# Gardai fining cyclists on N11?



## nuttlys (29 Nov 2012)

Yesterday I drove past what looked like a garda checkpoint for cyclists on the N11. It looked like they were stopping cyclists without lights (fair enough), but talk about shooting fish a barrel. Anyone else see this?


----------



## peteb (29 Nov 2012)

They do the same with cars at checkpoints in terms of shooting fish in a barrel! So why shoudlnt they?


----------



## Time (29 Nov 2012)

Cyclists are not immune from the law or it's punishments.

Fair play to the Gardaí.


----------



## Dermot (29 Nov 2012)

Some people think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from the law. It is time that pedestrians should have to wear safety vests and walk on the correct side of the road. It would appear that motorists are the only people who are being held to account when an accident happens.


----------



## bazermc (30 Nov 2012)

nuttlys said:


> Yesterday I drove past what looked like a garda checkpoint for cyclists on the N11. It looked like they were stopping cyclists without lights (fair enough), but talk about shooting fish a barrel. Anyone else see this?


 
Of course they should stop them - cyclist with no lights on at night are just plain stupid and are a severe danger to themselves and the paintwork on my car.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Nov 2012)

As a cyclist, I fully agree with the Gardai stopping cyclists who are not visible. 

I doubt if they were fining them though. They were probably just having a word with them. 

A high vis jacket or vest should be adequate though.  As a driver, I always see high vis jackets. Sometimes, on a road where there are plenty of lights and oncoming traffic with headlights on,  you don't see a cyclist with  a little red light very easily.

And it's much easier. I had a dynamo which used not to work in the rain. Sometimes batteries run out on lights while you are cycling.


----------



## dereko1969 (30 Nov 2012)

I think some people don't realise that the effectiveness of hi-vis wears off after a while. I think hi-vis plus good lights is preferable to just hi-vis.


----------



## elcato (30 Nov 2012)

> It looked like they were stopping cyclists without lights (fair enough), but talk about shooting fish a barrel.


No fish will be hurt in the making of this checkpoint if they adhere to the law and have lights on their bike.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Nov 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ...A high vis jacket or vest should be adequate though......



Legally it isn't. You must have lights. 

Also High Viz is mainly for the daytime visibility. Its the reflective strips and reflectors and light which are seen at night. Its not a good message to keep promoting hi viz, as you see too many with poor quality yellow vests which are useless at night with little or no reflectivity, and no lights. They aren't getting the "right" message. 

Check out the difference in the lights in the test below. 
http://road.cc/content/news/69237-big-roadcc-lights-test-2012

What noticable is how often you can't see the yellow hi viz. What you see is the reflective stripes. Also how poor cheap lights can be. How good some reasonably priced lights can be. So its not all about money either.


----------



## Olympian (30 Nov 2012)

The Guards have been giving out free LED lights at a few location around Dublin. Some details on twitter feed

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/266539080811180033


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Nov 2012)

Good idea, if they are decent lights.


----------



## delgirl (30 Nov 2012)

nuttlys said:


> Yesterday I drove past what looked like a garda checkpoint for cyclists on the N11. It looked like they were stopping cyclists without lights


IMO cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on dual carriageways and motorways, full stop!  

They are regularly out on the N11 and M11 and are a danger to themselves and to other road users.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Nov 2012)

You're not allowed to cycle on a motorway.


----------



## runner (30 Nov 2012)

The N11 is not a motorway until you get to Rathnew I think.
Its a dual carriageway, so its ok legally to cycle there. Anyway  theres a cyclepath!!
I run on it ( home Im not done for speeding !)


----------



## bazermc (30 Nov 2012)

runner said:


> Anyway theres a cyclepath!!
> I run on it


 
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr I hate non cyclist being on cycle paths


----------



## Time (30 Nov 2012)

runner said:


> The N11 is not a motorway until you get to Rathnew I think.
> Its a dual carriageway, so its ok legally to cycle there. Anyway  theres a cyclepath!!
> I run on it ( home Im not done for speeding !)



The motorway begins at Loughlinstown hospital.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Nov 2012)

bazermc said:


> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr I hate non cyclist being on cycle paths



Are you in such a hurry that they annoy you that much? In the Park theres always someone on the path, only rarely do they not move over when I ring the bell.


----------



## huskerdu (30 Nov 2012)

bazermc said:


> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr I hate non cyclist being on cycle paths




I run on cycle paths regularly, and I have never, ever, ever encountered a cyclist on the cyclepath so I don't get too concerned. If I ever do, I will sure to get out of the way.


----------



## bullworth (30 Nov 2012)

runner said:


> delgirl said:
> 
> 
> > IMO cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on dual carriageways and motorways, full stop!
> ...



I've seen runners all the way to Bray. Are you that guy ? I was dying to roll down the window and ask you  ''why good God why'' but I was traveling at 80 kmph. How can you run on a motorway ? Not only is it dangerous but my biggest problem is that as you will be breathing heavily you will be sucking unhealthy car exhaust fumes into your lungs which will eventually come back to hurt your health even in the long term. Surely it must be one of the unhealthiest places to get fit ? I find it hard to even roll down the window on that road sometimes due to fumes.


----------



## delgirl (1 Dec 2012)

AlbacoreA said:


> You're not allowed to cycle on a motorway.


Tell that to the hobby cyclists who cycle on the M11 motorway and on the N11 dual-carriageway!

About a month ago I witnessed a near pile-up on the N11 near Enniskerry where about 8 or 10 hobby cyclists who were cycling on the hard shoulder behind one another proceeded to cross and completely block the mouth of the exit ramp in order to continue straight on the dual-carriageway while a number of cars were attempting to exit the N11 at this off-ramp travelling at close to 100kph.  

The cars had to come to a complete standstill in the left lane causing other motorists behind them to brake hard and move into the right lane causing motorists in that lane to also brake hard to avoid a collision.  

It was incredible that an accident was avoilded.


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Dec 2012)

Personally I wouldn't cycle on the N11.  but the point is the rules and laws are in place its just the enforcement which is lacking. But its legal to cycle on the N11. 

BTW - the N11 isn't a motorway and the off ramps are 80kph. 8 or 10 cyclists aren't going to block an exit for more than 20~30 secs. So unless drivers are not paying attention, and/or left it too late to overtake or speeding, I don't see why they'd need to come to complete stop and be unable to read the road ahead to predict the path of cyclists. What if had been a farm vehicle, would drivers be unable to deal with that?


----------



## MrEarl (1 Dec 2012)

It's long past time that the Gardai took action, against bad cyclists ...

I see cyclists doing a lot of dangerous things on a very regular basis and see absolutely no reason why they should be permitted to:

- go out at night, without the correct safety lights on both front and rear of their bikes

- cycle on footpaths, often where there are people walking

- break traffic lights

- cycle the wrong way down a one way street  (just watch what happens between the Luas line at St Stephens Green and Grafton Street any weekday morning, if you want numerous examples of this)

... my list could go on.


Perhaps it's time they introduce a Bicycle Licence, to permit cyclists go on the roads (at the very least, during night time and peak ours) ?   ..... obviously, this would be granted, after the cyclists passes a test, has done lessons and could also bring in a little much needed revenue, for the State.

Regards

Mr. Earl.


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Dec 2012)

Driver do lots of dangerous things too. The accident statistics back this up. 

They should bring out laws for bad cyclists and drivers....oh wait...


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Dec 2012)

MrEarl said:


> ...Perhaps it's time they introduce a Bicycle Licence, to permit cyclists go on the roads (at the very least, during night time and peak ours) ?   ..... obviously, this would be granted, after the cyclists passes a test, has done lessons and could also bring in a little much needed revenue, for the State....



Considering there are existing laws not being enforced. What would be the point of new laws that won't be enforced.


----------



## Complainer (1 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> Tell that to the hobby cyclists who cycle on the M11 motorway and on the N11 dual-carriageway!
> 
> About a month ago I witnessed a near pile-up on the N11 near Enniskerry where about 8 or 10 hobby cyclists who were cycling on the hard shoulder behind one another proceeded to cross and completely block the mouth of the exit ramp in order to continue straight on the dual-carriageway while a number of cars were attempting to exit the N11 at this off-ramp travelling at close to 100kph.
> 
> ...


Am I missing something here? The cyclists were on the hard shoulder of the main road, and you seemed to expect them to stop for traffic joining the main road? Unless something has changed in traffic law, traffic joining any road gives way to traffic already on that road.


huskerdu said:


> I run on cycle paths regularly, and I have never, ever, ever encountered a cyclist on the cyclepath so I don't get too concerned. If I ever do, I will sure to get out of the way.


Do you have mirrors when you're running so you can get out of the way of the cyclists coming behind you? Stay off the cycle path please.


MrEarl said:


> It's long past time that the Gardai took action, against bad cyclists ...
> 
> I see cyclists doing a lot of dangerous things on a very regular basis and see absolutely no reason why they should be permitted to:
> 
> ...



Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. I understand your frustration on some of these points, but really, you don't want to make things more difficult for cyclists. The more people that cycle, the less people that drive. The less people that drive, the quicker you get home. If you make things difficult for cyclists, many of them will get back in their cars instead, and will be holding you up in traffic. But when they are on their bikes, you'll generally get past them in a second or two.

I share your concern on some of things you list. I hate to see cyclists on the footpath around pedestrians, and I'll often take action to deter this when I'm on foot, like waving my arms windmill-like, or asking them if they are 8 years old. I hate to see cyclists breezing through lights and endangering themselves and other traffic. But other times, it really isn't a huge problem when cyclists turn left on a red light. Some more enlightened cities like Paris have made this legal, and turning right on red is legal for cars and bikes in much of the US. 

Don't get annoyed just because cyclists are getting home quicker than you. If there are safety issues, then yes, let's enforce the existing laws. And let's find ways to encourage more cycling. 30% of teenage girls are obese, according to last week's release from the Growing Up in Ireland survey. Less car journeys, more bike journeys.


----------



## delgirl (2 Dec 2012)

Complainer said:


> Am I missing something here? The cyclists were on the hard shoulder of the main road, and you seemed to expect them to stop for traffic joining the main road? Unless something has changed in traffic law, traffic joining any road gives way to traffic already on that road.


The cyclists were on the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway which breaks when there's an exit ramp.

They had to cross the mouth of the exit lane to go straight ahead on the carriageway and as they were travelling at a much lower speed than the traffic on the dual carriageway and were spread out in ones, twos and threes, the traffic trying to get off the dual carriageway had to stop as they were unable to enter the exit ramp.

The traffic was quite heavy on this particular day, it caused chaos at the off ramp and I just think it's very dangerous to allow cyclists to cycle on dual carriageways, both for themselves and motorists.


----------



## MrEarl (2 Dec 2012)

Complainer said:


> Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. I understand your frustration on some of these points, but really, you don't want to make things more difficult for cyclists. The more people that cycle, the less people that drive. The less people that drive, the quicker you get home. If you make things difficult for cyclists, many of them will get back in their cars instead, and will be holding you up in traffic. But when they are on their bikes, you'll generally get past them in a second or two.
> 
> I share your concern on some of things you list. I hate to see cyclists on the footpath around pedestrians, and I'll often take action to deter this when I'm on foot, like waving my arms windmill-like, or asking them if they are 8 years old. I hate to see cyclists breezing through lights and endangering themselves and other traffic. But other times, it really isn't a huge problem when cyclists turn left on a red light. Some more enlightened cities like Paris have made this legal, and turning right on red is legal for cars and bikes in much of the US.
> 
> Don't get annoyed just because cyclists are getting home quicker than you. If there are safety issues, then yes, let's enforce the existing laws. And let's find ways to encourage more cycling. 30% of teenage girls are obese, according to last week's release from the Growing Up in Ireland survey. Less car journeys, more bike journeys.




Dear Complainer,

This is not about how fast I can get home.  This is about basic safety, respecting the laws and rules of the road.

Kindest Regards

Mr. Earl.


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Dec 2012)

MrEarl said:


> Dear Complainer,
> 
> This is not about how fast I can get home.  This is about basic safety, respecting the laws and rules of the road.
> 
> ...



Basic safety? What does that mean?


----------



## Leo (3 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> The cyclists were on the hard shoulder of the dual carriageway which breaks when there's an exit ramp.
> 
> They had to cross the mouth of the exit lane to go straight ahead on the carriageway and as they were travelling at a much lower speed than the traffic on the dual carriageway and were spread out in ones, twos and threes, the traffic trying to get off the dual carriageway had to stop as they were unable to enter the exit ramp.
> 
> The traffic was quite heavy on this particular day, it caused chaos at the off ramp and I just think it's very dangerous to allow cyclists to cycle on dual carriageways, both for themselves and motorists.


 
The obvious solution to this is to have the cyclists cycle two abrest in the left hand lane as they are entitled to do.


----------



## elcato (3 Dec 2012)

Leo said:


> The obvious solution to this is to have the cyclists cycle two abrest in the left hand lane as they are entitled to do.


Or if there is an entrance ramp similar to a moterway they should take the exit and then re-enter.


----------



## AlbacoreA (3 Dec 2012)

elcato said:


> Or if there is an entrance ramp similar to a moterway they should take the exit and then re-enter.



Why on earth would they do that? That would hold up the people leaving even more?


----------



## elcato (3 Dec 2012)

> Why on earth would they do that? That would hold up the people leaving even more?


Safety ? Not going across a busy cut off point. As I said if it has an entrance and an exit then it's simply up and down a ramp. How will it hold up cars even more ?


----------



## AlbacoreA (3 Dec 2012)

Because to get across at the top and down the other side you have to straight. Cross over the road at the top. So to prevent cars cutting you off as they turn left at the top you're going to have keep out (as you approach the junction) to force them to pull in line with the cyclists. Considering its going to be uphill and involve a junction its going to be even slower. 

This is really a problem of cars, going to fast when approaching an exit and not giving themselves enough time to slow down to slower traffic and the exit. Its also not seeing cyclists and being aware you have to adjust your speed to filter in with the cyclists if you are turning left. 

If the speed differential is too great, there's an argument its not suitable for cyclists and/or the speed limits are too high for that exit. 

Of course the other side of it, is cyclists have to cross side roads all the time. They have to be considered park of the traffic, not separate or lesser traffic. Otherwise you end up with this madness...

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/507


----------



## Firefly (3 Dec 2012)

Complainer said:


> Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. I understand your frustration on some of these points, but really, you don't want to make things more difficult for cyclists. The more people that cycle, the less people that drive. The less people that drive, the quicker you get home. If you make things difficult for cyclists, many of them will get back in their cars instead, and will be holding you up in traffic. But when they are on their bikes, you'll generally get past them in a second or two.
> 
> I share your concern on some of things you list. I hate to see cyclists on the footpath around pedestrians, and I'll often take action to deter this when I'm on foot, like waving my arms windmill-like, or asking them if they are 8 years old. I hate to see cyclists breezing through lights and endangering themselves and other traffic. But other times, it really isn't a huge problem when cyclists turn left on a red light. Some more enlightened cities like Paris have made this legal, and turning right on red is legal for cars and bikes in much of the US.
> 
> Don't get annoyed just because cyclists are getting home quicker than you. If there are safety issues, then yes, let's enforce the existing laws. And let's find ways to encourage more cycling. 30% of teenage girls are obese, according to last week's release from the Growing Up in Ireland survey. Less car journeys, more bike journeys.



Excellent post.


----------



## delgirl (3 Dec 2012)

Leo said:


> The obvious solution to this is to have the cyclists cycle two abrest in the left hand lane as they are entitled to do.


Entitlement doesn't mean it's safe - it's more dangerous for the cyclists than it is for the motorists. Anyone who wants to share a road with vehicles travelling at 100kmph is living dangerously.  The back-draft from a truck doing 80kmph is enough to knock a cyclist off their bike.

In the interests of road safety, cycling on dual carriageways should be banned.


----------



## AlbacoreA (3 Dec 2012)

Considering the numbers using the N11 dual Carriageway it must be carnage....



> “Over the 9 month period, there was a daily average of almost 400 cyclists per day using the cycle route. Almost 90% of all weekly trips take place Monday to Friday with 57% of these trips between 8am and 10am, mainly consisting of commuters and students. The highest recorded days since the counter was installed occurred towards the end of September with 833 cyclists recorded on 27 September and 876 cyclists recorded on 28 September 2011. Tuesday is the busiest day for cyclists on the cycle route.”


----------



## delgirl (4 Dec 2012)

AlbacoreA said:


> Considering the numbers using the N11 dual Carriageway it must be carnage....


I should have been more specific regarding the areas I would consider dangerous as the N11 is a very long road.

The stats below were recorded by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and refer to the stretch of dual carriageway running through that council area which, quite rightly, has cycle paths or cycle lanes.

The N11 and M11 between the Beehive Pub in Wicklow and Loughlinstown Roundabout is all mototway and dual carriageway which doesn't have cycle lanes or cycle paths.  Cyclists are cycling on both the dual carriageway and the motorway and in this section of the N11 / M11 it is very dangerous.


----------



## dereko1969 (4 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> Entitlement doesn't mean it's safe - it's more dangerous for the cyclists than it is for the motorists. Anyone who wants to share a road with vehicles travelling at 100kmph is living dangerously. The back-draft from a truck doing 80kmph is enough to knock a cyclist off their bike.
> 
> *In the interests of road safety, cycling on dual carriageways should be banned*.


 
In the interests of road safety, drivers should take care when exiting dual carriageways and slow down when approaching an exit and be aware that there may be cyclists about.


----------



## Leo (4 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> Entitlement doesn't mean it's safe - it's more dangerous for the cyclists than it is for the motorists. Anyone who wants to share a road with vehicles travelling at 100kmph is living dangerously.


 
Anyone using the roads accepts a certain level of risk, all road users having a little respect for each other reduces the risk. Cycling two abrest is actually safer than single file, as it forces cars to wait until there is sufficient room to fully cross to the other lane while overtaking rather than try to squeeze past when there is oncoming traffic. As someone who spends more time driving than cycling, I know it does hold up traffic though, so I rarely do it, even though I have been hit a number of times by drivers trying to pass me with oncoming traffic. (Had one last week where a driver clipped my handlebars with their mirror, then proceeded to mount the footpath right in front of me in their rush to get past before meeting oncoming traffic on a narrow street.)

Also vehicles should only be travelling at 100kmph when it is safe to do so. Do you consider it safe to pass very close to a cyclist, padestrian, horse rider, etc. at 100kmph?




delgirl said:


> The back-draft from a truck doing 80kmph is enough to knock a cyclist off their bike.


 
Only if the truck passed within inches of the cyclist, and doing so is obviously dangerous driving.




delgirl said:


> In the interests of road safety, cycling on dual carriageways should be banned.


 
Why are dual carriageways more dangerouse than single carriageways? They generally have better sight lines and certainly fewer tight/blind corners than the average rural road. The stats would also state otherwise. In the first half of this year, there were 6 cycling fatalities, 4 of those were within Dublin City limits, and so within 60kmph limits. 1 of the other two was the hit and run case im Kerry where Gardai stated it was their belief the car was on the wrong side of the road.

60% of collision cases involve side-on impact for the cyclist too. So the greatest danger is drivers turning off/onto roads without noticing the cyclist.


----------



## Time (4 Dec 2012)

Time to make cyclists accountable by making them get compulsory 3rd party insurance.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> I should have been more specific regarding the areas I would consider dangerous as the N11 is a very long road.....



I think its a valid point that perhaps this road is potentially dangerous. But might I suggest the ideal is less cars and less traffic, and part of the solution to that is facilitating cycling.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> Time to make cyclists accountable by making them get compulsory 3rd party insurance.



So less cyclists, more cars more congestion. 

How about falling in line with Europe?



> In general cycles and cars coexist quite well in Denmark and, unlike the Netherlands, Denmark does not have strict liability for car-drivers, but instead has a system that partially resembles it. There are two forms of liability that comes into action: liability in regards to the Danish traffic law (Danish: Færdselsloven) and liability in damages in regards to the insurance companies. In an accident where a car going the right way in a one-way street and hits a cyclist going the wrong way, there will be a liability for both the car's owner (who will not necessarily be the driver) and the cyclist. This is due to a requirement for liability insurance (Danish: ansvarsforsikring) for vehicle owners;[22] the insurance companies will always apply this and thus make the vehicle's owner liable for damages. However the cyclist may be deemed liable by the Danish legal system for violating the one-way restriction while the driver may escape charges. In that case the car owner's insurance company may seek reimbursement (Danish: regres) from the cyclist. However in the majority of the accidents the car driver is found liable in both regards; *in 1999, in 90% of the accidents involving cars and cyclists the car-drivers were found fully liable*.[23]





> The Netherlands employs a standards-based approach to road design, where conflicts between different modes of transport are eliminated wherever possible and reduced in severity as much as possible where elimination is not possible. The result of this is that cycling is made both objectively and subjectively safe. Towns have been designed with limited access by cars and limited (decreasing over time) car parking. The resulting heavy traffic and very limited car parking makes car use unattractive in towns.
> 
> "Strict liability", supported in law in the Netherlands,[2] leads to driver's insurance being deemed to be responsible in a collision between a car and a cyclist. Dutch drivers are trained for the interaction with cyclists, for example by checking and re-checking their right-hand side before making a turn to the right.


----------



## Latrade (4 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> Time to make cyclists accountable by making them get compulsory 3rd party insurance.


 
As AlbacoreA says, but if we are to introduce it, why not for pedestrians too? They walk while drunk, staggering off the pavement, jay walk, etc. 

The problem is that as the driver of a vehicle you should be driving at a limit that is safe for the conditions and should be alert to dangers, hazards and potential dangers. Given that vehicle drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all do unsafe things at any given time, we should be driving with much more due care. Given that the vehicle can do far more damage than any cycle or pedestrian, they greater duty and responsibility is with the vehicle driver to drive with an appropriate level of due care. 

I agree with the Gardai giving out lights and even fining cyclists who don't have them. It's nuts that I see cyclists with no lighting or high-viz reflective gear (the non-reflective bright clothing is useless in the dark, but better than black). But I don't think we can really blame cyclist for all the road traffic ills aside from an occasional short-term inconvinience. 

Take a blow on the hand from a mirror as a driver dangerously overtook you, or a clip of the handlebar causing you to fall and dislocate your shoulder (or bust a hip or knee as on other occasions) all due to driver impatience and lack of attention and really tell me that cyclists are the biggest problem on the roads right now.


----------



## peteb (5 Dec 2012)

Most cyclists and pedestrians do have third party insurance if they have a contents policy on their property.  If covers their personal public liability.  I know of an incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian doing some serious damage and it was paid out via that cover.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2012)

MrEarl said:


> Dear Complainer,
> 
> This is not about how fast I can get home.  This is about basic safety, respecting the laws and rules of the road.





Time said:


> Time to make cyclists accountable by making them get compulsory 3rd party insurance.


Folks, do you think that you could be a bit more specific as to what particular problem you are trying to solve here. 

Yes, we all see cyclists breaking traffic laws every day. Those of us who don't have modal blinkers also see motor vehicles breaking traffic laws every day and pedestrians breaking traffic laws every day. What we don't see at all is any evidence that cyclists cause accidents to any significant extent. There has never been any data for Ireland, and to the best of my knowledge anywhere world-wide, showing that cyclists cause accidents. There have been a tiny number of incidents - I can recall two from UK in the past three or four years - where cyclists have killed pedestrians. Very tragic, and very regrettable of course. But there is no evidence that cyclists cause accidents or injuries.


elcato said:


> Or if there is an entrance ramp similar to a moterway they should take the exit and then re-enter.





elcato said:


> Safety ? Not going across a busy cut off point. As I said if it has an entrance and an exit then it's simply up and down a ramp. How will it hold up cars even more ?


Madness. Sheer madness. Unless you're suggesting that the cyclists need to get a bit more hillwork into their training schedules. But those ramps really aren't long enough to help in training. It makes about as much sense as suggesting that cars should exit the dual carriage way and join again to leave room for the cyclists.


----------



## elcato (5 Dec 2012)

> Madness. Sheer madness. Unless you're suggesting that the cyclists need  to get a bit more hillwork into their training schedules. But those  ramps really aren't long enough to help in training. It makes about as  much sense as suggesting that cars should exit the dual carriage way and  join again to leave room for the cyclists.


Slip roads are started and finshed by a roundabout or traffic lights or even both. Traffic are stopped or slowing to these giving the cyclist a chance to signal and continue on. The madness is, as stated by the original statement, in cyclist putting out a paw and expecting cars to stop immediately at their whim so they don't get killed. I've never seen the actual return ramp on the N11 but I know the point where it is. I also have never cycled out that far but if I did I would be stopping at the edge of the slip road and either waiting dfor a chance to cross over or I would actually take the slip road and see where it brings me. However, I think I would take the old road in any case but you try it yourself it by all means as you have the right to do so as a cyclist.


----------



## AlbacoreA (5 Dec 2012)

Why would a cyclist have to put a paw? They are going straight?


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2012)

elcato said:


> Slip roads are started and finshed by a roundabout or traffic lights or even both. Traffic are stopped or slowing to these giving the cyclist a chance to signal and continue on. The madness is, as stated by the original statement, in cyclist putting out a paw and expecting cars to stop immediately at their whim so they don't get killed. I've never seen the actual return ramp on the N11 but I know the point where it is. I also have never cycled out that far but if I did I would be stopping at the edge of the slip road and either waiting dfor a chance to cross over or I would actually take the slip road and see where it brings me. However, I think I would take the old road in any case but you try it yourself it by all means as you have the right to do so as a cyclist.



We can agree on one thing. I'd probably be cycling the old road too. I generally wouldn't cycle on a dual carriageway, because they are just not nice places to be. But for those cyclists who do choose, they should get respect from other road users. The don't have to stop on a main road and 'wait for a chance to cross'. The traffic coming behind them should see them, and adjust their speed or direction to give them a chance to cross. A 'lifesaver' check over the shoulder is always a good idea too. Cyclists need to cycle assertively - to take their place on the road, in traffic, not be hiding away and stopping at every junction on a main road in case someone else does something dumb.


----------



## elcato (5 Dec 2012)

> Cyclists need to cycle assertively - to take their place on the road,  in traffic, not be hiding away and stopping at every junction on a main  road in case someone else does something dumb


Yes, but one dumb move is more fatal for a cyclist. I'm not willing to take that chance anymore.


----------



## delgirl (5 Dec 2012)

If you get bored with 'Budget Talk' there's an interesting programme on BBC1 this evening at 9pm - 'Britain's Road Wars' - the view using cameras placed on cyclists' helmets to record their interactions with motorists.


----------



## AlbacoreA (5 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> If you get bored with 'Budget Talk' there's an interesting programme on BBC1 this evening at 9pm - 'Britain's Road Wars' - the view using cameras placed on cyclists' helmets to record their interactions with motorists.



The suggestion seems to be that its sensationalist and very misleading. 



> Ian Austin, the Labour MP and chair of the all-party cycling group in parliament, has called the film “irresponsible nonsense,” while Roger Geffen of the cyclists’ group, the CTC, has accused the BBC of portraying cycling as “an activity solely for battle-hardened males with helmets and cameras”. He added: “This hostile stereotyping merely scares mums, children and others back into their cars.”
> 
> Chris Boardman, the former Olympic gold medal-winning track cyclist, has seen clips from the film. “Cycle safety has become very topical and that’s good,” he told The Independent, “but we’re lacking balance. Cycling is still statistically safer than going to your own bathroom, but facts are being ignored in favour of sensationalism.”
> 
> The most controversial sequence shows couriers racing through central London, putting dozens of people at risk. What the film doesn’t make clear is that the footage was shot six years ago by an American filmmaker. Including it has been likened to “presenting a James Bond car chase as how average people drive to work.”



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ritains-roads-in-bbc-documentary-8382245.html

It could be the equivalent of portraying dangerous boy racers as an accurate representation of Irish Driving in general. Done deliberately to drive up viewing figures and coverage to boost the profile of the film makers. Unfortunately most people won't realise they've been duped.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2012)

elcato said:


> Yes, but one dumb move is more fatal for a cyclist. I'm not willing to take that chance anymore.


I guess we disagree on what constitutes a 'dumb move'. In my book, hugging the kerb and pretending that you don't exist is the dumb move. That's what enables drivers to try to squeeze through gaps that aren't wide enough. Take the lane, take the space that you need on the road, and make yourself visible to other road users. They'll give you the space you need, by and large. And when they don't, you keep your wits about you so you know what's happening.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Dec 2012)

Yet more...



> Footage passed off as genuine in cycling documentary was choreographed by a filmmaker with paid participants, it emerges



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake


----------



## delgirl (14 Dec 2012)

AlbacoreA said:


> Yet more...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake


 Shame on the BBC for allowing this 'documentary' to be broadcast without researching its authenticity.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Dec 2012)

I would say it was deliberate to be sensationalist.


----------



## delgirl (14 Dec 2012)

The bottom line is that cyclists are just as vulnerable as pedestrians and should be treated and protected as such.

If they are permitted to cycle on dual carriageways, then provision should be made for them to do so safely with designated cycle tracks away from the main traffic.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> The bottom line is that cyclists are just as vulnerable as pedestrians and should be treated and protected as such.....



According to what stats?


----------



## delgirl (14 Dec 2012)

AlbacoreA said:


> According to what stats?


I wasn't referring to any particular statistics, but think the vulnerability of both groups is obvious due to the lack of physical protection and the higher rate of fatalities per distance travelled compared to say car users.


----------



## AlbacoreA (14 Dec 2012)

Well it isn't. 

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-g...-says-new-research-its-pedestrians-young-male


----------



## Leo (14 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> I wasn't referring to any particular statistics, but think the vulnerability of both groups is obvious due to the lack of physical protection and the higher rate of fatalities per distance travelled compared to say car users.


 
Most fatalities occur on 50kmph streets...


----------

