OK, I need some advice

blorg

cast_iron wrote:

Having not cycled on the road, i can't comment on it's status as a legal track or not.
Though assuming it is legal, you trying to punish the bus driver by comiting an offence (cycling where you shouldn't) is, by definition, vigilante style justice.

Well it's not a legal cycle track as defined by law so no problems there. Irrespective of that, there are "legal" cycle tracks that are still completely unusable.

"Vigilante justice" is a bit over the top. I agree GreeBo shouldn't have been trying to piss the bus driver off (and he admits that was part of his intention) but cycling a bit out is as I said advisable if you suspect someone is going to overtake dangerously. "Vigilante justice" is more applicable to the bus driver.

I find it difficult to understand people siding with the bus driver. Even if GreeBo was breaking the law, that does not give a bus driver license to try to kill him. If I see someone speeding, I'm allowed shoot them then - is that how it works? But he was SPEEDING!

Cyclists don't refuse to use cycle paths to "punish" drivers, they refuse to use cycle paths that are unsafe and unusable. They may however get pissed off when drivers try to kill them over it.

cast_iron

blorg wrote:

but cycling a bit out is as I said advisable if you suspect someone is going to overtake dangerously.

Well a motorist is legally required to leave enough space for the cyclist to fall off his bike and still avoid hitting him/her. However, in practical terms, the city would grind to a halt if everyone ashered to this. Where i take your point about "forcing" them to overtake more safely, the view of the motorist would be "what the f**k is this idiot cyclist doin in the middle of the road".

blorg wrote:

I find it difficult to understand people siding with the bus driver. Even if GreeBo was breaking the law, that does not give a bus driver license to try to kill him. If I see someone speeding, I'm allowed shoot them then - is that how it works? But he was SPEEDING!

I'm not sure anyone is siding with the bus driver - as i sad in my 1st post. They just don't necessarily agree with the OP.

blorg wrote:

They may however get pissed off when drivers try to kill them over it.

Now this is a bit OTT. If he wanted to kill the guy, he would have just run straight over him.

Idleater

cast_iron wrote:

... the view of the motorist would be "what the f**k is this idiot cyclist doin in the middle of the road".

No offence, but that is exactly the point of cycling out where you can be seen.

Think about it for a second. You are driving down the road and you see a cyclist on the road in a position where you can definitely see they are on the road. You think to yourself - f***in muppet, and pass them.

On the other hand, consider the cyclist that is cycling in at the very edge of the road. You not only see them later, but you think (subconciously) aaah sure he is in at the edge and you just drive on regardless.

Which situation is safer for the cyclist (who in the event of an incident will come off worse)? The one where the motorist has seen them, slowed and passed warily? or the one where they see them later, and dont give them room?

Greebo, In my years of cycling I have learned to just move into the normal car driving lane (if the traffic is bumper to bumper) when a bus/taxi etc comes up behind me in the bus lane. They always wave thanks as they pass.

I also generally do not use the footpath cycle lanes because I find it irresponsible to cycle in close proximity to children and animals when travelling between 20 and 30kmph.

L.

Mucco

cast_iron wrote:

you trying to punish the bus driver by comiting an offence (cycling where you shouldn't) is, by definition, vigilante style justice.

Yes, and the bus driver is therefore justified in trying to kill you.

Unfortunately, this kind of thing is quite common among small minded bus drivers. I would report him, and make sure to get a Garda number. Then report him to his employer. One report is unlikely to achieve anything, but should someone else report him for a similar incident, he might learn the error of his ways.

BTW, as pointed out above, good cycling practice when there is no room to overtake is to occupy the lane.

M

cast_iron

So what did you do in the end Greebo?

Report him or not?

markpb

cast_iron wrote:

Where i take your point about "forcing" them to overtake more safely, the view of the motorist would be "what the f**k is this idiot cyclist doin in the middle of the road".

That's fair enough and it can be a bit of a shock to motorists when it happens but there's usually no way round it. I've almost been hit several times by motorists when crossing T junctions (legally) even though I wear a hi-viz jacket and have front and back lights. Being visible might be annoying but it's safe and until motorists get used to cyclists being on the road and actually looking for us, it's the only way we can cycle.

blorg

cast_iron wrote:

Well a motorist is legally required to leave enough space for the cyclist to fall off his bike and still avoid hitting him/her. However, in practical terms, the city would grind to a halt if everyone ashered to this.

I just don't agree with this sentiment, motorists need to pass cyclists safely irrespective of the effect doing so would have on traffic congestion. I'm sure a ruling that motorists can ignore zebra crossings would improve traffic flow, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Many jurisdictions (particularly in the US) actually have this codified in so-called "three foot laws" - instead of just codifying that drivers must pass "safely" (which of course is open to interpretation, which is the whole problem) motorists _must_ give cyclists a minimum of three feet. No exceptions.

cast_iron

blorg wrote:

I just don't agree with this sentiment, motorists need to pass cyclists safely irrespective of the effect doing so would have on traffic congestion. I'm sure a ruling that motorists can ignore zebra crossings would improve traffic flow, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

It's a tricky one to call, i think. At the end of the day, safety is paramount though.
I disagree with your analogy though. If motorists could ignore zebra crossings, it would nulligy thier purpose. However, if they could ignore safe overtaking of cyclists it doesn't necessarily irradicate the cyclists themselves.

And Greebo, still waiting to know what you did in the end.
Were you looking for advice like you stated, or just on to whinge/complain?

GreeBo

cast_iron wrote:

I disagree with your analogy though. If motorists could ignore zebra crossings, it would nulligy thier purpose. However, if they could ignore safe overtaking of cyclists it doesn't necessarily irradicate the cyclists themselves.

Well it does if a) they stop cycling or b) they get killed

cast_iron wrote:

Were you looking for advice like you stated, or just on to whinge/complain?

:cool:
Whatever dude.