I hate cyclists!

[Trampas]

But the bike is great for going to the pub.

Unless you are a designated driver who has a drunk cyclist stray out in front of them.

But I am sure the cyclist wouldn't be drunk. He would just have had a few pints.

[NotDevsSon]

NotDevsSon, do you tend to notice a cyclist stopped at the lights?

They are so rare those of us who actually see such a phenomenon want to photograph it. It is like having a picture of the Lough Ness Monster.

[Trampas]

Is there law governing drunk cycling? I know a guy who got breathalysed and taken home to his parents!! Not sure on what grounds.

Not sure either. THere must be something in that legislation about a mechanical propelled VEH-hicle. Any cyclist asked to take a breathalyser should tell the Garda to take a bike.. sorry,hike.

[NotDevsSon]

Is there law governing drunk cycling? I know a guy who got breathalysed and taken home to his parents!! Not sure on what grounds.

Not sure either. THere must be something in that legislation about a mechanical propelled VEH-hicle. Any cyclist asked to take a breathalyser should tell the Garda to take a bike.. sorry,hike.

In law a cyclist CAN be breathalised. Anyone in control of a mode of transport can. And yes, in law a bicycle is vehicle. In law something doesn't have to have an engine to be a vehicle. If it is a mode of transport you cannot use it having broken the blood alcohol level. People wrongly think it means car. It cover motorbike, push bike, tractor, combine, or anything that is a mode of transport. There is a legal issue right now over whether you can get penalty points but there is some legal argument that you can get the same points for being drunk on a bike, a motorbike, a tractor, a combine or anything else as you can with a car, even though you currently only need a licence for the motorbike and car.

[Pidge]

NotDevsSon, do you tend to notice a cyclist stopped at the lights?

They are so rare those of us who actually see such a phenomenon want to photograph it. It is like having a picture of the Lough Ness Monster.

Ho ho. The point is that you don't notice cyclists who stop at the lights. You don't notice cyclists who stay off the path or don't swerve about. That sounds about right, eh?

[NotDevsSon]

NotDevsSon, do you tend to notice a cyclist stopped at the lights?

They are so rare those of us who actually see such a phenomenon want to photograph it. It is like having a picture of the Lough Ness Monster.

Ho ho. The point is that you don't notice cyclists who stop at the lights. You don't notice cyclists who stay off the path or don't swerve about. That sounds about right, eh?

Wrong. I DO notice cyclists who stop at lights for the very reason that they are such a minority. But they usually stop at lights where it would be suicidal not to (eg, the lights going from O'Connnell Street to O'Connell Bridge). But where people can get away with not stopping, people rarely do. I'd be generous in saying that 15% of cyclists stop, for example, at pedestrian lights.

BTW it is no joke for some people. A friend of mine has been blind from birth. She was knocked down by cyclists at pedestrian crossings 5 times last year. She ended up in hospital after one of them. Being blind she takes extreme care on footpaths - which given their state is a task in itself. She doesn't cross when she hears the 'cross now' beeping. She listens after that to hear people around her crossing, to be doubly sure. She has lost count of the number of times she has been crossing roads with the right of way only to suddenly find herself flying through the air because some moron on a bike has crashed into her. She hates cyclists at this stage, and I wouldn't like to on the wrong side of her as a cyclist. In college she was knocked down by a cyclist (for the third time in a week). He went flying down on the kerb and she could hear him calling her a blind b*tch who didn't watch where she was going and saying his leg was cut. She said she worked out precisely where he was, steadied herself and gave him one almighty kick in the face.

On another occasion in College Green an idiot ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD crashed into her as she started to cross the road. Luckily the person beside her grabbed her. The cyclist went flying. She said she asked the man who saved her to direct her to where the idiot of a cyclist was. Her hearing is superb and she can tell locations very well. He was sitting on the kerb. She gave him one almighty whack with her cane across the face. Having seen her so often with bruises caused by cyclists I don't blame her. I was so tempted to kick the sh!t out of the idiot that crashed into the taxi I was leaving. If he hadn't been riding at high speed on the footpath he wouldn't have crashed, I wouldn't spent a night in casualty, had a 300 euro suit destroyed and have found myself for months afterwards having occasional panic attacks when getting out of cars in case someone crashed into me again.

So if you are looking for sympathy for cyclists from me, you will get none. In my view 85%+ of cyclists I come across on the road should be banned from cycling. They are a menace to themselves and others. And anyone who cycles with an iPod on should be banned for life. If they are that stupid they should not be let out of the house.

[Eddiepops]

Eh i think you hate ****************************************** cyclists. I too hate them. They are ******************************************s. I am a cyclist. I am not an ******************************************.

[Pidge]

Well, you're being completely unreasonable. Not only do you make wild assertions (which, incidentally aren't true - I cycle most of the time and see cyclists more (by nature of the fact that I go slower and see them because I'm right behind them)), and the "85%" idea is total rubbish. You'll need something to back up your claims other than stories about friends.

I've been knocked off my bike six times in the past few years - five times it was the driver's fault, the other time it was a Garda's fault. Only twice has someone stopped.to check if I was okay.* Does this mean that I make wild figures up about drivers? No. Most drivers are sensible people who don't break the law or drive dangerously. We don't notice those drivers, since good driving doesn't grab our attention. When they crash, break lights or run over people - that's a deviation from the norm, and we notice it. The same thing applies with you and cyclists. You'll hardly make a mental note of every cyclist you see, but you will - unconsciously - of every one that breaks a law or endangers someone.

If, as you say, "85%" of cyclists should be banned, then we'd surely see lots of deaths from cycling. We don't: have a look at some of the statistics from 1998 (here), and you'll see that cyclists are really quite low on the scales.

You've clearly, as you've said, being damaged by a cyclist. That's a shame, but you've allowed it to totally skew your judgment of cyclists into a view which is not only counter-intuitive, but not backed up by statistics.

Incidentally, I presume car drivers who listen to the radio should be banned for life too, right?

*Just to make sure I present the complete picture, I cycled into the side of a car once, and that was entirely my own fault. They were coming around the corner and I thought that I had right of way. I didn't. There wasn't any damage to me, my bike or the car, so nothing really came of it.

[NotDevsSon]

Incidentally, I presume car drivers who listen to the radio should be banned for life too, right?

You are joking?

When a cyclist writes something like that I despair.

There is no comparison.

1. An iPod drowns out external sounds. A radio competes with them.

2. A cyclist is physically FAR more exposed in the event of an accident, and far more likely to be killed, with is why they NEED an unblocked view, full sound and vision access, and full control of their bike. Gardai go apesh1t when they see cyclists wearing iPods. It is about the stupidest thing you can do. It means you don't have full access to sounds around you. I saw that recently an idiot wearing an iPod, having cycled the wrong side down Parnell Street cut diagonally across the street in front of uncoming cars, all of whom the blared their horns. iPod nut never noticed. He continued zigzaging over the street, before cutting diagonally along the footpath past a shop and down the footpath on O'Connell Street. If he heard the sound of the horns at all he didn't seem to connect them to him because he was too busy listening to his iPod. He was damn lucky when in dreamland he cut across the road when he did. If he had cut across about 10 seconds later he would have been cycling straight out in front of a bus.

Because iPods are designed to block out all sound but the music, it is actually an offence to wear them when in control of a vehicle, whether engine or pedal-powered. It is viewed as indicating a driver or cyclist that is not in "full control of his vehicle". In a number of states anyone wearing an iPod or MP3 player is arrested as a threat to themselves and others and apparently under road traffic legislation which applies to bikes the gardai are perfectly entitled to arrest someone here also wearing anything that prevents them having full aural knowledge of the environment when in control of a vehicle. So far I have only heard of one case. I expect there will be more.

Oh BTW re cyclists obeying the law, I walk down O'Connell Street every day to and from work. One day last week I noticed that when pedestrians had the right of way, at North Earl Street junction, ONE cyclist stopped and let the crowds walk past. Four others cycled straight through the people crossing. I watched them and the four cycled straight through the next red light pedestrian crossing further down. Two cycled straight through the Abbey Street junction though there was a red light.

I see that every day. Only a small minority actually stop at red lights.

[Pidge]

Incidentally, I presume car drivers who listen to the radio should be banned for life too, right?

You are joking?

When a cyclists something like that I despair.

There is no comparison.

1. An iPod drowns out external sounds. A radio competes with them.

2. A cyclist is physically FAR more exposed in the event of an accident, and far more likely to be killed, with is why they NEED an unblocked view, full sound and vision access, and full control of their bike. Gardai go apesh1t when they see cyclists wearing iPods. It is about the stupidest thing you can do. It means you don't have full access to sounds around you. I saw that recently an idiot wearing an iPod, having cycled the wrong side down Parnell Street cut diagonally across the street in front of uncoming cars, all of whom the blared their horns. iPod nut never noticed. He continued zigzaging over the street, before cutting diagonally along the footpath past a shop and down the footpath on O'Connell Street. If he heard the sound of the horns at all he didn't seem to connect them to him because he was too busy listening to his iPod. He was damn lucky when in dreamland he cut across the road when he did. If he had cut across about 10 seconds later he would have been cycling straight out in front of a bus.

Because iPods are designed to block out all sound but the music, it is actually an offence to wear them when in control of a vehicle, whether engine or pedal-powered. It is viewed as indicating a driver or cyclist that is not in "full control of his vehicle". In a number of states anyone wearing an iPod or MP3 player is arrested as a threat to themselves and others and apparently under road traffic legislation which applies to bikes the gardai are perfectly entitled to arrest someone here also wearing anything that prevents them having full aural knowledge of the environment when in control of a vehicle. So far I have only heard of one case. I expect there will be more.

Without knowing the exact specs of an iPod, I listen to music as I cycle. I use the MP3 player on the phone. It doesn't block out the sounds from outside (I deliberately don't use those earbud headphones and I keep the volume at a level where I can hear someone talk to me, or the traffic around me). The headphones don't block or drown out sound - they, as you say of car radios, compete with the sound. Plenty of people have windows shut and music up to a level where they can't engage in conversation within the car. Gardai, in my experience, don't go "apesh1t" when they see cyclists with headphones. I've been tested twice at Garda checkpoints, and each time I had my headphones in. They didn't seem to care. What's your experience of Gardaí going "apesh1t"?

I'd be interested to see the legislation which you're referring to. If I'm breaking the law or endangering anyone I'll stop, but as far as I know I'm not.

Any response to the rest of my post?