Car park Etiquette

sapper

So after my usual 9 mile cycle into work today was heading down the ramp into the office car park, slowing down gently, when another cyclist comes up right behind me. In I continue to slow as I am turning right at the bottom (In the car park most of the bike racks are to the right with only one or two are straight on). Once I reach the bottom I have slowed down enough to swing right when the guy behind me decides to overtake me.

Of course he has to brake so hard he almost goes over the handlebars and then unleashes a string of invective. The two of us ended up screaming at each other across the car park. Why would you try an overtake anything in a carpark when what you are overtaking could go any direction? I mean did the guy think I go that slow normally? :mad:

Morgan

Hand signal?

beans

I'm sure he would turn around and say "Well you should have indicated your intentions"...

At the same time, he should have been expecting the unexpected, after all he was the one behind you. Skiing rules etc.

Funny, don't think I've ever been involved in a dispute with another cyclist.

niceonetom

my god, haven't we enough trouble dealing with motorists and pedestrians without turning on each other??? cyclists unite!!!

sapper

Well, I was slowing down on the ramp and I did look behind me - which to me, If I was him, would indicate an imminent turn. He was right up my arse tho so not sure if it would have do any good to indicate.

Anyway, hand signals? In a small basement car park? Really?

He wasn't a real cyclist anyway, no helmet, no gear, no bag - probably freewheeled in from his apartment block 5 minutes away.

Anyway, in my opinion, for the commuting cyclist the worst enemy is other cyclists. They are either going too slow, which means you have to overtake and hope taxis don't sidewipe you (and yes, I do use handsignals in this case) or they obsessively are trying to be faster (better) than you, and are therefore knobs who have to be overtaken in revenge.

I wish it was like Holland, where I imagine everyone glides serenely around on their bicycles and arrives 5 minutes later with the daffodils in the basket on their handlebars intact

Evil Phil

sapper wrote:

They are either going too slow, which means you have to overtake and hope taxis don't sidewipe you (and yes, I do use handsignals in this case)

And as you're sitting at the next set of lights, which you've just missed because of them, the cycle past you to the front of the queue forcing you to do the whole thing again.

sapper

There should really be some etiquette whereby if you have been overtaken, you have been cowed and must stay behind your overtaker whenever stopped. Thats how it works in formula one right?

copacetic

sapper wrote:

He wasn't a real cyclist anyway, no helmet, no gear, no bag - probably freewheeled in from his apartment block 5 minutes away.

what a load of rubbish, he was on a bike wasn't he? He is as much of a 'real cyclist' as you are. Actually by the sounds of this statement, probably moreso.

sapper

Chillax chief - just joking. No need to fly off the handle:rolleyes:

DITTKD

sapper wrote:

He wasn't a real cyclist anyway

Are you saying you made the whole thing up??

sapper

Arf!

Fabio

sapper wrote:

There should really be some etiquette whereby if you have been overtaken, you have been cowed and must stay behind your overtaker whenever stopped. Thats how it works in formula one right?

I don't think so.

Just do what is right. Read the road and if he's going very slowly then overtake if you want to go faster.

You'll know when it becomes a competition that you should simply leave it go.

pete4130

Simple fact of the matter is would a driver in a car be stuck up your arse on a downward carpark ramp going at high speed to do a late braking manoure to overtake you on a corner (the gereal layout of underground carparks are they are 1 way as it is in my work car park so there can only be 1 possible direction to turn). I can't see that happening. It's obvious to me that the other guy was trying to cycle beyond his capabilities and nearly caused an accident from it. I would agee that he probably isn't as an experienced cyclist which would be the main reason he did something so stupid.

dub_skav

Lots of silly and snobbish things being said on here.

OP didn't indicate when he was turning right at a junction, so was in the wrong. Seems fairly simple to me.

Cabaal

Evil Phil wrote:

And as you're sitting at the next set of lights, which you've just missed because of them, the cycle past you to the front of the queue forcing you to do the whole thing again.

This drives me completely insane when I'm going to/from work, whats worse is they generally break red lights when doing this! :mad:

Gives cyclists a bad name when they do this too

Pherekydes

copacetic wrote:

what a load of rubbish, he was on a bike wasn't he? He is as much of a 'real cyclist' as you are. Actually by the sounds of this statement, probably moreso.

How do you make that out? The guy without the helmet, cycling shorts, etc. is the real cyclist?

In town this morning, and the ones breaking the red lights are the ones with no gear, helmets, the commuters on their "safety" bicycles and office clothes. One girl (females seem to be the worst offenders) rode straight through a red light at the junction of Parnell Sq/Denmark St just as I was pulling off. Had I been a tad quicker starting off she would have been creamed. Another girl went through 2 sets of red lights on Parnell St!

beans

Real cyclists have bikes, that's that. It's just that some are inconsiderate asshóles who should know better.

I've seen as many carbon-framed lycra-bandits doing stupid sh!t out on the streets as I have suit-wearing commuters, I don't think it's the preserve of either, but a subset of each.

Anyway, we're all just trying to get along with the minimum of fuss, who cares if I'm riding a unicycle with my ass hanging out? :cool: As long as I signal when appropriate...

dub_skav

A cyclist does not need to cover 100s of miles a week to qualify, particularly in this instance.

A commuter cyclist is somebody who cycles to work either for convenience, health or the environment. Wearing a helmet and lycra does not make you a cyclist, in fact in this case the guy who does all his cycling to/from work i.e. in traffic could well be the better urban cyclist.

richie_rvf

I hate to say this but to me it would appear that the OP was at fault - regardless of what clothing either are wearing.

If you were going so slow then I would assume it reasonable for anyone to want to overtake.

You should signal your intentions regardless of the circumstances.

You seemed to be very aware that the other cyclist was so close - then it would have been even more important to signal, no?

copacetic

Slow coach wrote:

How do you make that out? The guy without the helmet, cycling shorts, etc. is the real cyclist?

In town this morning, and the ones breaking the red lights are the ones with no gear, helmets, the commuters on their "safety" bicycles and office clothes. One girl (females seem to be the worst offenders) rode straight through a red light at the junction of Parnell Sq/Denmark St just as I was pulling off. Had I been a tad quicker starting off she would have been creamed. Another girl went through 2 sets of red lights on Parnell St!

Anyone on a bike is as much of a 'real cyclist' as you or me. The attitude of thinking anyone is less of a cyclist because they don't have all the gear makes you and the OP less real cyclists than anyone else metioned here imo.

blorg

sapper wrote:

There should really be some etiquette whereby if you have been overtaken, you have been cowed and must stay behind your overtaker whenever stopped. Thats how it works in formula one right?

I generally stay politely behind if overtaken and enjoy a relaxing draft into work... I then attack on the final hill and blast past the offender.*

Damn right on the overtakees who stop ahead of you and break the lights, nothing more annoying. I am generally a pretty good judge of who I'm likely to overtake and position myself accordingly at lights, generally beside rather than in front of someone I think I'm likely to overtake, so I don't get in their way if I'm wrong.

*...sometimes. may be embellished.

Harpz

First of all i'm all for a bit of solidarity among cyclists. Save the rage for the cars.
Also what is the ettiquette on hand signals. Very rare to see in dublin. And on my commute into town i dont use them except when switching lanes, then i point at the driver and make sure he's seen me so at least i can be sure it's malicious if he decides to bump me.
Anyway in the post that started this thread yer man was going down a ramp. Now while i've had some nice bikes in my time,(all robbed but thats for another thread) my current machine is a peugeot racer thats about my age (mid twenties) which the thieves are less partial to. Anyway doing hand signals while braking down a ramp, im just not sure i'd do it. I like to have two hands on the handle bars for braking.

uberwolf

I think the OP was in the right.

1. Car park ramp - steep, covered in emissions (oil) from cars, maybe wet? The OP is braking on his descent. That's two hands on a decline, esp on a road bike. He risks losing control of his bike with only one hand on the bars.

2. Position of bike facilities - some anticipation would suggest that a right hand turn is, on balance, probable. The third party should have exercised his grey matter.

3. Overtake when it is safe to do so. - The onus is on the overtaker to complete his manoeuvre safely. By not leaving space for the unexpected* it is his problem.




*see point 2

blorg

Agreed, I don't think you would see a car overtake another car in this situation (or a cyclist for that matter.) And AFAIK overtaking on a "junction" is a no-no.

littlejukka

i've only ever collided with another bike on one occasion, when he was in front and got cut off by a kerb-clipping car on a left turn, i ran straight into the back of him. all i could say was "it's bad enough with the cars without us hitting each other". he took it well, accepted my apology and off we went.

dub_skav

uberwolf wrote:

I think the OP was in the right.

1. Car park ramp - steep, covered in emissions (oil) from cars, maybe wet? The OP is braking on his descent. That's two hands on a decline, esp on a road bike. He risks losing control of his bike with only one hand on the bars.

2. Position of bike facilities - some anticipation would suggest that a right hand turn is, on balance, probable. The third party should have exercised his grey matter.

3. Overtake when it is safe to do so. - The onus is on the overtaker to complete his manoeuvre safely. By not leaving space for the unexpected* it is his problem.




*see point 2

Still believe OP was in the wrong. If your point (1) about dodgy braking conditions is correct, then why should they both have to slow down to a near stop. If the OP was unwilling to use hand signals then he should have stopped and allowed the other cyclist to pass.

Point 2 is irrevelant, if you do not signal you should not make a right hand turn, unless you are very sure there is nothing behind you.

Point 3 may seem logical but I don't think holds any water, onus is most definitely on every road user to indicate their intentions to other road users.

The other cyclist may (indeed probably should) have seen the situation coming, but I don't think they holds any blame in this.

kenmc

if you hit someone from behind are you not almost always automatically at fault?
Sounds like this is a case of 2 wrongs being compounded. The OP 'should' have indicated his intentions, according to the rules of the road, and the second cyclist 'should' have been travelling at a speed capable of stopping within visible distance. Although I suspect that as it's a car park in a private (?) building it's not public highway so the rules of the road might not actually apply here, similar to a private road leading from the gate of a mansion to the mansion itself say.

However given that it's a car park where they both work, you would expect that the second cyclist would also know the layout of the carpark and also be needing to take a right hand turn to get to the bike racks, just like the OP did.

dub_skav

kenmc wrote:

if you hit someone from behind are you not almost always automatically at fault?
Sounds like this is a case of 2 wrongs being compounded. The OP 'should' have indicated his intentions, according to the rules of the road, and the second cyclist 'should' have been travelling at a speed capable of stopping within visible distance.

If you hit someone from behind you are usually at fault, however if you hit somebody in the side while overtaking when they had made no indication to turn, that is a different story.

In the speed capable of stopping part I believe the case actually is that you should be at a distance to allow you to avoid a crash, be that by stopping or overtaking a slowing/stopped vehicle.

As I said before, OP in the wrong for pulling out in front of another road user without indicating, simple as that.
People have used car overtaking anologies, put it this way would you as a cyclist pull out in that situation if the vehicle behind you was a car that could be going straight on?

Bunnyhopper

Evil Phil wrote: »

And as you're sitting at the next set of lights, which you've just missed because of them, the cycle past you to the front of the queue forcing you to do the whole thing again.

I do so hate it when people do that...