"Idiot Cyclist"

peasant

Right ....a quick clarification of as many points as I can think of from the driver of the camper van.

- the road was indeed a dual carriageway with the driving lanes coned off and only the hard shoulder left for all the traffic to use.

- there was no traffic in the coned of section in any direction ...any "specs of light" are probably bird**** or flies on the windscreen

- the hard shoulder was not wide enough for any vehicle to overtake the cyclist with a safe distance. This didn't keep a few cars in front of me from overtaking and brushing dangerously close past the cyclist. I on the other hand decided not to risk his life and chose to stay behind at a safe distance, at the same time giving him an opportunity to get out of harms way beyond the cones.

- I am fully aware that the cyclist had every right to be there and that he did nothing wrong (legally). I also admit that i should not have beeped the horn at him. My first beep at him actually was just to make him turn around ...which he did. So I waved at him (in a very friendly way I may add) that I would give him room to move over beyond the cones where he would be safe. At which point he chose to flip me the bird.
After that, my beeping the horn was somewhat more impolite which i know i shouldn't have done ...but I'm only human

- the camper did not cause the queue ...the speed limit in that section was 50 km/h ...even a camper can do that

- the camper is LHD, my wife in the passenger seat took the pics while I had both hands firmly on the steering wheel

- this section of roadworks stretched for a long way (my guess is 6-7 km, but i can't be sure) and assuming that the cyclist was local, he must have known the road and must have had a fair idea just how much of a tailback he would cause

- I do understand that the cyclist may have been reluctant to move beyond the cones for some reason ...still it was the safest place to be and it is where I would have cycled, if I was the cyclist. What I don't understand is that he did not turn left at an entrance into a gateway (a bit like a small parking lot ..about 50 m long and 10 m deep, so well off the road) to let the meanwhile 100+ cars past that had queued up behind him over the last 20 mins.
If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely ...see if he survives that one ...

beans

If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely

If there were not enough room for vehicles to pass me, and I find that they insist on attempting to do so, you'll find me in the centre of the lane fairly sharpish for my own protection

I probably would have been right of the cones myself, but I can see why he would be reluctant to do this as others have pointed out

peasant

beans wrote:

If there were not enough room for vehicles to pass me, and I find that they insist on attempting to do so, you'll find me in the centre of the lane fairly sharpish for my own protection

That's probably what I would do myself in that situation...but what if you had 6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available ...wouldn't you rather take that option?

blorg

peasant wrote:

That's probably what I would do myself in that situation...but what if you had 6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available ...wouldn't you rather take that option?

But if it was totally empty and safe, then why was it coned off? I've cycled myself on coned off portions of roads that have seemed fine initially, and then suddenly there appears a trench. I've learnt that the hard way. And if it was so empty and safe, you could have stopped for a moment, removed one or two of the cones, and driven along it yourself - no?

Edit: I pulled in _twice_ this afternoon to let trucks past on the scalp to/from Eniskerry and by god I did it only just in time as I swear the fúckers were just going to blast into me if I hadn't. I was planning on pulling in for the second one anyway but he _ahem_ accelerated my decision for me. The first one literally forced me off the road, wasn't going to stop for him as he could have overtaken safely approximately 50m on.

peasant

blorg wrote:

But if t was totally empty and safe, then why was it coned off? I've cycled myself on coned off portions of roads that have seemed fine initially, and then suddenly there appears a trench. I've learnt that the hard way. And if it was so empty and safe, you could have stopped for a moment, removed one or two of the cones, and driven along it yourself - no?

Im not Donegal Co. council so I can only assume;

The road is coned off for resurfacing works. It was Sunday, nobody working on it, but they probably didn't want to remove 6- 7 kms of tightly spaced cones just to put them up again on Monday.

Your second suggestion:

If there had been a way to move over without having to stop and remove cones, I would have done so. Stop, fake breakdown, have a smoke and safely rejoin road once the queue has passed ... I was certainly thinking about it. Because, you see, i wasn't the only one honking their horn that day. Lots of cars behind me thought that I was holding everybody up.
Given half a chance, I would have gladly removed myself from that situation and let the really guilty party take the brunt.

blorg

peasant wrote:

Im not Donegal Co. council so I can only assume; The road is coned off for resurfacing works. It was Sunday, nobody working on it, but they probably didn't want to remove 6- 7 kms of tightly spaced cones just to put them up again on Monday.

Sure, you can assume that, but without actually driving/cycling the length of it safely you don't know WHAT you might come across/fall into. Roads being resurfaced often have significant drops and kerbs where they have finished a bit, holes, dangerous stuff left lying around, etc. You cannot _ever_ presume that a works area of whatever type will be left by the workers in a safe state.

peasant wrote:

If there had been a way to move over without having to stop and remove cones, I would have done so. Stop, fake breakdown, have a smoke and safely rejoin road once the queue has passed ... I was certainly thinking about it.

Stopping and removing cones would have taken you what - two minutes? Presumably the cyclist was delaying you much more than this or you wouldn't have been complaining about it?

peasant wrote:

Because, you see, i wasn't the only one honking their horn that day. Lots of cars behind me thought that I was holding everybody up.

Well, in a way you _were_ what was holding everybody up as your vehicle was too wide to overtake the cyclist.

peasant wrote:

Given half a chance, I would have gladly removed myself from that situation and let the really guilty party take the brunt.

Have you not considered that the "really guilty party" here, besides yourself, might be whoever put up/left the cones. Allowing people drive on the other side of the cones would only be a matter of removing the cones on _either end_ you see, not the lot. Unless, of course - it was in fact unsafe to drive the length.

Trojan

peasant wrote:

6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available

I didn't see any available dual carriageway in the picture.

peasant wrote:

My first beep at him actually was just to make him turn around ...which he did. So I waved at him (in a very friendly way I may add) that I would give him room to move over beyond the cones where he would be safe. At which point he chose to flip me the bird.
After that, my beeping the horn was somewhat more impolite

Put yourself on his bike. He's an experienced cyclist so he knows all about idiot drivers almost side-swiping him, passing him on the right then turning left across his line, muppets in stationary cars swinging open doors into his path when he's doing 20-30km/h (yeah that one can hurt), making sure he doesnt get in artic's blind spots, avoiding suicidal pedestrians or road rage drivers who got held up by 10 seconds as he took the lane to pass a line of parked cars. The usual run of the mill experience for any dedicated cyclist really.

He's doing around 20km/h in a narrow lane going uphill and working like hell, staying as far left as possible to avoid inconveniencing traffic and hoping no-one will take a side swipe at him for daring to take his rightful place on the road. A couple cars squeeze passed him, he's thinking that was a bit close for comfort but if he stays left enough it should be fine.

Next thing he hears a car beeping at him, typical, eh? He glances around and sees the driver in the dark cabin of an enormous wide camper van gesturing incoherently at him. How the hell is he going to pass in that thing, and why is he shaking his fist? F#ck 'im, the cyclist is over as far as he can go and if the van is too big to go past that's just tough luck. And then this thought is cemented when the arrogant driver tries to bully him into the ditch by leaning on the horn.

peasant, you gave him plenty of angry energy to keep the speed up, I'll wager Also I'll bet a pint he would have pulled over if you hadn't leaned on the horn.

Ah well, the joys of cycling in a country of ignorant motorists.

peasant

In fairness now, the cyclist wasn't exactly the superfast tour de France type of cyclist ...he was fairly slow and most of this section was uphill. Even if there had been trenches or holes in the coned off section he would have been able to spot them soon enough in order not to fall in.

Overall I just think he would have been so much safer on two empty wide lanes with possible holes in them than on one narrow full one with cars squeezing past (or possibly attempting to squeeze past)


As I said above ..I saw cars in front of me brushing past him (he was also a tad wobbly on the uphill struggle) ...i actually feared for his life.

That's why I beeped and waved him over to the right and he just gave me the bird.

As i said, in a way he was lucky that i was behind him and shielded him from the traffic. I bet you all the other cars would just have sqeezed past him regardless ...very likely with fatal consequences.

For not realizing this and not moving over when invited to do so safely I maintain he acted idiotically.

EDIT: in a way, I would have thought him to be less of an eejit (just plain inconsiderate) had he at least cycled in the middle of the lane, if you know what i mean. I think he really wasn't aware of the danger he was in .

blorg

Trojan wrote:

Also I'll bet a pint he would have pulled over if you hadn't leaned on the horn.

This point of Trojan's is just too true, hooting at cyclists (beyond a polite brief simple 'I'm here' or warning hoot) is the best way to guarantee that they will do exactly the opposite of what you want.

peasant

Trojan wrote:

Next thing he hears a car beeping at him, typical, eh? He glances around and sees the driver in the dark cabin of an enormous wide camper van gesturing incoherently at him. How the hell is he going to pass in that thing, and why is he shaking his fist? F#ck 'im, the cyclist is over as far as he can go and if the van is too big to go past that's just tough luck. And then this thought is cemented when the arrogant driver tries to bully him into the ditch by leaning on the horn.

Actually the "arrogant driver" first opened his window and shouted towards the cyclist "pull in to the right, I'm letting you in" ...which earned him another bird ....THEN he stood on the horn for a bit ...wrong, maybe ...but maybe you can just see my side as well?

And I'd also like to point out, that at no time during the 25 mins it took your man to clear this passage did I "drive up his arse" or try to bully him into the ditch. He had 25 mins to think of an escape ...one was even offered to him on the correct side of the road after about 15 mins. Did he take it? No!

Therfore he is and remains an idiot.

I would agree with blorg though, that all this hadn't happened had Donefal CC thought to make provisions for cyclists along this dangerous stretch.

blorg

peasant wrote:

In fairness now, the cyclist wasn't exactly the superfast tour de France type of cyclist ...he was fairly slow and most of this section was uphill. Even if there had been trenches or holes in the coned off section he would have been able to spot them soon enough in order not to fall in.

This actually shows a misunderstanding of how cycling works. With the position you will typically be in going up a hill you will generally be looking closer to straight down at the road than straight ahead and have severely restricted forward visibility.

And you haven't answered the question of why you didn't stop briefly to move the cones and drive on that section yourself?

peasant

blorg wrote:

.

And you haven't answered the question of why you didn't stop briefly to move the cones and drive on that section yourself?

Because I didn't fancy a beating:D ...and that's just what I would have received had I given the car drivers behind me the chance to get at me ...most of them probably didn't realize that i was being held up by a cyclist.

jman0

As a regular cyclist commuter, and weekend roadie much like yer man in the photos.
I can say plainly that i would not, under just about any circumstances, take the lane on the right.
I would however, pull-in to the left providing it was safe to do so, to allow the queue to pass.

blorg

peasant wrote:

Because I didn't fancy a beating:D ...and that's just what I would have received had I given the car drivers behind me the chance to get at me ...most of them probably didn't realize that i was being held up by a cyclist.

I'm sure you could have gestured to the cars behind that you were moving over to let them pass. Weak excuse TBH. And this is the crux of the matter - why you considered it OK to pressure the cyclist to cycle on that "perfectly safe and flat" bit of road but did not consider it appropriate for yourself to do so.

peasant

blorg wrote:

I'm sure you could have gestured to the cars behind that you were moving over to let them pass. Weak excuse TBH. And this is the crux of the matter - why you considered it OK to pressure the cyclist to cycle on that "perfectly safe and flat" bit of road but did not consider it appropriate for yourself to do so.

errrm ...do you have a driving licence and/or do you actually drive cars as well as bicycles?


you just can't be serious ...me stopping in the road, getting out of the cab, wandering off to remove about 5 to 6 cones to create a wide enough gap ...on my way back into the cab the latest is when the drivers behind would have killed me ...literally.

after all they had a good few minutes to work up a boil, hadn't they?

hunnymonster

I both drive and cycle. If you say they other part of the road was good enough for the cyclist then it should have been good enough for you. In reality, noone should have been on the rhs and it is just unfortunate that a wide camper came up during the 25 mins that a cyclist was using that part of the road.

blorg

Would have taken you two minutes tops. You were already crawling along and your intention in stopping briefly is to allow traffic to make progress, so I don't see what the problem is.

I'm well aware that it would have been illegal (and possibly dangerous) for you to drive there. Just as it would have been illegal (and possibly dangerous) for the cyclist to cycle there.

EDIT: It's a rhetorical device. I _don't_ personally believe you should have driven there, of course not. Point is: neither should the cyclist, as hunnymonster correctly points out.

jman0

peasant wrote:

- I do understand that the cyclist may have been reluctant to move beyond the cones for some reason ...still it was the safest place to be and it is where I would have cycled, if I was the cyclist. What I don't understand is that he did not turn left at an entrance into a gateway (a bit like a small parking lot ..about 50 m long and 10 m deep, so well off the road) to let the meanwhile 100+ cars past that had queued up behind him over the last 20 mins.
If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely ...see if he survives that one ...

My question is why didn't you pull-in to this 50m small car park and let queue past?
We've already established that cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

peasant

jman0 wrote:

My question is why didn't you pull-in to this 50m small car park and let queue past?
We've already established that cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

Simple answer ... because the paved area was rather narrow and there was deep muck either side of it ...I didn't want to get stuck.

Question to all cyclists here:

Cyclists have a reputation of not taking traffic laws 100% seriously if it suits their needs and/or helps their safety. Examples like cycling on walkways, footpaths and bus lanes spring to mind. Personally ..as long as nobody else is inconvenienced or even endangered I have no issue with that, especially when it helps to move cyclists out of harm from fast flowing traffic.

I would assume that at least 80% if not 99% of all cyclists would agree with me here.

So why, in this case, when the choice was:

a) cycle "legally" for 25 mins and risk your live and inconvenience hundreds of others

or

b) cycle "illegally" for any length of time (including a stop if so desired) in perfect solitude and safety (with the only caveat being to keep an eye on the road for possible hazards, which by the way applies equally to the other scenario)

everybody pulls the "but it's not legal to cycle there" - card ??

I just don't get it ...

John_C

peasant wrote:

b) cycle "illegally" for any length of time (including a stop if so desired) in perfect solitude and safety (with the only caveat being to keep an eye on the road for possible hazards, which by the way applies equally to the other scenario)

everybody pulls the "but it's not legal to cycle there" - card ??

I just don't get it ...

I’m going to pull the ‘it’s not safe to cycle there’ card. The cyclist didn’t necessarily know what was in there, he could have met a car coming the opposite way and even if he didn’t, getting back out of there would have been a dangerous manoeuvre.
If it were me, I’d have pulled over into the gateway or a field or something when one appeared and I can only guess that the reason this fella didn’t was because he was having a horn blown at him.

hunnymonster

I'm a cyclist and I don't break the rules although I can see the common sense approach you're trying to describe. The problem is, even if a footpath is almost empty, there may be an elderly person just about to join it. Their reactions are slower and are easily scared by cyclists because of the speed. The risks aren't worth it.

peasant

John_C wrote:

I’m going to pull the ‘it’s not safe to cycle there’ card. The cyclist didn’t necessarily know what was in there, he could have met a car coming the opposite way and even if he didn’t, getting back out of there would have been a dangerous manoeuvre.
If it were me, I’d have pulled over into the gateway or a field or something when one appeared and I can only guess that the reason this fella didn’t was because he was having a horn blown at him.

I would beg to differ ...

Yes ...he *could* have met maybe one or two construction vehicles coming the other way and yes there *could* have been holes in the road / obstructions on the surface and yes he would have needed to have his wits together when getting out of there again

BUT ...that would still have been ultimately safer than spend twenty five minutes cycling at the verge of death with hundreds of cars speeding and squeezing past on a lane that is no wider than a car and a cyclist next to each other with no room inbetween.

Actually no ...you're right ...staying left was the safest thing to do. Because he had little muggins me covering his back and keeping him perfectly safe :cool:

John_C

peasant wrote:

Yes ...he *could* have met maybe one or two construction vehicles coming the other way

And one of these vehicles *could* have flattened him.

peasant wrote:

Actually no ...you're right ...staying left was the safest thing to do. Because he had little muggins me covering his back and keeping him perfectly safe :cool:

That's the way I see it too. He was perfectly safe where he was and safety out ranks convienience here.

peasant

John_C wrote:

That's the way I see it too. He was perfectly safe where he was and safety out ranks convienience here.

Right ...I'll wait for his "Thank You"- letter in the post so and look forward to the annual Christmas card :cool:

jman0

Yeah you're misinterpreting us there.
It's not that it's illegal to cycle on the other lane, rather it's not safe to do so.
[Meeting an oncoming vehicle, sudden obstruction on the road and having to get back into the proper lane.]
With the benefit of hindsight, it may appear safe to cycle there but then and there, i'd be thinking:
Maybe the other carrigeway (for traffic going the opposite direction) has major road works and has been detoured onto OUR carriageway.
Happens all time actually.


btw it's not illegal for a cyclist to use the bus lane.
In fact, that is exactly where a cyclist should be.

daymobrew

pesant wrote:

Cyclists have a reputation of not taking traffic laws 100% seriously

I'm surprised that you haven't been crucified for this remark. Those that do break the law annoy the hell out of us that adhere to the law. I've shouted at many cyclists for breaking red lights and recieved a lot of verbal abuse for my troubles.
Almost every day I phone TrafficWatch about cars that run red lights. Neither group is perfect so we should all avoid inaccurate statements.

This thread is not going to come to a nice conclusion. Sinn Fein and the DUP will agree quicker than this discussion. So, like the original thread in the Motors forum I am going to close this thread. Feel free to plead for its reopening in PM.

daymobrew

One forum member asked me to reopen this thread. The member felt that progress was being made with peasant to explain the scenario from the cyclist's perspective.
What the hell, I've reopened the thread. Maybe a middle ground will be reached.

Tabnabs

daymobrew wrote:

Almost every day I phone TrafficWatch about cars that run red lights.

Just to go off topic for a minute, do you get any result out of this? Is it worth while/are drivers ever cautioned or prosecuted?

daymobrew

Dyflin wrote:

Just to go off topic for a minute, do you get any result out of this? Is it worth while/are drivers ever cautioned or prosecuted?

I do, though it can be hit and miss. I was in Fitzgibbon St station on Tuesday and the Garda was going to issue a ticket to a red light breaker. If the person doesn't pay then I'll have to make a statement and we'll go to court.
Some Gardai prefer the 'caution' route where they contact (prob by phone) the driver to have a stern word. Some of them have called out to the driver's house which, hopefully, makes the driver take the offence seriously.
Then, I hear nothing back about some of my reports. I honestly don't know what happens them. I've written to the Assistant Commissioner for Dublin a few times about this latter category. I then get a visit or call from a divisional chief. That's always educational. I've spoken with 3 such chiefs in the last few years, 2 of them from Traffic Corps this year.

One thing in common is that the Gardai (especially those taking the TW calls) are all appreciative of the reports.

You can also report littering e.g. cig butts from cars. I've gotten online abuse for that.

blorg

Woot! Thread reopened!

The bottom line on this as I see it is that peasant could have done any of things that he wanted the cyclist to do himself (use the coned off area, pull in to the carpark so mucky he might get stuck - great for a bike I imagine.) He was unwilling to do so but doesn't seem to understand that any of the reasons he gives for not being willing to do these things applies equally to why the cyclist might not wish to do them.

Cyclists are somehow "special" as is revealed in his comment about the tendency of cyclists to break the law. (Incidentally, roadies getting on somewhat in years, as this cyclist seemed to be, are likely to be around the most law abiding cyclists you will find ;-) "Special" often boils down to "shouldn't be on the road in the first place" if they have any chance of getting in a motorist's way, even if through no fault of their own. You see this all the time, a portion of motorists just behave as if we don't exist, or at least _shouldn't_ exist. Poles and signposts are erected in the middle of cycle lanes without a thought as to why this is a bad idea.

We also didn't get a response to the "what if it was a horse" or "what if it was a tractor" - what would you do in those circumstances? Presumably you would want them to pull in to the coned area as well, and would lean on the horn until they did? If not, why not?

Addendum: At the end of the day it is patently ridiculous to expect someone merely inconveniencing you to do something illegal and dangerous because you are _not_ willing to do that same thing yourself - and then justify it by arguing that you view that person as belonging to a "class" of people willing to do illegal and/or dangerous things.