----------



## SparkRite (3 Nov 2013)

PaddyBloggit said:


> I read it the other way mercman ... that the driver was relieved that the cyclist wasn't injured.



+1
So did I.


----------



## Luternau (3 Nov 2013)

Don't get the point of the post given the cyclist left the scene. Who is liable for the damage-based on what you outlined-clearly the cyclist. But they left the scene of an accident they caused. Leaving scene of an accident-not something to sniff at!!


----------



## Luternau (3 Nov 2013)

W200 said:


> The ability of MR Burgess to deduce from such scant information that the cyclist “was negligent “is most impressive.



Based on the chain of events leading up to the collision, and the OP's own words, the cyclist was negligent and responsible in this instance. 

Sadly, it's normally the other way round and the cyclist is the victim of the negligent act of a motorist/pedestrian.


----------



## W200 (4 Nov 2013)

Luternau said:


> Based on the chain of events leading up to the collision.


 

Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of the chain of events as described was “Car* stopped at junction. Cyclist coming at speed. Doesn't see car”*
I am no judge but apart from the statement which says “car stopped at junction “everything else is open to question.
1/ How did op know cyclist was “coming at speed “what speed! 5mph/10mph/20mph.
2/ How did op know that cyclist “doesn’t see car “Perhaps he did see car but car was over white line and collision unavoidable. After all he never spoke to the cyclist
By the way I am not suggesting I have any idea who was responsible for the incident BUT I certainly don’t have enough information to apportion blame.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Nov 2013)

Why not assume the information given is correct. 

Unless the OP has the cyclist details, or can get them, what actually happened doesn't matter.


----------



## Crugers (4 Nov 2013)

W200 said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of the chain of events as described was “Car* stopped at junction. Cyclist coming at speed. Doesn't see car”*
> I am no judge but apart from the statement which says “car stopped at junction “everything else is open to question.
> 1/ How did op know cyclist was “coming at speed “what speed! 5mph/10mph/20mph.
> 2/ How did op know that cyclist “doesn’t see car “Perhaps he did see car but car was over white line and collision unavoidable. After all he never spoke to the cyclist
> By the way I am not suggesting I have any idea who was responsible for the incident BUT I certainly don’t have enough information to apportion blame.


I think you are looking at this from the pov of the cyclist t-boning the car i.e. car stops in or somewhat in the junction and cyclist hits either side of the vehicle, whereas others seems to look at it from the pov that the cyclist was following the same path as the car and rear ended it!


----------



## W200 (4 Nov 2013)

Crugers said:


> I think you are looking at this from the pov of the cyclist t-boning the car i.e. car stops in or somewhat in the junction and cyclist hits either side of the vehicle, whereas others seems to look at it from the pov that the cyclist was following the same path as the car and rear ended it!


 
See thats the problem on this one , lack of information.
Was the car struck from the front , side , rear .
Simply not enough information on which to make a call


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2013)

Oddly enough, I had assumed from the OP, that emeralds was the actual cyclist involved and was admitting that he had been cycling at speed and had not seen a validly stopped car. And he was wondering about his own liability. As the post was originally in "other financial issues" , I had asssumed it was a cyclist wondering whether he was liable for damages done to a car due his own self-admitted negligence. 

Cars stop at junctions every day. Presumably if the car was parked illegally on a yellow box or beyond the stop line, or in the Cyclist Stop Box, emeralds would have told us. 

If emeralds had told a different story. I was stopped at a junction with sticking out in front of oncoming traffic and a bicycle smashed into me, it would be a different answer. 

But, W200, you are right.  The OP would have to give far more information for a decision to be made.


----------



## Bonaparte (4 Nov 2013)

I think Mr Burgess you prove the old adage that when you assume you make an ass of U and ME. Your most recent post is honourable, however, the original jumping to conclusions based on scant or no information is unfortunate. Reading through this thread shows how a story can gain legs, there are now numerous theories as to what happened despite the fact that the original post may well have been a hypothetical scenario meaning that in fact nothing at all happened. It would appear that an anti cyclist sentiment has coloured the judgement of many posters to the extent that the hypothetical cyclist has been tried, found guilty, and indeed sentenced. Perhaps this unfortunate sequence of events (about a non event) should be a signal to all road users to stop and think about their attitudes towards other types of road users and maybe the humble cyclist will be spared the prejudicial treatment dished out by many road users of different forms of transport.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Nov 2013)

Very quick to leap to the anti cyclist bias. 

If it was two cars instead of a cyclist. Most would still say its the fault of the person running into the stationary vehicle. Unless they can prove otherwise.


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2013)

The question was about getting the damage fixed, the answer came immediately afterwards regarding the driver's insurance (depending on how much to fix the damage and the excess). All the rest of the posts are noise.


----------



## Luternau (4 Nov 2013)

Lets follow the sequence of events point by point:


emeralds said:


> Car stopped at junction.
> Cyclist coming at speed.
> Doesn't see car.
> Hits car.
> ...



The last point I don't get-they (cyclist) are responsible for the damage-yet leave the scene (if it were a motorist that done that cyclists would be reporting them to the Garda and they could be in serious trouble.

There is no anti cyclist slant here-I cycle over 1,000km a Month and the lack of courtesy shown by some cyclists is shocking-and dangerous. Equally, some motorists attitude or lack of awareness of cyclists is disgraceful. Both groups of users have a vested interest in being aware of the implications of their actions on other road users.


----------



## Luternau (4 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> The question was about getting the damage fixed, the answer came immediately afterwards regarding the driver's insurance (depending on how much to fix the damage and the excess). All the rest of the posts are noise.



Not true-the cyclist left the scene and won't be paying! (unfortunately for motorist)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> I think Mr Burgess you prove the old adage that when you assume you make an ass of U and ME.
> ...
> 
> It would appear that an anti cyclist sentiment has coloured the judgement of many posters



You, and W, are making extraordinary assumptions of an anti-cyclist sentiment on my part. 

My primary mode of transport is cycling. I have been a long term member of the Dublin Cycling Campaign. I regularly get off my bike and explain the rules of the roads to drivers.  I often report them to clampers and to the Gardai. 

You and W should be very careful about the assumptions you make.


----------



## emeralds (4 Nov 2013)

From what I was told the driver was stopped at a junction at the bottom of a hill. The cyclist was cycling head down and didn't even see that the car had stopped - admitted this himself. He noticed at the last split second and tried to swerve to avoid hitting the back of the car but didn't make it. Was more than happy to pedal off without even asking about the car! Obviously in this instance the driver cannot do anything about it now - not even sure what they could have done anyway. Damage is minor.
Sorry - editing to add that I was neither the driver or cyclist - simply a listening ear after the event! However I do cycle regularly and I do drive so am very aware when both cycling and driving of other road users. I am currently doing a lot of cycling with my 13 year old daughter and instilling in her the rules of cycling - stopping at lights, being very watchful of drivers turning left directly in front of her (not giving her a chance), and most of all the numbers of drivers who swing open the car door without even checking to see if there is anything coming beside them.


----------



## ashambles (4 Nov 2013)

As far as I know, if a cyclist damages a car and doesn't immediately come to some arrangement with the driver to pay for damage then the driver will pay for the damage from their own pocket or via their insurance. If the cyclist disappears without giving a name, there's no one injured and no serious damage then the gardai will be disinterested at best.

I recall from several years ago that the government were considering legislating to ensure all cyclist-related accidents were paid for via the car owners insurance regardless of blame. I don't think it went beyond the speculation stages, however I mention it as I think it really was intended to formalize what was already happening.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Nov 2013)

emeralds said:


> ...Obviously in this instance the driver cannot do anything about it now - not even sure what they could have done anyway. ....



I don't get your objective in starting the thread?


----------



## emeralds (4 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> I don't get your objective in starting the thread?



Musing out loud (or on screen rather)? Is that allowed? If not then maybe a moderator can delete it.


----------



## Buddyboy (4 Nov 2013)

It is a good question.
If a cyclist damages a car, what are the car drivers options?

Assuming that the cyclist doesn't provide these details willingly (because if they do then there is no issue).

Can they ensure the cyclist remains at the scene when they call the guards?

Can they demand that the cyclist provides proof of identity?

It is fairly straight forwards in the case of car drivers, with reg numbers and insurance certificates, and laws regarding the scene of an accident. But what of cyclists?

For the record, I cycle and drive (and also drive motorbikes), so there is no anti car or bike bias here.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Nov 2013)

Buddyboy said:


> It is a good question.
> If a cyclist damages a car, what are the car drivers options?



Same options as if a pedestrian damages a car, by breaking a wing mirror or pushing their buggy or delivery trolley into the car.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Same options as if a pedestrian damages a car, by breaking a wing mirror or pushing their buggy or delivery trolley into the car.



Or a car driver scratching your parked car and driving off .


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Or a car driver scratching your parked car and driving off .



Not really. Car driver has insurance and a number plate and other details that you can get to identity them. Other road users, like pedestrians, cyclists don't.


----------



## STEINER (4 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Or a car driver scratching your parked car and driving off .



Some lowlife reversed into my wife's parked car a few years back in a car park. She was legitimately parked in a disabled space and when we returned to the car there was about €100 damage to be repaired and no note either from the offending party.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> Not really. Car driver has insurance and a number plate and other details that you can get to identity them. Other road users, like pedestrians, cyclists don't.



Hi Albacore

I was referring to Steiner's low life types who damage your parked car when you are not in it, and just drive off. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Same options as if a pedestrian damages a car, by breaking a wing mirror or pushing their buggy or delivery trolley into the car.



What are those options?


----------



## emeralds (4 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> What are those options?



None - unless they leave a note with contact details and offer to pay for the damage.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2013)

emeralds said:


> None - unless they leave a note with contact details and offer to pay for the damage.



I agree, I was wondering what RainyDay was adding to the thread.

The OP is very clear that in the incident described the cyclist was at fault.
The rest of the post was dependent on that premise. 
I don't understand why some posters got their knickers in a twist about a non-existent anti-cyclist bias in a thread based on a hypothetical scenario (even if based on an actual event). 
It was particularly funny that Brendan was accused of being anti-cyclist since if anything it's the other way around (sorry Brendan!).

I cycle quite a bit, usually to and from the pub. It that against the law? Who knows.


----------



## W200 (4 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You, and W, are making extraordinary assumptions of an anti-cyclist sentiment on my part.
> You and W should be very careful about the assumptions you make.



Extraordinary statement to make in the circumstances . You have already admitterd that *you assumed* that the cyclist was the OP inthe first place which was absolutely the wrong . Now you accuse others of jumping to conclusions.
Kettle , Pot , Black etc


----------



## postman pat (4 Nov 2013)

cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves...a friend of mine who was stopped at lights when a cyclist ran into the back of him..who then claimed and got 10 000 punts at the time,i kid you not

  Pat


----------



## Leo (4 Nov 2013)

W200 said:


> Extraordinary statement to make in the circumstances . You have already admitterd that *you assumed* that the cyclist was the OP inthe first place which was absolutely the wrong . Now you accuse others of jumping to conclusions.
> Kettle , Pot , Black etc



The OP wasn't clear on their role, as most people post personal experiences, I'm guessing most people assumed they were one party or the other in this incident.

Anyway, Brendan has admitted he was wrong. Your turn Kettle, or is there some other reason you seem to be going on the attack here?


----------



## W200 (4 Nov 2013)

Leo said:


> Anyway, Brendan has admitted he was wrong. Your turn Kettle, or is there some other reason you seem to be going on the attack here?



 Yes indeed Mr Burgess has admitted that he was incorrect and I thank him for graciously admitting that.
In fact I had just read his explanation and was on the point of replying and thanking him until I read a subsequent comment from him accusing myself and another poster of jumping to conclusions and warning of the dangers of doing so. (Did you read that one Leo)  That was the context in which I last posted. 
If I originally jumped to a conclusion of anti-cyclist bias on the part of Mr Burgess then I apologise but it was based on his outright condemnation of the cyclist involved.


----------



## Peanuts (4 Nov 2013)

W200 said:


> Yes indeed Mr Burgess has admitted that he was incorrect and I thank him for graciously admitting that.
> In fact I had just read his explanation and was on the point of replying and thanking him until I read a subsequent comment from him accusing myself and another poster of jumping to conclusions and warning of the dangers of doing so. (Did you read that one Leo)  That was the context in which I last posted.
> If I originally jumped to a conclusion of anti-cyclist bias on the part of Mr Burgess then I apologise but it was based on his outright condemnation of the cyclist involved.



If?


----------



## RainyDay (4 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves...a friend of mine who was stopped at lights when a cyclist ran into the back of him..who then claimed and got 10 000 punts at the time,i kid you not
> 
> Pat



Motorists kill a couple of hundred people each year. Just for context like....


----------



## Luternau (4 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves..



Some cyclists....

...otherwise its all motorists are discourteous to cyclists and all motorists behave in a way that will lead to the serious injury of a cyclist


All cyclists know that that is not the case-but seriously, there is not a week (or hardly a day) that passes without either of these things happening me;
-motorist passes me withing feet of left turn, turns left, forcing me to go round the corner with them
-motorist pulls out from side road, forcing me to brake or take more serious evasive action
-motorist breaks red light
-motorist turns left without indicating
-motorist uses bike lane to undertake another car, that may or may not be turning right.
-motorist parks in cycle lane even though its a clear way during the time they are parked in it.
etc etc etc

All of these could result in injury to the cyclist -not the motorist.


----------



## postman pat (5 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Motorists kill a couple of hundred people each year. Just for context like....



so what is your point


----------



## Luternau (5 Nov 2013)

What is your point w200? You seem to think the cyclist was not to blame here but it's obvious from the 1st post-no more info needed to prove anything.


----------



## Bonaparte (5 Nov 2013)

I'm sorry folks but there appear to be attempts to trivialise this very serious situation. There is an anti cyclist mentality out there in that the immediate assumption is always that the cyclist is in the wrong. Mr Burgess tells us that he is a cyclist and actively involved in campaigning for cycling, however, he too fell foul of the rabble and assumed the guilt of a possibly innocent cyclist. As for the ridiculous ramblings of RonnieB I think they are so absurd as to not justify further response


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> I'm sorry folks but there appear to be attempts to trivialise this very serious situation. There is an anti cyclist mentality out there in that the immediate assumption is always that the cyclist is in the wrong. Mr Burgess tells us that he is a cyclist and actively involved in campaigning for cycling, however, he too fell foul of the rabble and assumed the guilt of a possibly innocent cyclist. As for the ridiculous ramblings of RonnieB I think they are so absurd as to not justify further response



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Bonaparte (5 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


What I'm talking about Purple is the immediate jumping to conclusions as to the guilt of a cyclist without knowing the full facts. Regarding RonnieB and tax for cyclists, I have heard all this before and consider such ramblings to be just that and an attempt to justify the anti cyclist mentality that exists on our roads


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> What I'm talking about Purple is the immediate jumping to conclusions as to the guilt of a cyclist without knowing the full facts. Regarding RonnieB and tax for cyclists, I have heard all this before and consider such ramblings to be just that and an attempt to justify the anti cyclist mentality that exists on our roads



Who jumped to conclusions? The OP outlined a scenario in which the cyclist was in the wrong. There's no conclusion to jump to as their culpability was established by the OP in the first post. There is no anti cyclist bias there. 

I agree that some motorists have an anti-cycling bias just as some cyclists have an anti-motorist bias. Many of us both cycle and drive. None of that is pertinent to or informs this discussion.

Some people are racist/bigoted/xenophobic but that doesn't mean that a poster asking about the insurance implications of being hit by a motorist who is insured in a different country is racist etc., they are simply asking for information about a particular scenario. The posters views on broader issues cannot be determined by such limited information.  The same applies here.

Basically you are waaayyyy to sensitive about this issue and it seems to be you who holds the one-eyed views.


----------



## Bronte (5 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Basically you are waaayyyy to sensitive about this issue and it seems to be you who holds the one-eyed views.


 

I agree with you about the bizarre viewpoints on here and the way the thread turned. 

I once cycled into a stationary vehicle, that was parked, and buckled my front wheel, I've no idea if I damaged the car, don't think so, but I had to walk home and it was a very long way. And I got an awful shock, should have sued the owner for 10K based on what some claim on here. I was just glad I didn't injure myself.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> My point is that if you are actually concerned about road safety, you might like to focus your attention on the road users who kill one person every second day or so, rather than on urban myths about cyclists running into parked cars.



The OP didn't start this thread over concerns about road safety in general. They started it about a specific incident. Describing a story they relate as an urban myth is very offensive and directly implies that they are telling lies. That's a totally inappropriate comment to make and you should withdraw it and apologies.

You seem to believe that cyclists don't crash into parked cars. Can you clarify if that's the case and if you believe that cyclists ever crash into cars?

We have all seen cyclists behaving in a dangerous manner which could cause harm to them and massive distress to other road users. Suggesting otherwise is facile. The fact that motorists do the same thing does not negate bad behaviour by cyclists or their responsibility to act safely and obey the law.


----------



## Leo (5 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Describing a story they relate as an urban myth is very offensive and directly implies that they are telling lies. That's a totally inappropriate comment to make and you should withdraw it and apologies.



I'm guessing RainyDay was referring to this one:



postman pat said:


> cyclists seem to be a law on to  themselves...a friend of mine who was stopped at lights when a cyclist  ran into the back of him..who then claimed and got 10 000 punts at the  time,i kid you not


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2013)

Leo said:


> I'm guessing RainyDay was referring to this one:



Maybe he should clarify. If it is that comment he's refereeing to then he is implying that that poster is lying.


----------



## postman pat (6 Nov 2013)

all i can say is i"d love to be as clever as as rainyday

  Pat


----------



## mercman (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> If you want to have quicker and smoother car journeys, be really, really nice to cyclists, and do everything you can to encourage more people to cycle.



Postman Pat is so darn correct. I do believe that cyclists do need to become more aware of other road users. Maybe a good practical course of respect for other road users might be appropriate. In the last few months, I have heard of cyclists in this country having some very severe accidents -- all caused by their own mistakes. 

In a perfect world, roads and streets used in the main by cyclists would be fantastic. But in this country we have a system of reducing motor tax to ensure that people take up driving. Damn Green Party brought this in and was the commencement of the downturn, creating a shortfall of around €5 billion per year. Oh if we had that money now, we simply would be a better society. But we don't live in a perfect world do we ??


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> all i can say is i"d love to be as clever as as rainyday
> 
> Pat



Hi Pat

Like anyone else, he gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong. 

He refers to "urban myths about cyclists running into parked cars.". These are not myths. Cyclists do crash into parked cars. I have seen it myself.  I narrowly missed a car myself once, and it was my own fault. 



> Be careful what you wish for. If you want to introduce a painful  bureaucratic cycle tax system, you'll have less bikes and more cars on  the road, with more traffic jams. If you want to have quicker and  smoother car journeys, be really, really nice to cyclists, and do  everything you can to encourage more people to cycle.


This is a very good point which most motorists would not have thought of.  Many motorists are jealous of  us cyclists  because  we can sail past them while they are stuck in traffic. They should be thanking us for not making the traffic worse.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2013)

mercman said:


> Postman Pat is so darn correct. I do believe that cyclists do need to become more aware of other road users. Maybe a good practical course of respect for other road users might be appropriate. In the last few months, I have heard of cyclists in this country having some very severe accidents -- all caused by their own mistakes.


Can I clarify if you see any need for a 'practical course of respect' for many drivers, or is it just cyclists that you see faults in? Can I clarify if you've heard about cyclists being killed by motor vehicles in this country - were these 'all caused by their own mistakes'?



mercman said:


> In a perfect world, roads and streets used in the main by cyclists would be fantastic. But in this country we have a system of reducing motor tax to ensure that people take up driving. Damn Green Party brought this in and was the commencement of the downturn, creating a shortfall of around €5 billion per year. Oh if we had that money now, we simply would be a better society. But we don't live in a perfect world do we ??



Excuse me? A €5bn shortfall from motor tax? Motor tax brings in about €100m per month - where did you get this €5bn figure from?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Like anyone else, he gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong.


Ah here.


Brendan Burgess said:


> He refers to "urban myths about cyclists running into parked cars.". These are not myths. Cyclists do crash into parked cars. I have seen it myself.  I narrowly missed a car myself once, and it was my own fault.


He referred to urban myths about cyclists running into parked cars and getting €10k insurance payouts as a result.



battybrennan said:


> there should be severe penalties for those who leave the scene of an accident just like if you have a car accident.


I'm pretty sure that the same penalties for leaving the scene of an accident apply to cyclists and car drivers.


battybrennan said:


> I think giving cyclists a programme where they learn good road manners is a good idea.


Can I clarify it is just cyclists that need "a programme where they learn good road manners", or would the same apply to many drivers as well?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Nov 2013)

> He referred to urban myths about cyclists running into parked cars and getting €10k insurance payouts as a result.



That is not what you said your post, even if that was what you meant.   That probably is an urban myth alright.


----------



## Bronte (7 Nov 2013)

I wouldn't think either the running into the car nor the 10K payout are urban myths.  If the cyclist was injured it's quite possible that a judge may have ordered a payout, depending on the facts of the case.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

Bronte said:


> I wouldn't think either the running into the car nor the 10K payout are urban myths.  If the cyclist was injured it's quite possible that a judge may have ordered a payout, depending on the facts of the case.



I agree.

A woman was awarded €71’00 the other day  in a  case she brought against a tile retailer for falling on tiles they installed in her own kitchen.
She did hurt herself badly and the tiles were, it seems, not suitable for kitchen floors as they were slippery when wet (even though, according to the supplier, thousands of square feet of them were installed in other kitchens all over the country).
An award of €10k for a crash between a car and a bicycle, if the cyclist was injured, seems very likely. As the motorist is the only one who is insured, and therefore the only one who can pay up, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if damaged were awarded against them.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Like anyone else, he gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong.




I dunno, I can’t remember him ever being wrong.


----------



## Bronte (7 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> As the motorist is the only one who is insured, and therefore the only one who can pay up, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if damaged were awarded against them.


 
I didn't want to point out that, but that's the way it works.  

I know a student girl, at fault, had an accident with a car, she went to A&E, had a tiny mark on her knee and got a few grand in court.  This is not an urban myth.  

It also works with whiplash and drivers.  Just so neither cyclists nor drivers think it's all one sided.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Nov 2013)

Bronte said:


> It also works with whiplash and drivers.  Just so neither cyclists nor drivers think it's all one sided.



How do you mean whiplash and drivers? 




> As the motorist is the only one who is insured, and therefore the only  one who can pay up, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if damaged  were awarded against them.



So the judge is awarding damages because it's against an insurance company? I have heard this before.  But presumably the cyclist must allege some sort of negligence on the driver's part. 

Crashing into a properly parked or stopped car, should not give rise to a successful claim.


----------



## Bronte (7 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> So the judge is awarding damages because it's against an insurance company? .


 
That's how it works in Ireland, well it certainly worked that way when I lived there. You should take a trip down the courts and you'll see how it works. 

Where I am now, you wouldn't even take a case, never mind get awarded anything. It's up to people to look after themselves and not go suing the council because a curb has a slight indention or a paving stone is not 100% even. I won't even go into how they cordon off large holes when doing roadworks.

About the whiplash, as everybody is on a frenzy of cyclists versus motorists, I thought as I was pointing out the wrongs of cyclists and suing, I might as well point out motorists who sue for non existant whiplash.


----------



## AlbacoreA (7 Nov 2013)

mercman said:


> Postman Pat is so darn correct. I do believe that cyclists do need to become more aware of other road users. Maybe a good practical course of respect for other road users might be appropriate. In the last few months, I have heard of cyclists in this country having some very severe accidents -- all caused by their own mistakes....



I'd say a fair few would be caused by people (usually who have negligible experience of cycle) droning on about staying left when in reality its not always the safest place to be. Ditto Hi Viz instead of proper lights, and not the fairy lights you see so many with. 

Lack of driver awareness of cyclists is a far bigger issue. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2013)

Bronte said:


> I wouldn't think either the running into the car nor the 10K payout are urban myths.  If the cyclist was injured it's quite possible that a judge may have ordered a payout, depending on the facts of the case.





Bronte said:


> I didn't want to point out that, but that's the way it works.
> 
> I know a student girl, at fault, had an accident with a car, she went to A&E, had a tiny mark on her knee and got a few grand in court.  This is not an urban myth.





Bronte said:


> That's how it works in Ireland, well it certainly worked that way when I lived there. You should take a trip down the courts and you'll see how it works.


I'd challenge you to find one press report of a claim being paid to cyclist after hitting a properly parked car. Claims are only paid out where negligence is proven.

If the car was illegally parked, or the owner opened the door without checking, then a cyclist might be able to claim. A cyclist running into a legally parked car would not be able to claim against the motorist.




AlbacoreA said:


> Lack of driver awareness of cyclists is a far bigger issue.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Good article.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> If the car was illegally parked, *or the owner opened the door without checking,* then a cyclist might be able to claim.



That happened to me a few years back on  the Belgard road. The motorist was very apologetic and admitted liability. He also made sure I had his contact details and reg number in case I needed to take it further. Luckily other than a cracked rib there was no harm done so I didn’t make a claim.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> I'd challenge you to find one press report of a claim being paid to cyclist after hitting a properly parked car.



Why would there be a press report about that sort of thing?


----------



## Bronte (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Claims are only paid out where negligence is proven.


 
That may be true in never never land.  It's not true in Irish courts.  Not always, but sometimes.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2013)

Bronte said:


> That may be true in never never land.  It's not true in Irish courts.  Not always, but sometimes.



So give us a few examples then?


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> So give us a few examples then?



Why would there be a press report about that sort of thing?


----------



## postman pat (7 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> I agree.
> 
> A woman was awarded €71’00 the other day  in a  case she brought against a tile retailer for falling on tiles they installed in her own kitchen.
> She did hurt herself badly and the tiles were, it seems, not suitable for kitchen floors as they were slippery when wet (even though, according to the supplier, thousands of square feet of them were installed in other kitchens all over the country).
> An aware of €10 for a crash between a car and a bicycle, if the cyclist was injured, seems very likely. As the motorist is the only one who is insured, and therefore the only one who can pay up, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if damaged were awarded against them.



That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth



It was in the Indo so maybe it was as some posters on this forum don't believe anything they say (because they are not as pro-union and left wing as the Irish Times).


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> That was the reason,i think the insurance company paid out without going to court.. but as always it affected his insurance premium,, i can assure everyone this was not an urban myth



Just let me understand this a bit more - you have a hard-nosed insurance claims person, who's main job is to find reasons NOT to pay claims, looking at a scenario which has NEVER been tested in court (cyclist running to legally parked car), who then decides that he is going to give €10k to the cyclist for no particular reason?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this happened. You've either been misinformed or misled, or been told half the story. Insurance companies don't pay out unless they know that they would lose in Court. Courts don't order payouts unless there is negligence.


----------



## postman pat (7 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Just let me understand this a bit more - you have a hard-nosed insurance claims person, who's main job is to find reasons NOT to pay claims, looking at a scenario which has NEVER been tested in court (cyclist running to legally parked car), who then decides that he is going to give €10k to the cyclist for no particular reason?
> 
> Sorry, but I don't believe that this happened. You've either been misinformed or misled, or been told half the story. Insurance companies don't pay out unless they know that they would lose in Court. Courts don't order payouts unless there is negligence.



Hi Rainyday.
              there is such a thing as walk away money,when an insurance company decides for whatever reason that it not worth taking a case to court,it actually happened to myself a few years back i was knocked off a motorcycle by a car, in the space of a week a rep from the car drivers insurance company was at my DOOR with an offer to settle and after a bit of talking i settled.. i had a check within a week so it does happen Rainyday..and it really was a 50 50 case
anyway how do you know so much..are you a polititian?


  regards   ..Pat


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> Hi Rainyday.
> there is such a thing as walk away money,when an insurance company decides for whatever reason that it not worth taking a case to court,it actually happened to myself a few years back i was knocked off a motorcycle by a car, in the space of a week a rep from the car drivers insurance company was at my DOOR with an offer to settle and after a bit of talking i settled.. i had a check within a week so it does happen Rainyday.



The difference is, in your case, it was 50:50. When a cyclist cycles into a legally parked car, it is 0:100, against the cyclist. There is no reason for the insurance company to pay 'walk away' money, as there is no liability on the car owner or insurance company - unless of course, there is more to the story than you have told us.


----------



## Bronte (8 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> When a cyclist cycles into a legally parked car, it is 0:100, against the cyclist. There is no reason for the insurance company to pay 'walk away' money, as there is no liability on the car owner or insurance company - unless of course, there is more to the story than you have told us.


 
You can never ever say it's 0:100. Insurance claims never work like this. 

Postman Pat is absolutely correct when he refers to insurance companies settling, as he calls it 'walk away money'. 

Even if I or a newspaper knew of a case where a judge ruled, wrongly, in favour of someone, do you actually think I or the newspaper could print that. It would be tantamount to accusing the judge of being wrong, and judges are never wrong.

_______________

There sure are a lot of stressed drivers/cyclists/bus travellers on this thread, they need to take a chill pill.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Nov 2013)

Bronte said:


> You can never ever say it's 0:100. Insurance claims never work like this.
> 
> Postman Pat is absolutely correct when he refers to insurance companies settling, as he calls it 'walk away money'.


Insurance claims are based on law. A cyclist cycling into a legally parked car is 100% in the wrong by law. Insurance companies will pay 'walk away' money if there is a substantial chance of losing in Court. If a cyclist cycles into a legally parked car, there is zero chance of losing in Court. 

If it's not 0:100, then there is more to the story than has been told here.


Bronte said:


> Even if I or a newspaper knew of a case where a judge ruled, wrongly, in favour of someone, do you actually think I or the newspaper could print that. It would be tantamount to accusing the judge of being wrong, and judges are never wrong.


Newspapers regularly challenge judges, particularly in some of the recent cases of lenient sentancing of rapists or sex abusers. But regardless, I'm not looking for a newspaper report that says the judge was wrong. I'm looking for any newspaper report - just the facts - that shows a payout was made in circumstances comparable to the case described here, where a cyclist cycled into a legally parked car. Or a report of any case where there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. If these kinds of cases are happening often enough to be setting a precedent, it shouldn't be hard to find a report or two.


----------



## DazzyR (8 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Sorry, but that's quite wrong again. If you want to get cyclists off the road based on this logic, you'll want to get search & rescue vehicles off the road, and lifeboats off the road, and all those CD-plate diplomatic vehicles, and all those pesky disabled drivers and road sweeping trucks, and army trucks, and police cars and .....


The number of lifeboats on our nation's roads have thankfully decreased significantly in recent years...



RainyDay said:


> Remember that if you do push cyclists out of the bus lane, you'll probably find yourself waiting at the bus stop for the next bus, as your bus will be full of all the cyclists who've switched back to using the bus. And when your bus gets back into traffic, you'll be stuck behind the rest of the cyclists who've switched back to using their cars.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.


Well so be it, at least then they will be 'paying' to use the road like the rest of us! Also, the increased number of public transport users will increase their profits allowing them to invest in the service and avoid another fare increase. This can only be a good thing in a struggling economy. My issue isn't particularily with the time of my commute (I can accept traffic gets randomly heavy at times) but the unnecessary delay cyclists cause by their poor manners and behaviour on our roads.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Nov 2013)

DazzyR said:


> Well so be it, at least then they will be 'paying' to use the road like the rest of us! Also, the increased number of public transport users will increase their profits allowing them to invest in the service and avoid another fare increase. This can only be a good thing in a struggling economy. My issue isn't particularily with the time of my commute (I can accept traffic gets randomly heavy at times) but the unnecessary delay cyclists cause by their poor manners and behaviour on our roads.



Why do you obsess with this narrow focus on motor tax (which comes nowhere near the cost of paying for road insfrastructure, btw). Why don't you look at the  VAT that cyclists pay on their bike purchase, repairs and servicing? Why don't you look at the reduced load on public transport? Why don't you look at the reduced load on the health service? Why don't you look at the reduced balance of payments through less imported fuel?

And finally, why don't you look at the poor manners and behaviour of many drivers on the road?

Take off the blinkers.


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Nov 2013)

DazzyR said:


> ...Well so be it, at least then they will be 'paying' to use the road like the rest of us!



If you think cyclist don't pay tax that contributes to the roads, then you don't understand how the tax system works. 



DazzyR said:


> Also, the increased number of public transport users will increase their profits allowing them to invest in the service and avoid another fare increase. This can only be a good thing in a struggling economy. My issue isn't particularly with the time of my commute (I can accept traffic gets randomly heavy at times) but the unnecessary delay cyclists cause by their poor manners and behaviour on our roads.



Considering cycling is on average quicker around town than getting a bus. Its logical to suggest that its not cyclists that are causing significant delays to the bus. Also adding more passengers to the route will increase your delays, and will still not make it profitable. it runs at a loss. 

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2012/0608/324115-dublin-bus-tells-staff-of-cuts-to-save-15m/

I took the train and bus this week (across Dublin) and my journey time was anywhere from 70 mins to 90 mins. On the bike it takes me 45~60 mins. Its a vastly more pleasant experience, than standing crammed on a train for the same journey. Or a fogged up bus.


----------



## AlbacoreA (8 Nov 2013)

> he value of bikes and related goods being brought into the country for sale has reached €49.14 million..
> 
> ...In Ireland there were 95,000 bikes sold last year and 91,732 new vehicles sold.
> 
> .



http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...ustry-soars-to-record-values-heres-the-proof/



> According to the Irish Bicycle Business Association (IBBA) the Irish Cycling economy spends on average €750 for a bike with 90,000 bikes through the scheme this generates  a massive €67.5million in direct bicycle sales.
> 
> Chairperson of the IBBA, Jimmy Stagg says, “ €40.5 million is generated in indirect sales which includes return sales, family bikes and bike servicing. A total of €30.68million revenue is generated from jobs created by cycling.  617 direct jobs in the cycling industry have been created or saved due to the rising demand for cycling in Ireland and this is worth €12.34 million.  Meanwhile, 150 indirect jobs have been saved or created totalling €3million over the period of 2009-2011. It is a lucrative business and one that is experiencing an upturn in its curve.”



[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2013)

Both cyclists and motorists do stupid and dangerous things. The constant is that cyclists come out the worst of any accident. Motorists need to be very aware of cyclists, be more patient and understand how vulnerable they are on the road. 

The government is rightly incentivising people to cycle. It saves money, increases personal health and frees up traffic flows. Mixing cyclists with motorists is dangerous but mixing them with pedestrians is more dangerous. We have to deal with reality and that means continuing to do what we are currently doing; doing what’s possible within our current infrastructure to make cycling safer.

The discussion about whether cyclists should be allowed in bus lanes and what tax they pay is ridiculous; we are citizens of the state and all citizens have an equal right to access public infrastructure. 
Even if cyclists slowed buses down, which they don’t, they should still be in the bus lanes. Maybe the answer is to call them something other than bus lanes. Do remember that when you sit on a bus that cyclist is subsidising your trip.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Insurance companies don't pay out unless they know that they would lose in Court.


 Insurance companies seek to minimise their outgoings. That's the only criteria they use when deciding whether or not to settle.


----------



## Buddyboy (8 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Both cyclists and motorists do stupid and dangerous things. The constant is that cyclists come out the worst of any accident. Motorists need to be very aware of cyclists, be more patient and understand how vulnerable they are on the road.
> 
> The government is rightly incentivising people to cycle. It saves money, increases personal health and frees up traffic flows. Mixing cyclists with motorists is dangerous but mixing them with pedestrians is more dangerous. We have to deal with reality and that means continuing to do what we are currently doing; doing what’s possible within our current infrastructure to make cycling safer.
> 
> ...


 
My God, a clear and lucid post on the interweb, whatever will happen next. 

Maybe somebodies mind will be changed.

Oh, my giddy aunt!


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2013)

newirishman said:


> Not sure how you end up with that figure? The hard pressed taxpayer didn't pay any subsidies. Difference is that up to 1000 Euro are deducted BEFORE TAX. So in the most extreme case, revenue does not get the income tax for those 1000 euro - so a theoretical loss of 410 euro (41% - not sure if USC/PRSI etc needs to be included, if so it would be 520 euro IIRC).
> 
> Given that there's already ~187 euro of 23% VAT coming back from the actual purchase, that 410 / 520 euro is already getting smaller. plus other benefits as mentioned by previous posters.
> 
> Doesn't look like huge impact on your hard pressed taxpayer...



Add to that the fact that without the scheme many of those bikes would not be purchased so the net result is probably more money to the state.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Nov 2013)

Folks

When there is clear trolling or rubbish from a new poster, please don't dignify it with a response. Report the post and it will be dealt with.

Brendan


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2013)

Interesting to see plans to give cyclists and pedestrians priority over cars being considered by DCC;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...kers-and-cyclists-on-dublin-s-quays-1.1589118


----------



## postman pat (10 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> I'm sorry folks but there appear to be attempts to trivialise this very serious situation. There is an anti cyclist mentality out there in that the immediate assumption is always that the cyclist is in the wrong. Mr Burgess tells us that he is a cyclist and actively involved in campaigning for cycling, however, he too fell foul of the rabble and assumed the guilt of a possibly innocent cyclist. As for the ridiculous ramblings of RonnieB I think they are so absurd as to not justify further response



This post kinda sums it all up...a law onto themselves


----------



## postman pat (10 Nov 2013)

oops that was an old post i answered....anyway thats the end of my comments on this topic..at least it opened a bit of debate.


Pat


----------



## Luternau (10 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> This post kinda sums it all up...a law onto themselves



But the cyclist did go into the back of a stationary vehicle-something that was obvious from the OP and was confirmed by the OP.

Posted by a cyclist-so no anti-cyclist agenda here!!!

I knew when I read the first post that this would kick of a very polarised discussion! Cyclists rarely kill other road users - they normally come out worst from any collision with a motorist or collision caused by a motorist. On that basis, they deserve the full attention of motorists-something that some motorists are sadly unwilling to do.

I would support an initiatve whereby all cyclists have to have personal liability cover to cover loss or damage to property that the insured person causes to another person.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> .a law onto themselves


Just like every other road user then?



Luternau said:


> I would support an initiatve whereby all cyclists have to have personal liability cover to cover loss or damage to property that the insured person causes to another person.


How about insurance for the pedestrians that keep stepping out in front of cyclists causing injuries and damage?


----------



## Luternau (10 Nov 2013)

I have no problem with that-they certainly can cause havoc for all road users! Unfortunately the law seems to treat them differently though. As in, it's an offence for a cyclist or motorist to pass a red light when lit, but a pedestrian is allowed to cross wherever and whenever they want. Changing that imbalance and enforcing it would make cyclists and motorists lots a lot better.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2013)

Luternau said:


> I have no problem with that


And what about dogs? And horses? And kids - do they need insurance before they can walk to the shops with their parents?

It's a bit of a ludicrous scenario. What problem are we really trying to fix here? How frequently do cyclists cause damage to cars?



Luternau said:


> Unfortunately the law seems to treat them differently though. As in, it's an offence for a cyclist or motorist to pass a red light when lit, but a pedestrian is allowed to cross wherever and whenever they want. Changing that imbalance and enforcing it would make cyclists and motorists lots a lot better.


I'm pretty sure that there is an offence of jay-walking here in Ireland, but it's just ignored, like many other offences. We really don't need to go changing the laws around insurance or 'road' tax. We just need to start enforcing existing laws first.


----------



## Luternau (10 Nov 2013)

postman pat said:


> all i can say is i"d love to be as clever as as rainyday
> 
> Pat



Ditto to that!!!

Oh, Jaywalking is not prosecutable in Ireland-something about a loophole in the law....


----------



## Bonaparte (11 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Folks
> 
> When there is clear trolling or rubbish from a new poster, please don't dignify it with a response. Report the post and it will be dealt with.
> 
> Brendan



I would like to congratulate Mr Burges for cleansing this thread of some of the anti cycling comments that have been posted. 

However, I'm not sure that this was an example of "clear trolling". My own experience on the roads would indicate that the attitudes and misconceptions demonstrated by some of the more extreme posters do in fact exist. For example I was cycling to work in the last week when I witnessed a Taxi cutting across another cyclist in the Bus Lane to turn left. The cyclist let a roar out of him and the Taxi stopped and the driver hurled abuse at the cyclist. The main complaint from the taxi driver was that the cyclist wasn't wearing a high visibility vest. As far as I am aware that is not a requirement whilst cycling. For the record the cyclist was well lit up and I spoke to him afterwards at the next set of lights and he was OK about the incident, commenting that it is an all too common occurrence.

So, maybe the extreme comments are a reflection of some of the sentiment that exists out there!


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2013)

The reason that it’s a bigger issue for cars to run red lights is because they are big and hard and travel at 50-120 Kmph. In other words cars kill people when they hit them, cyclists and pedestrians rarely do. Let’s base the discussion in reality or, failing that, somewhat close to it.
In my experience cyclists break the rules far more often than motorists. I don’t have a problem with that


----------



## RainyDay (11 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> The main complaint from the taxi driver was that the cyclist wasn't wearing a high visibility vest. As far as I am aware that is not a requirement whilst cycling.


There is no legal requirement to wear hi-vis clothing or a helmet while cycling. Head to the countries with the best cyclist records - Netherlands and Denmark - and you won't see a helmet or a builder's hi-vis bib on a cyclist.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> So, maybe the extreme comments are a reflection of some of the sentiment that exists out there!



Some people really don't like cyclists!


----------



## Bonaparte (11 Nov 2013)

Thank you Purple, just shows you that these crazy attitudes do exist. Leads me to believe that those eradicated comments were indeed made in earnest


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2013)

Bonaparte said:


> Thank you Purple, just shows you that these crazy attitudes do exist. Leads me to believe that those eradicated comments were indeed made in earnest



One example is not indicative of a general bias. I cycle quite a lot (not jus to and from the pub) and I find most drivers very considerate. I think motorist attitudes and behaviour towards cyclists has improved considerably over the last 10 years.


----------



## Buddyboy (11 Nov 2013)

I read the article, and I think there is a nugget of truth in it.  I walk and cycle on a mixed use path in Cork. Although there are signs up that bicycle should stay to the left, and walkers to the right, these are pretty much ignored.  That it inself dosn't bother me, as long as the walkers move over when I approach, and/or control their dogs.

Initially when I walked on it I was suprised at the number of cyclists who come from behind and pass by without warning. It can be a bit of a suprise to have one appear silently from behind.

So when I got my bike I fitted it with a bell, and whenever I am approaching walkers from behind I normally give a polite "ding".  At first I was worried that it would be taken as a "get out of my way" kind of thing, but people actually thanked me as i went past.

Many times I am behind another cyclist and they come up behind walkers, with no means of warning of their presence. They then proceed to cycle past, or slow to walking pace. I wonder does it ever dawn on them that a bell would solve this problem?


----------



## Leo (11 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Some people really don't like cyclists!



Some people go even further! The official bike-only trails in Ticknock have been sabotaged as well, but thankfully not to that extent.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2013)

Buddyboy said:


> I wonder does it ever dawn on them that a bell would solve this problem?



Isn’t it the law that all bikes be fitted with a bell?

I hate using cycle paths that are on/ beside footpaths. I find them dangerous as people let their dog s and their children wander onto them. 
Cyclists should be aware of what side of the road they should be on, i.e. what direction they should be travelling in when they are using the cycle path.


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2013)

Leo said:


> Some people go even further! The official bike-only trails in Ticknock have been sabotaged as well, but thankfully not to that extent.



That's nasty!


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Isn’t it the law that all bikes be fitted with a bell?
> 
> ...



Sold with a bell. Not sure if its required otherwise. I don't know tbh.


----------



## Seagull (12 Nov 2013)

It is a requirement that bicycles be fitted with a bell. They should also have front and rear reflectors.

One thing I would like to say here is that commenting negatively about tha behaviour of a cyclist does not equate to being anti-cyclist. I used to get to the station in the evening, put on the lights and hi-vis gear, and watch Darwin candidates heading out on their bicycles with no lights, and wearing dark clothing on their way along a busy country road.

Another annoyance is people who complain that cars are likely to kill them, but then cycle as if there are no other road users. Have a little bit of common sense. If you come to a red light, and there are cars going the other way, it's a good idea to stop. Don't complain if you break the traffic laws, and wind up in an accident. I was taught "Cycle with the attitude that you're the squishiest thing on the road".

And yes, I've encountered idiot drivers and idiot pedestrians, but I've also encountered idiot cyclists. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they don't exist. If you do believe there's no such thing as a prat on a bicycle, it's probably because you are one.


----------



## W200 (12 Nov 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Folks
> 
> When there is clear trolling or rubbish from a new poster, please don't dignify it with a response. Report the post and it will be dealt with.
> 
> Brendan


 
Have to put my hand up and plead guilty here. Although suspicious from the beginning unfortunately I got involved in debate with the particular individual. It’s difficult to let rash comments about cyclists (or anyone else for that matter) go unchallenged. 
The sad thing about that particular poster although he was trying to stir things up is that people with those opinions about cyclists actually exist out there.


----------



## W200 (12 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Isn’t it the law that all bikes be fitted with a bell?
> 
> I hate using cycle paths that are on/ beside footpaths. I find them dangerous as people let their dog s and their children wander onto them.
> Cyclists should be aware of what side of the road they should be on, i.e. what direction they should be travelling in when they are using the cycle path.


 


You make a very good point here purple. I could also add that there is often much confusion between cycle lanes and walking tracks. A classic example of that are the cycle lanes along the main road in the Phoenix Park, Chesterfield Avenue to give it its correct title. For those who don’t know the arrangement a cycle lane and a walking lane run parallel separated by about two meters of grass.
It is laughable but I often find that it’s easier and safer to CYCLE on the WALKING path as all the walker / strollers / buggy pushers / dog walkers seem magnetically attracted to the cycle path. I actually met a man riding a horse along that particular stretch on one occasion.


----------



## Andarma (13 Nov 2013)

W200 said:


> You make a very good point here purple. I could also add that there is often much confusion between cycle lanes and walking tracks. A classic example of that are the cycle lanes along the main road in the Phoenix Park, Chesterfield Avenue to give it its correct title. For those who don’t know the arrangement a cycle lane and a walking lane run parallel separated by about two meters of grass.
> It is laughable but I often find that it’s easier and safer to CYCLE on the WALKING path as all the walker / strollers / buggy pushers / dog walkers seem magnetically attracted to the cycle path. I actually met a man riding a horse along that particular stretch on one occasion.


 
Maybe they should switch the lanes so that the path closest to the road is for walkers. I think it's pretty natural to head straight for it when you park your car, especially with a buggy/pram, without realising that it's actually the cycle lane.


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2013)

Andarma said:


> Maybe they should switch the lanes so that the path closest to the road is for walkers. I think it's pretty natural to head straight for it when you park your car, especially with a buggy/pram, without realising that it's actually the cycle lane.



It should be that the grass verge is between the cyclist and the pedestrian; road, cyclist, grass, then footpath.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Nov 2013)

Andarma said:


> Maybe they should switch the lanes so that the path closest to the road is for walkers. I think it's pretty natural to head straight for it when you park your car, especially with a buggy/pram, without realising that it's actually the cycle lane.



Honestly, it would be quite hard to miss the signage;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbxdz1bAK0


----------



## Andarma (13 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Honestly, it would be quite hard to miss the signage;
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbxdz1bAK0


 
Yes, you realise it quite quickly alright, but it can be a pain trying to get a buggy or pram across the grass to the footpath.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2013)

Andarma said:


> Yes, you realise it quite quickly alright, but it can be a pain trying to get a buggy or pram across the grass to the footpath.



Oh come on, a pain? It's a pain not being able to cycle safely and smoothly on one of the few dedicated cycle lanes in the city of any reasonable length. It's a pain having to effectively halt when you come near a family with toddlers toddling around the cycle path, as you never know when a toddler is going to dart in one or other direction. it's a pain having to go onto grass on skinny tyres and wheels designed for hard surfaces only.

Please stay off the cycle path.

On a more substantial note - a fifth cyclist was killed in London last night over nine days. This shows that painting tarmac a different colour does not create a safe environment for cyclists. There is blood on Boris's hands, given his championing of the 'Cycle Superhighway'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24936942


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

Andarma said:


> Yes, you realise it quite quickly alright, but it can be a pain trying to get a buggy or pram across the grass to the footpath.



The lanes in the Phoenix Park are fine but those elsewhere are not. The ones outside Marlay Park are just dangerous. I don't use them; I cycle on the road.


----------



## Bronte (14 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> This shows that painting tarmac a different colour does not create a safe environment for cyclists. There is blood on Boris's hands, .


 
I think that's a bit harsh on Boris or anyone else in authority. Even with hi viz vests and lights, when it is a rainy dark wintry day it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to see cyclists. They can come at you from any side. I do my best but there have been times I just don't see them, despite checking as best I can. 

I once had a cyclist thump the front of my car, and scared me half to death, because I'd done something wrong, I think I didn't see him and cut across him. And another time one yelled at me, more screamed. Both male if it makes any difference, on that occasion I had to cross tram tracks, at a junction, with cars in two lanes, the cars behind wanting me to get out of their way, and the cyclist came out of nowhere.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

A cyclist cut straight across me this morning in order to turn right as the main road veered left. She didn’t have lights, didn’t look and didn’t indicate.
If a motorist did that I’d blow the horn at them but I consider it dangerous to blow at cyclists as the fright can cause them to wobble and possibly crash.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> There is blood on Boris's hands, given his championing of the 'Cycle Superhighway'.



With all due respect that’s a silly thing to say.
Cycling infrastructure has to be imposed on existing road infrastructure and, bottom line, motorised transport needs are more important than cyclists. That’s based on usage and economic imperative.


----------



## Andarma (14 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> Oh come on, a pain? It's a pain not being able to cycle safely and smoothly on one of the few dedicated cycle lanes in the city of any reasonable length. It's a pain having to effectively halt when you come near a family with toddlers toddling around the cycle path, as you never know when a toddler is going to dart in one or other direction. it's a pain having to go onto grass on skinny tyres and wheels designed for hard surfaces only.
> 
> Please stay off the cycle path.


 
Eh, I don't walk on the cycle paths, I was merely pointing out that I can understand why people assume that the path nearest the road is a footpath. Think about how you unload a car with young children - you get the buggy out and  put in on the path, then put young child into it, then get the older children out and lead them onto the path so that they're safe while you organise bags etc and lock up the car.  In the Phoenix park it's hard to see that there's another path further in. And yes, it's a pain trying to walk across what can be a wide grassy uneven surface with a buggy or pram.

I think we can all agree that the situation is unsatisfactory for everyone.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

No need for the rage against families and kids on cycle paths. How much of a rush are you in. Use the road if it bothers you that much. 

Bit of daft criticism of Boris. Boris has done a lot of cycling in London. The rise in deaths is probably due to the rise in cycling than anything else. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...hnson-courted-lost-growing-cycling-lobby.html

[broken link removed]



> enormous growth rates achieved in Boris’s first term – an average of just under 11 per cent a year, and more than 15 per cent in the single year 2010/11 alone, for instance. More new cycle journeys were made on the TLRN in 2011 than in any other year. By the end of 2011, more people were cycling in London than at any previous time since the beginning of mass car ownership. The Boris bikes have introduced hundreds of thousands of new people to cycling.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> No need for the rage against families and kids on cycle paths. How much of a rush are you in. Use the road if it bothers you that much.


If they were walking on the lanes designated for cars would you feel the same way?

If I'm cycling at 40Kmph and a child walks out in front of me they, of I, could be killed. It's dangerous. 
Using your logic people would not be able to commute to and from work using cycle lanes etc because they would be constantly stopping and starting due to stupid people putting them in danger. If people are cycling into work then they are in a rush. Cycle lanes aren't just for casual cyclists going for a bit of a ramble on a Sunday afternoon.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

No offence but that kinda thinking only makes sense when looking at lines on a plan, or looking at it from the outside in, with no experience of actually doing it. A driver who doesn't cycle much if at all, for example. 

The speed limit on roads in areas with lots of pedestrian is usually reduced. So why then would someone cycle at 40kph in an area where its very likely pedestrian are going to cross your path. Almost always unpredictably. You can't stop that quick on a bike. Not even as quick as a car. So you can't go full whack around pedestrians. 

If you cycle into someone at high speed you are just as likely to seriously injure yourself as the pedestrian. its going to hurt, and probably put you off the bike for some time. So it makes no sense to put yourself at that risk. 

Cycle lanes are generally not suitable for cycling at high speed. If you want to cycle at high speed the roads are much better. The fastest route through a roundabout or a junction is always on the road. The cycle lanes slow you down at the junctions and often they put you in the wrong road position to get through a junction efficiently and safely. 

Most people who commute on the bike a decent distance would be aware of all that.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> No need for the rage against families and kids on cycle paths. How much of a rush are you in. Use the road if it bothers you that much.


That's completely unacceptable, and typical of the 'just me' attitude too often prevalent in Ireland. It's OK for ME to use the cycle path, or the disabled parking spot, or the bus lane because I'm in a hurry, and others can go lump it.

The cycle lane is clearly marked for cyclists only. Signs have been added recently to show that there should be no walkers on the lane. Anyone who continues to walk on it is being dangerously anti-social, and putting their own safety and safety of others at risk. It's not as if the alternative is a big problem - it's a parallel path about 5 metres away.



AlbacoreA said:


> Boris has done a lot of cycling in London. The rise in deaths is probably due to the rise in cycling than anything else.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...hnson-courted-lost-growing-cycling-lobby.html
> 
> [broken link removed]


Did you bother to read the article that you linked to?



> More positively, however, he announced the launch of twelve cycling superhighways. But when the first two routes were introduced, there was disappointment at their limited scope despite the £2 million a mile cost. On some stretches, sections of old green cycle lanes had been simply painted over in blue; many were just as narrow as the lanes they were replacing – 1.5 metres wide, half the norm in Copenhagen. There was no physical separation beyond (at best) a white line (unlike other cities where cyclists are protected by a kerb) and often highways stopped altogether at the most dangerous junctions, where many of the deaths and serious injuries take place.
> 
> Soon there were suggestions that the superhighways, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, might even increase the dangers for cyclists by giving them a false sense of security. A survey published by City Hall itself in 2010 found that more than half of cyclists said they felt no safer on a superhighway than without one. Two-thirds said they did not feel that motorised traffic respected the superhighway and regularly drove into or across one.
> Complex junctions were considered particularly challenging, not helped by the fact that calls for a 20 mph speed limit were rejected on the grounds that they would slow motorised traffic. The fact was the superhighways were not only considered ‘scary’ by so-called ‘hardened’ cyclists but only four have been completed by the end of Boris’s first term, with the other eight not now expected until 2015.
> Most alarmingly, while the superhighways were still under construction, Boris’s cycling revolution was coming under attack from... Boris. He abandoned plans to pedestrianise Parliament Square, a well-known black spot for cyclists. He abolished the western extension of the congestion charge zone, increasing motorised traffic in the area by eight per cent (or 30,000 vehicles a day). Intriguingly, there were signs that he was reluctant to make the move, but not to do so would have countered the now prevailing Conservative compulsion of ‘ending the war on the motorist’. Boris’s supporters in the outer boroughs were demanding a more car-friendly regime in City Hall, and recognising their importance in his election as mayor (and any future party leadership bid), he gave it to them. The car now became king in Boris’s London; the new transport mantra was not the ‘cycling revolution’ but ‘smoothing traffic flow’.





Bronte said:


> I think that's a bit harsh on Boris or anyone else in authority. Even with hi viz vests and lights, when it is a rainy dark wintry day it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to see cyclists. They can come at you from any side. I do my best but there have been times I just don't see them, despite checking as best I can.
> 
> I once had a cyclist thump the front of my car, and scared me half to death, because I'd done something wrong, I think I didn't see him and cut across him. And another time one yelled at me, more screamed. Both male if it makes any difference, on that occasion I had to cross tram tracks, at a junction, with cars in two lanes, the cars behind wanting me to get out of their way, and the cyclist came out of nowhere.


Sorry, but cyclists don't 'come out of nowhere'. They usually come from the left side of traffic, filtering beside slow moving cars. If you find that cyclists are 'coming out of nowhere', you need to improve your observation.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

RainyDay said:


> That's completely unacceptable, and typical of the 'just me' attitude too often prevalent in Ireland. It's OK for ME to use the cycle path, or the disabled parking spot, or the bus lane because I'm in a hurry, and others can go lump it.



Nothing of the kind. Considering the lack of enforcement of a whole plethora of laws, you expectation of enforcement of pedestrians is completely unrealistic. To be practical, there will be pedestrians on cycle paths especially where they are beside each other. I may wish it to be otherwise, and be vocal about it. But you have cycle with some responsibility, not to cause injury  to others. 



RainyDay said:


> The cycle lane is clearly marked for cyclists only. Signs have been added recently to show that there should be no walkers on the lane. Anyone who continues to walk on it is being dangerously anti-social, and putting their own safety and safety of others at risk. It's not as if the alternative is a big problem - it's a parallel path about 5 metres away.



If its a big problem, how many deaths and injuries are caused by it. 



RainyDay said:


> Did you bother to read the article that you linked to?



Yup. I included it for balance. Its more useful sound bites, so others can get the bigger picture. Of course you can choose to see one side of any story. 



RainyDay said:


> Sorry, but cyclists don't 'come out of nowhere'. They usually come from the left side of traffic, filtering beside slow moving cars. If you find that cyclists are 'coming out of nowhere', you need to improve your observation.



Drivers observation certainly needs to be improved, as does there general awareness/expectation of cyclists. On the flip side, some cyclists very much over estimate their visibility and the limits of human situational awareness.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> No offence but that kinda thinking only makes sense when looking at lines on a plan, or looking at it from the outside in, with no experience of actually doing it. A driver who doesn't cycle much if at all, for example.


Full marks for jumping to conclusions there. Unfortunately you are wrong. 
I speak as someone who did a 9 mile each way commute through the city centre for years. 




AlbacoreA said:


> The speed limit on roads in areas with lots of pedestrian is usually reduced. So why then would someone cycle at 40kph in an area where its very likely pedestrian are going to cross your path. Almost always unpredictably. You can't stop that quick on a bike. Not even as quick as a car. So you can't go full whack around pedestrians.
> 
> If you cycle into someone at high speed you are just as likely to seriously injure yourself as the pedestrian. its going to hurt, and probably put you off the bike for some time. So it makes no sense to put yourself at that risk.


  Yes, those are the points I made in my post. Where we differ is that I place the blame for any accident on the people who break the rules. I also place the onus to alter their behaviour on those who place everyone in danger by breaking the rules.   



AlbacoreA said:


> Cycle lanes are generally not suitable for cycling at high speed. If you want to cycle at high speed the roads are much better. The fastest route through a roundabout or a junction is always on the road. The cycle lanes slow you down at the junctions and often they put you in the wrong road position to get through a junction efficiently and safely.
> 
> Most people who commute on the bike a decent distance would be aware of all that.


 The function of cycle lanes is to keep cyclists away from the danger of motorised vehicles. What you are saying is that cyclists should put themselves in harm’s way because pedestrians are too stupid to obey the rules. Your version of logic is different to mine.


----------



## delgirl (14 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Cyclists should be aware of what side of the road they should be on, i.e. what direction they should be travelling in when they are using the cycle path.


Met a cyclist in the dark last night with no lights cycling on a 'cycle path', merely part of the road coloured red with broken lines, on my side of the road.

There is no cycle path on the opposite side of the road, just a footpath and the roadside.  There are also no markings on the cycle path to indicate which way the cyclist is permitted to travel.  

Would have thought it was common sense for a cyclist to travel on the same side of the road and in the same direction as motorists.


----------



## Latrade (14 Nov 2013)

How has this thread not been moved to LoS yet?
Anyway, as it meanders back to partisan accusations perhaps a little less sensitivity.
Phoenix Park is set up very poorly. Yes there are signs, but I don't like the culture of hiding behind signs (figuratively) to cover up poor planning. People park legally at the side of the road. The nearest paved area to you is right there, it is a natural response (especially if you don't frequent the park often) to assume this is a footpath as apart from signs there is no indication it is any different. Pedestrians on the cycleway is rarely people deliberately being obstructive, it's a genuine mistake. 
But then along Fairview is the same, except here the cycleway suddenly switches sides, goes behind bus shelters and at this time of year is covered in nice, wet slippery leaves. You can use the bus lane (the sign specifically shows it is both a bus and cycle lane) but along this stretch I have observed some very aggressive driving from Bus drivers who want all cyclists on the ice rink of a footpath. 
Anyway, as I cycle here every day, even though I have right of way on the shared path with pedestrians, it's simply a matter of preparing for pedestrians to be in the cycleway and slowing down to avoid incidents. Nice and simple without any self-righteous  passive aggressiveness. 
In the same way that drivers should adjust their driving based on the conditions of the road and presence of hazards (including cyclists and pedestrians) so should cyclists. 

As to cyclists coming out of nowhere, while I have the moral authority that drivers should use their mirrors all the time, we know they don't so I cycle accordingly and assume every driver is suffering from tunnel vision and never uses their mirrors. I find having the moral victory is overshadowed by a couple of tonnes of metal demonstrating the laws of phsyics with flesh and bone. 
The Boris issue is a significant issue, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he has blood on his hands. I see plenty of routes on my commute in where I can't see what DCC or Fingal could do about better provisions for cyclists without a complete investment in an entire new road network. Its similar in London. The roads aren't wide enough to provide adequate space in many places. However, this quote from the article made me chuckle:


> Soon there were suggestions that the superhighways, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, *might even increase the dangers for cyclists by giving them a false sense of security*. A survey published by City Hall itself in 2010 found that *more than half of cyclists said they felt no safer *on a superhighway than without one. Two-thirds said they did not feel that motorised traffic respected the superhighway and regularly drove into or across one.


Given that the majority felt no safer, how do they develop a false sense of security?

I'd love better provisions for cyclists. I'd love to see more respect and awareness of cyclists by other road users. I'd love to see cyclists not put themselves in danger as often as they do in their haste to be kings of the commuting race. But much of that will come with time. In the meantime, I cycle accordingly (assume everyone around me is a homocidal idiot), slow down where necessary, don't get wound up when my assumptions are realised and I still manage a 10 mile commute in under 40mins.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

Latrade, we all, I believe, cycle assuming the worst but hoping for the best. I am unaware of any cyclists that adopt a fundamentalist approach to pointing out the rules of the road to those around them , other than one who posts his confrontations on YouTube. What I do have a problem with is the proposition that the ignorance of other road users should negate the primary function of cycle paths and that they should be rendered effectively useless because pedestrians insist on behaving dangerously. The solution is not for cyclists to move onto the road, it is for pedestrians to remain on the footpath.
By the way, you average around 24Kmph so, taking into account that you probably have to stop a few times for lights etc, you probably move at an average of over 30Kmph. That’s enough to kill a small child that steps out in front of you. Perhaps the solution is that the parent of that child teaches them to use the roads and paths correctly.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> Full marks for jumping to conclusions there. Unfortunately you are wrong.
> I speak as someone who did a 9 mile each way commute through the city centre for years.
> 
> 
> Yes, those are the points I made in my post. Where we differ is that I place the blame for any accident on the people who break the rules. I also place the onus to alter their behaviour on those who place everyone in danger by breaking the rules.



I'm not that interested in blame. Just practical common sense. 



Purple said:


> The function of cycle lanes is to keep cyclists away from the danger of motorised vehicles. What you are saying is that cyclists should put themselves in harm’s way because pedestrians are too stupid to obey the rules. Your version of logic is different to mine.



No I'm saying some times its safer to be on the road. 

Your logic is that cycle lanes always safer. I disagree with that. Its not my logic though, its from looking at studies on the issue. Also my experience, that its safer to be centre lanes for turning right, or going round some roundabouts. 



> Shared space[edit]
> Segregated cycle facilities are one way to improve the perception of safety. There are other approaches, such as shared space, which improve actual safety in part by decreasing the difference between real and perceived safety.[85] More recently, shared space redesigns of urban streets in Denmark and the Netherlands have arguably achieved significant improvements in safety (as well as congestion and quality of life) by replacing segregated facilities with integrated space. Traffic reform advocates including David Engwicht and John Adams suggest that the added perception of risk among all road users – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians – in shared facilities increases safety.[85] See the Utility cycling article for other examples of measures to improve both actual and perceived safety.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_showing_greater_risks


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> ...even though I have right of way on the shared path with pedestrians, it's simply a matter of preparing for pedestrians to be in the cycleway and slowing down to avoid incidents. Nice and simple without any self-righteous  passive aggressiveness....
> 
> ....I find having the moral victory is overshadowed by a couple of tonnes of metal demonstrating the laws of phsyics with flesh and bone.
> ....



Exactly. You have to be practical about it.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> ...However, this quote from the article made me chuckle:
> 
> Given that the majority felt no safer, how do they develop a false sense of security?...



Maybe the idea is certain spots should be highlighted as being more dangerous than perhaps people previously realised. For example, just because there's a cycle lane there perhaps you should wait behind a HGV rather than using the cycle lane to go inside of it.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2013)

AlbacoreA said:


> I'm not that interested in blame. Just practical common sense.


I'm interested in making things better and I think that people should be educated to that end. It's not the place or function of individual cyclists to do this so maybe a few signs, adverts etc would help.

Considering what's been spent on improving the cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so it would be a pity if it wasn't used for what it was intended.
You seem to be of the view that we should just accept unsafe practices and work around them as best we can. If that's the case then we differ.




AlbacoreA said:


> Your logic is that cycle lanes always safer. I disagree with that. Its not my logic though, its from looking at studies on the issue. Also my experience, that its safer to be centre lanes for turning right, or going round some roundabouts.


 You should read my posts. I opened this topic by saying that cycle lanes which were just part of the footpath were unsafe and I used the road instead. My point is that they should be safer and if pedestrians were more aware of the rules they would be safer. Cyclists should cycle in the same direction as cars (i.e. on the left) and then pedestrians would know where to look to see them coming. Cyclists should have a bell and lights etc. You know, basic common sense.


----------



## Latrade (14 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> What I do have a problem with is the proposition that the ignorance of other road users should negate the primary function of cycle paths and that they should be rendered effectively useless because pedestrians insist on behaving dangerously. The solution is not for cyclists to move onto the road, it is for pedestrians to remain on the footpath.
> By the way, you average around 24Kmph so, taking into account that you probably have to stop a few times for lights etc, you probably move at an average of over 30Kmph. That’s enough to kill a small child that steps out in front of you. Perhaps the solution is that the parent of that child teaches them to use the roads and paths correctly.


 
I think that's the difference, on the shared footpaths, I don't equate it to dangerous behaviour, mainly a genuine mistake or sometimes flawed design. I don't suggest cyclists stop using the shared footpaths, but approach them with caution with the view that pedestrians may be in their way. 

Yup, you're spot on with the averages, but I hit the higher (high for me anyway) speeds where appropriate and safe. I'm fortunate that the time of my commute and route means I have more opportunities to do so than in some areas. 

But I see it as no different to driving. If I see a pedestrian crossing ahead, I'll be alert to anyone nearby who may cross without looking and will reduce speed accordingly. Same if I'm driving when the schools are emptying and exactly the same when I'm cycling. 

Having the right of way is one thing, but I'd rather be alert and go a bit easier at identifiable spots and not put myself in a position where I injure someone, right of way or not. In the same way I'd rather not be injured myself as a pedestrian, cyclist or driver by assuming everyone else is aware of my right of way.

From my experience, common courtesy is the key and it's actually more common than you'd think. I see drivers and pedestrians (even me on the rare times I make a mistake) apologise and admit an error, so you just move on and give an acknowledgement of no hard feelings. Yes there are always one or two..three or four... inconsiderate idiots, but I think there's far more courteous behaviour than bad, we just remember the bad more.

20 miles a day commuting for last 7 years and 20 years cycling, I've had two accidents that caused me injury. That's not a bad accident to mile ration considering every one is supposed to be so dangerous.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> I'm interested in making things better and I think that people should be educated to that end. It's not the place or function of individual cyclists to do this so maybe a few signs, adverts etc would help.
> 
> Considering what's been spent on improving the cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so it would be a pity if it wasn't used for what it was intended.
> You seem to be of the view that we should just accept unsafe practices and work around them as best we can. If that's the case then we differ.
> ...



I think you have to make your mind up if using the road is putting yourself in "harms way" or not. 

I'm not saying to use it anyway and accept it faults. That's your interpretation. I'm saying NOT to use it just because its the rules. Use it, if it makes sense. A lot of the cycling infrastructure isn't safer, it confusing, contradictory and potentially dangerous. I don't accept it as "safer" automatically, or use it simply because its the rules. Indeed the rules change. For example the obligation to stay in a cycle lane if it exists. Which suggests the rules aren't always right.

Much of the "cycling infrastructure" seems poorly thought out, I assume to be seen to be doing something than actually thinking about what they are doing. In some places the "cycling infrastructure" is radically different in logic on one side of the road to the other. At least be consistent.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the topic anymore...


----------



## Bonaparte (14 Nov 2013)

I do think there are valid points still being made in this thread which are very relevant to the original post and subsequent assumptions. Basically there is no real cycling infrastructure in Ireland. Bike lanes come to a dead end with no obvious place to go, one example is directly across the road from the Department of the Environment office at the Custom House! Another lack of thought is demonstrated in Maynooth where there is a Cycle lane down the middle of the footpath which takes a Bus Queue into its way.

There is also a lot of discussion about regarding the requirement for cyclists to use cycle ways where they are provided. This is an interesting suggestion, for example the elevated cycle path from Chapleizod to Island Bridge is in my mind actually dangerous for a bike doing any speed at all. Therefore, I think that the paths should be available and used where practicable always noting that most cyclists around town are not leisure cyclists but workers trying to do their daily business


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Nov 2013)

Maybe the thread could be split.


----------



## Purple (15 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> I think that's the difference, on the shared footpaths, I don't equate it to dangerous behaviour, mainly a genuine mistake or sometimes flawed design.


Most dangerous behaviour is not dangerous by intent, it is usually the result of a lack of awareness of what's going on around you (not you personally ).


----------



## Bonaparte (17 Nov 2013)

Latrade said:


> How has this thread not been moved to LoS yet?
> Phoenix Park is set up very poorly. Yes there are signs, but I don't like the culture of hiding behind signs (figuratively) to cover up poor planning. People park legally at the side of the road. The nearest paved area to you is right there, it is a natural response (especially if you don't frequent the park often) to assume this is a footpath as apart from signs there is no indication it is any different.




Sorry Latrade but I have to take exception to these remarks. First of all when you park at the side of the road the nearest paved surface is indeed the road itself and we don't see drivers choosing to walk along on that surface!

You are right though in the assertion that poor planning is the main problem as I have stated myself previously in this thread. 

The bottom line is that Government has no real interest in making a suitable infrastructure available for cycling. I have cycled a lot on the continent and basically countries such as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have thought out the cycling infrastructure and put in place routes which are safe, signposted, and well respected by all road users.

In reality we have a low population which means that it should actually be easier to do something to facilitate a proper cycling infrastructure


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Nov 2013)

because a road looks very similar to a foot path


----------



## Ronnieb (17 Nov 2013)

Certainly not but then neither does the cycle path in the park and especially when it's punctuated regularly with clear signs indicating its purpose


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Nov 2013)

how does it not look like footpath? Its been a footpath for decades. Its only a cycle path the last two or so. Its logically where people expect a footpath.


----------

