Spat at by Merc driver

dinneenp

I cycle and drive and notice that when you haven’t cycled for a short while how quickly you forget about cyclists. For people who just drive- they probably don’t even consider cyclists when driving, turning, stoping at lights etc.

I get very annoyed and angry when cycling and someone has blocked the inside left when they don’t need to be so close to the curb. Most drivers do it without even thinking.

Ghost Rider

It really does happen every day. What's irritating is that, most of the time, it would be equally easy for them to have left space for cyclists to pass. This gets properly annoying when you look in the window and realise the driver is having great crack listening to his/her radio.

dinneenp wrote:

I cycle and drive and notice that when you haven’t cycled for a short while how quickly you forget about cyclists. For people who just drive- they probably don’t even consider cyclists when driving, turning, stoping at lights etc.

I get very annoyed and angry when cycling and someone has blocked the inside left when they don’t need to be so close to the curb. Most drivers do it without even thinking.

dodgyme

Ghost rider is right that judgement is the primary facet needed. However although he agrees the OP was wrong to touch the car of the driver he wants to emphasise the difficulties that cyclists have. My opinion is that if the OP messed around with the drivers mirror which often snap back into place he was making a critical error of judgement and showing stupidity. With this kind of judgement I am glad the OP is not a motorist.

Ghost Rider

Fair point.

dodgyme wrote:

Ghost rider is right that judgement is the primary facet needed. However although he agrees the OP was wrong to touch the car of the driver he wants to emphasise the difficulties that cyclists have. My opinion is that if the OP messed around with the drivers mirror which often snap back into place he was making a critical error of judgement and showing stupidity. With this kind of judgement I am glad the OP is not a motorist.

jhegarty

He shouldn't have did what he did... but you started it by touching his car....


A simple rule , if you don't want to be spat at or punched don't touch peoples cars....

michaelanthony

tampopo wrote:

Well, the adage was proved again, all merc drivers are w@nkers.

Pulled up to a junction this evening...merc pulled over to the left, way too much to the left. There was plenty of space for him to leave room for cyclists. I'm fed up of weaving in and out of traffic for cyclist blocking drivers. So I put my foot down on the pavement and folded his spring loaded wing mirror back to get by, and it sprung back, hunky dorey.

I took up a position in front of the merc and waited for the lights to change. Much beeping of horn and shouting like a rabid baboon from merc driver.

The lights changed and through the junction the merc driver continues to shout abuse at me through the open passenger side window. "You touch my car again and I'l ff'ing kill ya" type of thing. I told him he should have left space for the cyclists, not my fault if he's too far over. I also asked him if he had a full licence. The abuse from him continued, then he went to ram me, run me off the road. He wanted to get out up ahead and physically attack me, but he settled for spitting at me through the open window. So I spit back and got on his windscreen.

He drove up about 70-80m and pulled in, half on the grass verge, half on the road, still inside. Not wishing to be subjected to the open door in my path trick I sidetracked onto the footpath and then back on the road ahead.
He drove by me again and continued on his way.

I had an appointment, but a couple of hours later I went to the local Garda station and reported him, licence number etc etc. Garda said all he'd due was find out who was driving the car and caution him.

Anyone get similar treatment?

Spitting? ffs

That is unbelievable that you moved the mirror on someones car. Why did you have to move to the top of the queue. Why could you not wait in line like the rest of the traffic. That will teach you not to touch someones car again.

dodgyme

dinneenp wrote:

I get very annoyed and angry when cycling and someone has blocked the inside left when they don’t need to be so close to the curb. Most drivers do it without even thinking.

The driving instructors I have had always force you close to the left curb. Apparently it is the way to drive to get the test. The reasoning is to avoid proximity to oncoming traffic in the opposite direction. It wrecks your car also since most of the edges of road in this country are in bits.

Morgan

michaelanthony wrote:

Why did you have to move to the top of the queue. Why could you not wait in line like the rest of the traffic.

Because he was riding a bicycle. Waiting back in a line of traffic would be absurd.

Ghost Rider

So moving the mirror was wrong, but don't you think you're being a bit one-sided?

And do really you think cyclists should be prevented from moving up on the left, even though that is where they are normally expected to cycle?

Would you prefer it if cyclists always cycled in the middle of the lane, rather than keeping left for the benefit of motorists?

Do you really think bikes are "traffic" in precisely the same way that cars, vans and trucks are? If not, why should cyclists have to deal unquestioningly with the appalling congestion caused by motorists?

michaelanthony wrote:

That is unbelievable that you moved the mirror on someones car. Why did you have to move to the top of the queue. Why could you not wait in line like the rest of the traffic. That will teach you not to touch someones car again.

Civilian_Target

Children, children, can't you see? They're both wrong

Ghost Rider

Sorry, Da.

Civilian_Target wrote:

Children, children, can't you see? They're both wrong

Civilian_Target

That's OK son. Some day they'll grow up and won't be able to cycle any more

dodgyme

Civilian_Target wrote:

Children, children, can't you see? They're both wrong

Please dont hit me da, no not the face.

beans

A simple rule , if you don't want to be spat at or punched don't touch peoples cars....

Instant karma, get what you give, go around come around, do unto others etc. It's the oldest lesson in the book.

dodgyme

beans wrote:

Instant karma, get what you give, go around come around, do unto others etc. It's the oldest lesson in the book.

Oh ya I missed the section in 'the rules of the road' called 'oldest lessons'?
and I thought 'Instant Car Ma' is something a spoilt southsider gets for his 18th birthday

stooge

michaelanthony wrote:

That is unbelievable that you moved the mirror on someones car. Why did you have to move to the top of the queue. Why could you not wait in line like the rest of the traffic. That will teach you not to touch someones car again.

I would rather someone moved my mirror than cycle into it and break it. thats why the mirrors were made that way.Sounds like the merc man was a bit of a cock alright, but theres no excuse for spitting back at him.

As a driver I can say I'm guilty of not leaving enough space between the kerb for cyclists. As an infreqent cyclist I can also say that its really annoying when this happens.

Bit more consideration is needed by everyone -but as long as there are arrogant arseholes in big cars and suv's and the odd ignorant cyclist there will always be these arguments

Mr Magnolia

This is addressed to me so I will respond in fashion.

I don't believe I ever implied that all road users were equal, I said "they (referring to cyclists) can't be allowed to take the law into their own hands under any circumstances, the same legal avenues are open to cyclists as every other road user"

Ghost Rider wrote:

1. In the absence of a cycle lane, cyclists always have, and always will, travel along the left of the lane. If the traffic is going particularly slowly, that is naturally where they will pass cars.

Only where it is safe to do so. There wasn't room to do so in this instance, you've stated that the OP shouldn't have touched the motorist's mirror and I agree, see my 1st post.

Motorists should be thankful that we do not, in fact, cycle in the centre of the lane at all times, instead electing to allow traffic to pass by keeping left. This is not something we do out of a sense of martyrdom; it is something we do because we believe in considerate road usage. It is, you could say, the result of an unwritten rule, one which most cyclists are good at observing.

This I applaud and I realize most cyclist's (not all in my experience) will keep left when it's safe to do so.

By the same token, however, we expect motorists to observe another unwritten rule i.e. to provide enough space on the left, where it is possible to do so, to allow cyclists to pass when the traffic stationary or slow. Not doing so amounts to inconsiderate road usage. (Again, the law on overtaking seems irrelevant; we're talking about passing, which is often a matter of judgement, not the letter of the law.)

Agree, in this instance we don't know if it was safe/possible to leave that room, so this is really here-say(spl?).

2. The very idea that all road users are "equal" is simplistic and legalistic. In other words, it is based on an adherence to the letter of the law rather than on an attempt to understand the broader context (or "spirit") of the law. As I see it, the main reason many cyclists have a more or less constant beef with motorists is that they are all too aware that the rules themselves are necessitated by problems caused by motorists (e.g. congestion; fatal crashes), not problems caused by cyclists. That is why it often seems unfair to expect cyclists to observe these rules literally. As in the example given above, some rules are unwritten. In that respect, these rules are closer to an ethical code or a kind of etiquette. This is as it should be, in my view.

Again, as above, I don't believe I ever implied that all road users were equal, I said "they (referring to cyclists) can't be allowed to take the law into their own hands under any circumstances, the same legal avenues are open to cyclists as every other road user" so a mute point really.

3. The law is not the be-all-and-end-all of arguments in relation to road usage. The law is not universal or transcendent of history: specific laws arise in specific historic circumstances and, often, to reflect the interests of a certain group (in this case, motorists). The belief that the law is inherently fair has no ground whatsoever, which is why appeals purely to the law to determine what is just or fair are fallacious..

As above.

As I said, the original poster was wrong to touch the driver's car. What shocked me was the number of responses which were far more concerned with the supposed attack on the driver's property (itself a questionable charge since no damage was done)

You agree though that the motorist's property should not have been touched. I didn't express 'shock', I simply stated that IMO it shouldn't have been done and you agreed.

than they were with, say, the total lack of consideration shown by the motorist in the first instance - or, to put it another way, his breaking of an unwritten rule vis-a-vis cyclists.

Again as above, we don't know if it was safe to apply your unwritten rule and if it was the driver may not have been actively aware of the cyclist's presence.

This worries me because it suggests that some people seem quite lacking in that one virtue that is essential to an intelligent (i.e. non-legalistic) approach to road usage: empathy.

There will always be a proportionate number of cyclists and motorist's that show a total disregard for other road-users, it's a fact of life; simple as. Education is the key.

beans

I thought 'Instant Car Ma' is something a spoilt southsider gets for his 18th birthday

Superb!

dinneenp

According to the rules of the road/the law cyclists are allowed to cycle two people abreast. But in real life no-one does this on a busy road.
People have to be considerate and the driver should leave space.

I sometimes stop if someone has blocked the left side and make a gesture at them (hands in air etc.) or if their window is open ask them why they are blocking.
Like with a stranger- touching is a no-no without permission.....

Ghost Rider

It was directed at a perceived attitude, not you alone. It was you who asked me to explain myself, is all.

Mr Magnolia wrote:

This is addressed to me so I will respond in fashion.

Ghost Rider

Ouch.

dodgyme wrote:

I thought 'Instant Car Ma' is something a spoilt southsider gets for his 18th birthday

nodger

tampopo wrote:

Well, the adage was proved again, all merc drivers are w@nkers.

<snip> So I put my foot down on the pavement and folded his spring loaded wing mirror back to get by, and it sprung back, hunky dorey.

As a Merc driver and a cyclist, I can tell you that it makes no difference what type of car a person drives - the problem is a general lack of education, patience and consideration from the majority of road users.

I think people have a tendency to remember occasions when they were cut-off by Merc/BMW/Lexus drivers, simply because it fits a stereotype. The same sort of generalisation is made by many motorists against learner-drivers, drivers of foreign-registered cars, and of course African-born drivers.

I know you might have felt that you weren't doing any harm by moving his mirror, but you had no right to interfere with his car in any way. Driving is stressful enough without having people messing with your pride and joy.

Personally, I'm liable to see a red mist when people are discourteous to me on the road, but I can't remember a time when shouting or beeping the horn at them has helped the situation at all

Cabaal

I don't agree with moving the mirror but the motorist acted inappropriately in relation to trying to run him off the road, shouting abuse and stop up ahead to start a fight and not to mention the spitting.

The motorist should have given enough clearance for the cyclist to get by imho

Mr Magnolia

Cabaal wrote:

The motorist should have given enough clearance for the cyclist to get by imho

Presuming it was safe to do, so I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

nodger

Cabaal wrote:

I don't agree with moving the mirror but the motorist acted inappropriately in relation to trying to run him off the road, shouting abuse and stop up ahead to start a fight and not to mention the spitting.

The motorist should have given enough clearance for the cyclist to get by imho

It wasn't just inappropriate, it was insane. I'm not defending the driver's actions, I'm just saying that his anger was caused by the cyclist taking it upon himself to mess with the guy's car. That's not right, either.

I cycle on quite a few roads that have been stupidly allocated two lanes in each direction, when they were originally only designed to cater for one. Quite often, drivers have no choice but to get close to the kerb in order to allow traffic in the outer lane to move alongside them. It's bad planning. It's not worth trying to pass cars on the inside because most of the time you'll end up having to clip the kerb in order to pass them. At the end of the day, I'd rather get home unscathed rather than 30 seconds sooner.

dodgyme

nodger wrote:

As a Merc driver and a cyclist

hah!! , wha, jez, ! who"" can't compute!!! TILT !

heyjude

Cabaal wrote:

I don't agree with moving the mirror but the motorist acted inappropriately in relation to trying to run him off the road, shouting abuse and stop up ahead to start a fight and not to mention the spitting.

The motorist should have given enough clearance for the cyclist to get by imho

Agreed, the cyclist shouldn't have touched the Mercs' mirror, but the Mercs' driver should have left enough room for the cyclist to get by. Whenever the subject of cyclists on the road comes up, the driving lobby seems to list all the things that cyclists should be doing to essentially get out of their way.

But in reality cyclists probably show more consideration for other road users than many drivers, possibly because they are more vulnerable to injury. If the Rules of the Road are taken as gospel, then all cyclists would cycle two abreast on every road, and the drivers behind would have to get used to travelling home at 15mph, now a few doses of this in the morning/evening rush hour and Joe Duffy's phone line would be busy, with calls for the gardai to do something and get the cyclists 'out of the way', but when drivers fail to leave room for cyclists to pass, then that is a different matter ! Surely all road users have an equal right to use the road irrespective of the size and value of their vehicle.

Cyclists face many issues on the road that car drivers don't, such as the weather(wind,rain etc), also drains and potholes at the edge of the road, large puddles and my personal favourites as a former cyclist, drivers of parked cars who just open their door and get out without even checking their mirror for cyclists and drivers making left turns again without checking their mirrors.

As for the suggestion that it is a stereotype to blame bad road behaviour on the drivers of certain cars such as Mercs,BMWs etc., I have to say that there is a great deal of truth in this. Back in the nineties when I was learning to drive, every weekend before going out for a practice drive with my dad,I soon started to challenge him as to which make of car would be the first to pull out in front of our 'L plate' car, overtake us dangerously or tailgate us. And almost without fail, every week we were cut up, tailgated or forced to slow by aggressive drivers in Mercs, BMWs or Volvos. We never found the same with drivers of small cars despite their being more of them on the road.

Today as a driver of a smallish car, I still notice that drivers of Mercs, BMWs and SUVs are still far more likely to tailgate and drive out in front of you from sideroads than the drivers of smaller cars. My parents also said that while the L-Plate was on the family car, they noticed that other drivers seemed to treat them more aggressively on the road.

Motorists that feel it is fine to act aggressively towards cyclists should remember that their kids are cyclists too. I think we need more understanding all round.

Itsfixed

nodger wrote:

As a Merc driver and a cyclist, I can tell you that it makes no difference what type of car a person drives - the problem is a general lack of education, patience and consideration from the majority of road users.

I think people have a tendency to remember occasions when they were cut-off by Merc/BMW/Lexus drivers, simply because it fits a stereotype. The same sort of generalisation is made by many motorists against learner-drivers, drivers of foreign-registered cars, and of course African-born drivers.

I know you might have felt that you weren't doing any harm by moving his mirror, but you had no right to interfere with his car in any way. Driving is stressful enough without having people messing with your pride and joy.

Personally, I'm liable to see a red mist when people are discourteous to me on the road, but I can't remember a time when shouting or beeping the horn at them has helped the situation at all

Hear hear. I drive an old beemer. Not very often, mind you, as i prefer cycling most of the time.

Marathon Man

Ghost Rider wrote:

I also find it interesting that quite a few respondents on this thread seem to have gone out of their way (as in, they don't usually post on this forum) to make self-righteous pronouncements without, apparently, making any effort whatsoever to understand the situation of cyclists in this country.

I spotted that too. They must constantly search boards and the internet for such discussions.

daymobrew

heyjude wrote:

As for the suggestion that it is a stereotype to blame bad road behaviour on the drivers of certain cars such as Mercs,BMWs etc., I have to say that there is a great deal of truth in this.

My (totally unscientific) theory is that people who own these (relatively) expensive cars have progressed quite far up the corporate ladder. The meek generally don't climb so high. This would imply that said owners are more aggressive ( or 'determined' ).
This theory falls down these days with the amount of lending going on the country.