"Idiot Cyclist"

cyclopath2001

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:

Is your van left or right-hand drive?

Trojan

I'd say something but I think blorg has it covered 100% there.

I'll just note that I follow the rules of the road in the same way as a driver does when I'm cycling.... and I f#ckin hate cyclepaths, but that's another story.

BrianD3

blorg wrote:

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.

Look, peasant could not realistically have gone into the coned area to overtake the cylist. It would have been a lot easier and safer for the cyclist to move in there or to pull left for a short time to let him by. Anybody should be able to see that there is a helluva difference between a large, wide, heavy camper van and a slow moving, short, narrow bicycle whe it comes to maneouvring, stopping, overtaking etc.

Posters are referring the cyclist as a "roadie" not sure what that is but I presume it is a serious cyclist who is cycling on the public road for recreation or training. My experience of "roadies" is that they themselves don't like to be inconvenienced or obstructed (possibly because it disrupts their training) That's why i asked earlier what if the tables had been turned and the cyclist had been held up by a tractor or any other very slow vehicle what would have happened. I would bet that the cyclist would then have no difficulty taking to the coned off area to overtake in that scenario and jman0 even agreed with me.

Also posters are saying how peasant acted aggressively. Well according to him after his inital beep of the horn the cyclist gave him the finger. Beeping the horn at another road user is a valid way of alerting them to your presence. Giving someone the finger is never anything other than an aggressive/provocative gesture. The cyclist in this incident is no angel.

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

The cyclist in this incident is no angel. He may be the sort of guy would pull a wing mirror off a car if a driver cut him up in traffic because he "felt vulnerable" and the "stupid motorist needed to be taught a lesson" I have heard of incidents where cyclists gave these reason when attempting to excuse their aggressive behaviour on the roads

This is totally scurrilous. The fact is that the cyclist did not do any of the above.

Stick to the facts.

We still don't know if the camper van was left or right-hand drive. This information would better help us appreciate peasant's point of view.

BrianD3

cyclopath2001 wrote:

This is totally scurrilous. The fact is that the cyclist did not do any of the above.

Stick to the facts.

Do you undertand the word "may". I never said that the cyclist caused any damage just that he showed an aggressive streak by giving the finger and speculated that he may have a tendancy for other aggressive acts. There is a lot of other speculation in this thread (eg the speculation that there may be a big trench for the cyclist to fall into on the coned off road) so it's not a new thing in this thread.

Stick to the facts yourself - you're the one who stated that peasant broke the law by driving on an "unsuitable route" whatever that's supposed to mean. You didn't back up what you said and there was no "may" in your accusation.

Also peasant has already stated what side his steering wheel is on.

daymobrew

BrianD3 wrote:

It would have been a lot easier and safer for the cyclist to move in there or to pull left for a short time to let him by.

I have often thought the same about tractors and other slow moving vehicles when I am driving. Then I realise that they want to get to their destination asap and if they pull over to let me (and the tailback) pass, there'll be another tailback in a few mins and they'll never get anywhere.

BrianD3 wrote:

Also posters are saying how peasant acted aggressively. Well according to him after his inital beep of the horn the cyclist gave him the finger. Beeping the horn at another road user is a valid way of alerting them to your presence. Giving someone the finger is never anything other than an aggressive/provocative gesture.

I think that is very hard to deliver a 'alerting'/fyi beep without it sounding aggressive. The initial reaction by the cyclist could be as a result of the confusion. The subsequent beeping simply confirmed to the cyclist that that reaction was correct.
I've always wanted two switches in the car to avoid confusion.

pesant wrote:

BUT ...that would still have been ultimately safer than spend twenty five minutes cycling at the verge of death

This is a scary statement by the camper driver. The threat of death is purely due to the actions of the motorists. Such behaviour, which most of us commuters will have experienced, clearly contravenes the law quoted by cyclopath2001.

BrianD3 wrote:

The cyclist in this incident is no angel. He may be the sort of guy would pull a wing mirror off a car ...

No call for that defamatory comment. I know you said may. Don't make me close this thread again.

blorg

BrianD3 wrote:

There is a lot of other speculation in this thread (eg the speculation that there may be a big trench for the cyclist to fall into on the coned off road) so it's not a new thing in this thread.

That was not exactly speculation, I was _reporting_ my own very real and direct experience of cycling in a coned-off area and into a trench. Point: they are coned off for a reason.

BrianD3 wrote:

Do you undertand the word "may". I never said that the cyclist caused any damage just that he showed an aggressive streak by giving the finger and speculated that he may have a tendancy for other aggressive acts.

And peasant showed an agressive streak by leaning on the horn. You know, there are incidents of road rage shootings - maybe peasant had a gun! Did he? Seriously, aging roadies (def: someone riding a road bike) are about the last sort of cyclist to go around ripping off wing mirrors or leading some sort of an anti-car crusade (the cyclist probably has a car himself, especially if he lives in the country.)

This is simple mindless generalisation about "cyclists" as if they are some sort of homogenous group with consistent behaviours rather than a diverse group of people sharing a common hobby.

BrianD3

daymobrew wrote:

No call for that defamatory comment. I know you said may. Don't make me close this thread again.

Alright, I take that back and will try to edit it out. However I stick by the point that this thead is full of speculation, "what ifs" and "it may have been such and such"

blorg

BrianD3 wrote:

Alright, I take that back and will try to edit it out. However I stick by the point that this thead is full of speculation, "what ifs" and "it may have been such and such"

When using the roads, cycling or driving, yes, it's all about the "what ifs" to keep safe. Anticipation of possibilities before they occur is a key tenet of defensive driving.

Similarly, if you cycle along within a foot of parallel parked cars, most of the time you will not be hit by someone opening a door. But do it enough and one day you will, and you'll be severely injured or worse (it is quite a common cause of cyclist injury.) So "what if someone opens a door into me" comes into the equation and you make a general rule to stay clear of car doors.

Now anticipating that there may be _something_ in a coned off section of road that would make it dangerous to cycle or drive there is not an unreasonable anticipation.

BrianD3

blorg, I do know about defensive driving thanks. In peasant's case all we really have to go on are the pics and peasant's account. The pics show a wide seemingly safe expanse of empty coned off road. The cyclist is crawling along and has ages to react to anything that may happen ahead of him. If there is a trench 500 yards up the road it's not actually such a big deal. It is entirely different to cycling in close proximity to a car door that may open suddenly and knock you off.

It also seems like posters are trying to come up with any excuse to justify this cyclists actions eg I see a spec of light on the photo - it must be an oncoming car! Note that i am not saying that the cyclist did anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Technically he was in the right to stay put however he showed a serious lack of common sense IMO.

I know if it were me cycling I'd prefer to take my chances with the non existant oncoming car or the trench that may or may not be there than take a chance with the camper guy behind who I've just incited by giving him the finger.

blorg

I've already mentioned earlier in the thread the typical position a road cyclist will be in going up a hill. It doesn't afford great forward visability and I have hit unexpected obstacles myself while going up hills (specifically, roadworks signs thoughtfully occupying the entire cycle lane) that I would have seen easily if cycling on the flat or downhill, despite the fact I would be going so much faster.

That is a simple explanation from a cyclist.

There is no need to invent phantom cars sensed from the photo, and my example of a trench was merely a report of my own direct experience of cycling in a works area. Bottom line, it's a coned off area and as such obstructions and pitfalls are to be _expected_.

So cycling uphill with limited visbility in an area where such obstacles are _likely_ is not sensible and I would not do it myself.

I agree there is no need to to paint this guy as an angel. But neither a devil. I don't think it is necessary or matters one way or the other, it's quite a distraction from the discussion. I quite agree with you that he shouldn't have given peasant the finger. Most people here have suggested that although they _wouldn't_ cycle on the right side, they _would_ pull over to the left to let traffic past if and when safe to do so. Peasant even had an opportunity to do so himself with the carpark but didn't because of nothing more than mud - a bit of a lame excuse; in reality it was back to this whole "the cyclist should do X but no way am I doing X."

And honestly, leaning on the horn at a cyclist who is perfectly within his rights to be doing what he is doing (even if inconsiderate) is the best way to guarantee that he will completely disregard any thought of doing you a favour.

daymobrew

BrianD3 wrote:

It also seems like posters are trying to come up with any excuse to justify this cyclists actions eg I see a spec of light on the photo - it must be an oncoming car!

Ok, my "spec of light" post aside, presumably this road is still a 2 way road (there is no way that there would be a single lane setup for 5km+).
Where on the road are the cars in the opposite direction going to be? Presumably on the right of the cones. Despite there being a 50km/h limit, I am confident that oncoming traffic will be travelling over that speed (50km/h will seem very slow when driving in a wide lane, like eastbound on the N32 after coming off the M50 northbound).

BrianD3 wrote:

I know if it were me cycling I'd prefer to take my chances with (snip more "may" stuff) than take a chance with the camper guy behind

I agree with the part about getting away from the camper guy. I've pulled over a few times to let tailgaters pass me (including a HGV as I cycled down East Wall Road, a black spot for cyclists). I feel a million times safer with such drivers ahead of me, as far away from me as possible.

blorg

Apparently it was a dual carriageway and the other lanes were coned off for resurfacing, so although there wouldn't be oncoming traffic there could be god knows what left lying around in the coned off works area.

Agree with you on the nightmare that is the East Wall, just heading off that way right now - hope I come back alive to continue this discussion.

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

Stick to the facts yourself - you're the one who stated that peasant broke the law by driving on an "unsuitable route" whatever that's supposed to mean. You didn't back up what you said and there was no "may" in your accusation.

Sorry, I assumed that everyone here was familiar with road traffic law.

In my opinion, the road was unsuitable as it was quite narrow relative to the width of the vehicle.

Driving without reasonable consideration for others is an offence. It is open to debate here that campervan-man did not demonstrate reasonable consideration by failing to anticipate the situation he found himself in.

We still do not know if it was a left or right-hand drive vehicle, this fact would be pertinent.

Heinrich

cyclopath2001 wrote:

We still do not know if it was a left or right-hand drive vehicle, this fact would be pertinent.

He actualy said that it was left hand drive and that it was his wife who took the masterpieces!

Frankly if you are behind it is because there is an obstruction. Tough. It could be a broken down vehicle, traffic light, accident, whatever. If the camperfella lacks patience then perhaps he should not be driving along unsuitable roads.

Roadworks of this nature ALWAYS generate slowdowns so let's leave the cyclist out of the equation.

To the OP; what was youir hurry? I thought those horrid campervans were intended for leisure pursuits. Check out the law regarding the use of your car horn...

aodhu

ok so there are a lot of cyclists getting points in, does anyone actually cycle in this area? Or know the cyclist in question? I would be great to here their point of view?

BrianD3

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Sorry, I assumed that everyone here was familiar with road traffic law.

In my opinion, the road was unsuitable as it was quite narrow relative to the width of the vehicle.

Driving without reasonable consideration for others is an offence. It is open to debate here that campervan-man did not demonstrate reasonable consideration by failing to anticipate the situation he found himself in.

Keep digging yourself into that hole cyclopath. Admit it - your earlier statement about how peasant broke the law by driving on an "unsuitable route" was a load of crap and has no basis in law, He had every right to drive on that road.

You are so biased in this thread and every other thread you post in about cyclists/motorists its actually funny. At least try to make a reasonable argument.

BrianD3

daymobrew wrote:

Ok, my "spec of light" post aside, presumably this road is still a 2 way road (there is no way that there would be a single lane setup for 5km+).
Where on the road are the cars in the opposite direction going to be?

Look at the photos and original thread, it's a dual carriageway and there doesn't appear to be any contraflow. So yeah, there should not be any oncoming traffic on the other side of the cones. You can actually see the traffic coming the opposite direction in one of the photos - the traffic is on the other side of the hedge/median. In fairness to the cyclist he might not have been aware of that.

It would not be strange to see one side of a dual carriageway closed off for works with no traffic being diverted onto it and only the hard shoulder open. County councils have gotten more cautious about letting cars onto unfinished roads in the wake of the Navan bus crash, now they like to err on the side of caution when it comes to closing roads/lanes. It is possible that the only reason that the area is coned off is becasue the new road markings have not been applied yet. This would be sensible as no road markings on a two lane road is a recipe for chaos.

daymobrew

BrianD3 wrote:

You can actually see the traffic coming the opposite direction in one of the photos - the traffic is on the other side of the hedge/median.

Ah! I wish someone pointed this out earlier - I've been convinced that there was a vehicle or two on the side of the cones (despite the 'spec of light' comments).

BrianD3 about cyclopath2001 wrote:

You are so biased in this thread ...

When people are passionate about something, those on the other side of the fence will often see this as biased. I am getting a lot of passion/bias/anger from your posts, because I am on the other side. You could, understandably, see my comments in a similar manner.

So, are we in agreement yet?

BrianD3

So, are we in agreement yet?

I'm just surpised that the thread has remained relatively civilised. Good moderation!

I'm going to bow out of this thread now while the going's good

blorg

BrianD3 wrote:

It would not be strange to see one side of a dual carriageway closed off for works with no traffic being diverted onto it and only the hard shoulder open. County councils have gotten more cautious about letting cars onto unfinished roads in the wake of the Navan bus crash, now they like to err on the side of caution when it comes to closing roads/lanes. It is possible that the only reason that the area is coned off is becasue the new road markings have not been applied yet. This would be sensible as no road markings on a two lane road is a recipe for chaos.

...exactly, and it is no more reasonable to expect cyclists to use the unfinished road. If cyclists were expected to use unfinished roads, you would expect signs should be put up to that effect at the start of the works.

jman0

BrianD3 wrote:

Also posters are saying how peasant acted aggressively. Well according to him after his inital beep of the horn the cyclist gave him the finger. Beeping the horn at another road user is a valid way of alerting them to your presence. Giving someone the finger is never anything other than an aggressive/provocative gesture. The cyclist in this incident is no angel.

You know, i don't believe peasant when he says the cyclist gave him the finger.
Why?
Because it is absent from his original post.
I've watched enough murder mysteries and followed enough news storys where during retelling, the one being questioned begins to invent details that were strangely absent from their original script.
If the cyclist gave him the finger he would have said as much in the OP.

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

Keep digging yourself into that hole cyclopath. Admit it - your earlier statement about how peasant broke the law by driving on an "unsuitable route" was a load of crap and has no basis in law, He had every right to drive on that road.

Are you saying that there is no basis in law for the offence of 'driving without reasonable consideration for others'? Are you quite sure about this?

Nobody has the right to break the law.

Driving on a public road is not a right, it's a privilege.

BrianD3

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Are you saying that there is no basis in law for the offence of 'driving without reasonable consideration for others'? Are you quite sure about this?

Maybe in your crazy world driving a van on the N13 is driving without reasonable consideration for others.

Thankfully the authorities would have a more sensible view on this. You said earlier that it's open to debate - actually no its not. Notice how not even any of the "pro cycling" posters here have mentioned it or bought it up as an issue. Most other points brought up in this thread have been discussed at length but not that one. You know why - because it's ridiculous.

Lets take a poll - who thinks that peasant broke the law because he drove on the N13. Remember we are not talking about peasants aggressive behaviour toward the cyclist. According to cyclopath, peasant commited an offence by just being on the road in the first place

Nobody has the right to break the law.

Driving on a public road is not a right, it's a privilege.

Useless rhetoric. You have not contributed anything useful to this discussion.

blorg

Ah now that's unreasonable BrianD3, we are not about to set upon "one of our own." ;-)

I don't think that peasant was doing anything illegal simply by driving on that road but it _is_ arguable that he was the cause of the tailback. Sure slow tractors are allowed block narrow roads etc., I imagine it is all fair game as long as it's not a motorway. The flip side of this of course is that you just have to put up with the slow moving vehicle and wait. _Arguably_ peasant was driving without reasonable consideration by refusing to pull into the carpark to let people past but I'd say even that's a bit of a stretch; it's about as arguable as the idea that the cyclist was doing anything wrong.

And on the topic of observance/non-observance of traffic rules: just this morning I was hooted at by a car behind me because the guy in the car was annoyed that I was waiting on a red left filter (due to pedestrian crossing) that he wanted to break. I've also been _blasted_ out of it by the car behind me many times for stopping on an orange, or even a freshly turned red.

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

Useless rhetoric.

It was you who asserted You stated that peasant had 'every right to be there'.

I refute this statement as being without constitutional basis.

He was privileged to be there & was enjoying that privilege so much, nobody could get past.

BrianD3

What's wrong cyclopath, have you no answer to my point about how peasant driving on the N13 in this instance would not be regarded as "driving without consideration for others". Your posts in this thread are a load of crap. Breaking road traffic law by driving on an "unsuitable route" - laughable. The fact that you have now switched your argument to talking about constitutional rights shows how rubbish your original point was.

You are a laughing stock I'm afraid. I see from previous posts you're on something of a campaign to improve the lot of cyclists in Dublin. With someone like you representing cyclists don't expect to see much progress. Nobody will listen to you or take you seriously if you have the attitude you've shown in this thread. You can also have pride of place in my ignore list.

cyclopath2001

BrianD3 wrote:

What's wrong cyclopath, have you no answer to my point about how peasant driving on the N13 in this instance would not be regarded as "driving without consideration for others".

I argued that peasant failed to anticipate the situation and that by doing so had failed to exercise reasonable consideration.

Your counter argument was:

1: That it was 'laughable'.

2: That no such law exists - it does.

3: That peasant 'had every right to be there' - no such right exists.

It's always interesting to see how people insist that cyclists should obey the law at all times, but find it 'laughable' when cyclists suggest that motorists should do likewise.

You can also have pride of place in my ignore list.

Enjoy your ignorance, unfortunately, cyclists cannot ignore ignorant drivers.

peasant

Hello folks, I'm back:D ...hadn't realised the thread was back open.

I'd like to make this my final and conclusive post on this matter, so bear with me:

STATEMENT:
1) I realise ( and have realised even while I was in this situation) that the cyclist had every LEGAL right to do what he was doing and I'm not disputing that

2) During this discussion I have also realised that sitting on the horn was a bad idea, and if the cyclist in question is reading this ...I'd like to apologize for that

3) I have learned from this thread to see more of a cyclists perspective and if anything like this happens to me again I promise I'll grin and bear it next time


REASONS WHY I THINK THE CYCLIST BEHAVED LIKE AN IDIOT NONETHELESS

All legal arguments aside ...this guy was cycling on a section of road that was approximatly 2.5 metres wide (remember, my camper is 2.2m, so it wasn't difficult to gauge) ...not really wide enough for a cyclist and passing traffic of any kind. The road was very busy and he must have known that.
On this narrow stretch he had been overtaken by quite a few cars at speed already and had come dangerously close to being swiped off his bike.

It would have been in his best interest to change to the two empty lanes as soon as he could. I gave him 25 minutes of opportunity to do so ...but he never did.
Wasn't he afraid I'd change my mind and just squeeze past him anyway? That I might actually pull in somewhere and expose him to a column of 100+ cars with pissed of drivers all wanting to get past him ? Was he so full of himself and his legal right to be there that he didn't realise that he was / (could be very quickly) in danger?

Well sorry ...but in my book that is and will always be idiotic behaviour.

THE TRUE CULPRIT
in this situation is whoever reduced the traffic of a very busy dual carriageway onto the hard shoulder without taking the safety of possible cyclists into consideration.

SEVERAL "OTHER" POINTS
- somebody said they can't see properly when cycling uphill. Well ...then either do not cycle uphill on public roads (where there could be an obstruction at any time, roadworks or no roadworks) or just simply lift your head:D

- there definetly was NO traffic on the coned off section and that fact was plain to see for everybody

- I had every right to drive on the N13. My camper is road legal, taxed and insured

- I was not the one holding up the traffic. It was the cyclist that was unable to go any faster

- someone somewhere posted that I should have overtaken the cyclist. I don't particularly fancy peeling out cyclists from between twin wheels ...hence I didn't

- other than (wrongly) blowing the horn at the guy, I did NOT intimidate him. I kept a safe distance at all times. Because this guy was quite wobbly on his bike and did not want to run him over in case he fell.

- yes my camper is LHD ...but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

- I did not try to tarnish all cyclist with the "illegal" brush. But I do admit that on the occasions when i have cycled myself that I do occasionally bend traffic rules, if such bending keeps me (and others) safer than sticking to them. There is a road into the next village for example that I do cycle occasionally. I always use the footpath for this as the road is too narrow for the traffic that's on it and as a cyclist i have to fear for my life. While cycling on the footpath i do of course have to give right of way to pedestrians ...so I cycle carefully and a bit slower than I could on the road.
I was (once again wrongly) assuming that most cyclists would have a similar attitude.


The reason why I didn't mention "the finger" from the outset is very simple. I did not want a heated discussion. I was in all naivety expecting that everybody (including cyclists) would agree with me that that the coned off section was the safest place to be and the guy was an idiot for not going for the chance to be safe. Guess I was very naive.

Well ...I have learned my lesson from this thread. I hope that some of you cyclists out there have learned something as well.

blorg

I think this _was_ most worthwhile in the end peasant. I guess one of the key points here is that there is quite a difference in attitude between the occasional leisure cyclist and more experienced cyclist, the sort of person who is using his bike for transportation or putting in serious mileage.

Your example of where you use the footpath is a good one; a more experienced cyclist would not use the footpath but would stick to the road, possibly staying far enough from the kerb that the traffic has to overtake properly (e.g. crossing the middle line.) They would likely be going at a speed that would be very dangerous on a footpath.

This is actually a big problem with "mixed use" lanes or indeed any off-road lane as such are used by pedestrians/joggers/etc whether they are allowed or not. Bottom line is that these are all actually footpaths that have simply been "designated" as cycle paths. The designation does not magically remove the foot traffic; if it looks like a footpath...

Unfortunately, most "cycle facilities" are designed _only_ with the view of the occasional cyclist which is why you find so many cyclists disdain to use them.