Joggers on the road.

landydef

niceonetom wrote: »

look, if you're the one breaking the solid white line, you're the one behaving dangerously. "but the cyclists made me do it". nope.

yes, you're right, drivers with a 'get out of my way i have a CAR' attitude are a regular occurrence.

obviously breaking the white line is dangerous and against the law so overtaking shouldnt be done until you meet broken white lines but surely if the cyclists are in a row its safer for all road users
i agree some drivers are idiots,stopping in cycle lanes etc. but if your using the road be it a cyclist a pedestrian a car driver or whatever you should have consideration for everyone in the interest of safety
its not that much to ask!!!

cyclopath2001

chris85 wrote: »

Cyclists should cycle in single file if there is cars coming

They're not required by law to do so.

Gavin

You are describing two lane country roads. On these roads, typically there is not enough room for a car to overtake a single cyclist safely, and remain on the left side of the road.

So, rather than encourage a driver to overtake a cyclist dangerously closely, a competent cyclist will cycle slightly farther into the lane, thus forcing a car to overtake correctly and not push the cyclist off the road. Cycling two abreast is an extension of this.

At the same time, I'll personally pull out of the way as soon as I can to allow cars to overtake me when it's safe for me. It's a case of delaying a driver for around a minute and staying safe versus inviting dangerous driving.

Is this unreasonable ?

chris85

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They're not required by law to do so.

Feck sake, bit of courtesy buddy, required by law, blah blah. I expect a bit more from a regular cyclist. It promotes dangerous driving from people behind you which is never a good thing.

I hate you cyclists that do this, no regard for motorists and then jump on the bandwagen when its time to slag motorists.

cyclopath2001

chris85 wrote: »

It promotes dangerous driving from people behind you which is never a good thing.

To coin a phrase, that's just pure 'muppetry'.

chris85 wrote: »

Feck sake, bit of courtesy buddy, required by law, blah blah. I expect a bit more from a regular cyclist.

Now you know how it feels to be stuck behind lines of mostly empty cars with just a driver in them. Or to find a cycle track with completely empty cars parked in them.Or, when some motorist decides to go for a jog in a cycle lane.

Courtesy?

You first.

chris85

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

To coin a phrase, that's just pure 'muppetry'.

Now you know how it feels to be stuck behind lines of mostly empty cars with just a driver in them. Or to find a cycle track with completely empty cars parked in them.Or, when some motorist decides to go for a jog in a cycle lane.

Courtesy?

You first.

I do it all the time mate. I check may mirrors to make room if needed to get by in traffic. Very careful when overtaking especially to alert motorist behind me of a cylclist by indicating as i go by.

You are just as bad. You are not being courteous so why do you expect others to be. You being courteous may promote others to be.

MCMLXXXIII

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

...find a cycle track with completely empty cars parked in them...

Not that it makes it right, but... Of course the cars are completely empty. Why would you park a car, and then stay in it?

Gavin

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Not that it makes it right, but... Of course the cars are completely empty. Why would you park a car, and then stay in it?

So as to wait for unsuspecting cyclists and door them on the way by !

Timmaay

Argh, why is everyone who runs on the road called a jogger? I do lots of athletics and do my 7mile run twice a week with my local athletics club on the roads around wicklow, But I'm not a fugging jogger!!!, I'm an athlete! I run way too quick to be just a jogger, A jogger is just out of a leisurely stroll to try stay fit/not fat/feel good BS etc. I always wear high vis running top and if its dark I have a bike light.

It's funny when we running towards the town, passing all the rush hour traffic into wicklow town, if only they would stay out of our feckin way:p:D:D
Anyways, rant over, just another bit of BS to add to this thread.

mikemac

MYOB wrote: »

Had to overtake one today through the Sally Gap! Don't want to imagine the state of his leg muscles after that 'jog'...

I've read the entire thread and loads of good points.
This is the only post I don't get. What's the problem?

If I lived nearby or had access to a car I'd go jogging in this scenic area. And I'd definitly go cycling here.

The jogger obviously parked at the Sally Gap and went for a jog. Sure there is no footpath but if it's daylight, then what's the issue?
I don't see any reference to it being dark here

Wossack

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They're not required by law to do so.

Arent they, like all road users, required by law to keep left?

L1011

micmclo wrote: »

I've read the entire thread and loads of good points.
This is the only post I don't get. What's the problem?

If I lived nearby or had access to a car I'd go jogging in this scenic area. And I'd definitly go cycling here.

The jogger obviously parked at the Sally Gap and went for a jog. Sure there is no footpath but if it's daylight, then what's the issue?
I don't see any reference to it being dark here

6PM - light was failing, although he did have hi viz on, and there was no car parked either way for about a mile. And it was on some of the hilliest terrain. Effectively asking to be hit.

It was also extremely, extremely cold at the time but thats a different matter.

dub_skav

landydef wrote: »

obviously i would but even overtaking when you think its "safe" has to be more dangerous then not having to overtake at all!
its small things like this that save lives on our roads, the fact that this is at least the third time this has come up on this forum tells me that this is a regular occurance

The highlighted part strikes me as dangerous. It appears to say that you believe if cyclists are in single file then you do not need to perform an overtaking manouvere. Fact is, cyclists are road users and need to be overtaken safely at all times leaving adequate room. You cannot squeeze by a cyclist without leaving your lane as this is dangerous. It sounds like the cyclists adopting the primary position or cycling abreast are forcing you to see them as an obstacle to be overtaken correctly so fair play to them.

Fey!

Just for Cyclopath et al.

Down here in Galway we have cycle paths on most of our 4 lane roads inside the city limits, which include the Quincentennial Bridge and the Tuam Road to Headford Road bypass. I have yet to see anyone "parked" on them.

Despite this, cyclists insist on not using the cycle path, instead cycling on some of the citys busiest roads and generally slowing traffic down.

Would you care to explain the mindset there? When there's a clear lane especially for cyclists, why won't ye use them?

Also, we have the issue of unlit "joggers" and cyclists; after spending so much on the lycra shorts, are ye so broke that ye can't afford lights/hi-vis vest/helmets?

Some of you here have been preaching about how motorists put your safety in jeapordy, yet you won't use the necessary and, in a lot of case, obligatory safety equipment which you should have.

By the way, a light on the back of a bike saddle is of no use when it's covered by the tail of your jacket.

Timmaay

MYOB wrote: »

6PM - light was failing, although he did have hi viz on, and there was no car parked either way for about a mile. And it was on some of the hilliest terrain. Effectively asking to be hit.

It was also extremely, extremely cold at the time but thats a different matter.

Wow, he was a full mile away from the nearest carpark, he's an animal of a runner! A mile is nothing, so what if it was getting dark, A mile should only take 6 mins to run, not exactly 2 far from the nearest carpark. And whats wrong with it been a hill, I hill run the whole, time, does that mean I'm asking to get hit by a car? At least he had some high vis on, Unless you were asleep at the wheel you should have spotted him in plenty time.

L1011

Timmaay wrote: »

Wow, he was a full mile away from the nearest carpark, he's an animal of a runner! A mile is nothing, so what if it was getting dark, A mile should only take 6 mins to run, not exactly 2 far from the nearest carpark. And whats wrong with it been a hill, I hill run the whole, time, does that mean I'm asking to get hit by a car? At least he had some high vis on, Unless you were asleep at the wheel you should have spotted him in plenty time.

Do you have any concept of what the Sally Gap is? Living in Wicklow I'd expect you do, but that could be Bray...

The road through it is a one and a half lane, unmarked, mostly unsigned, twisty mountain road with frequent 20%+ gradients. Cars can't pass without slowing down significantly or one pulling in. Its not suitable territory to be jogging on any time of day, let alone evening. You'd need the fitness of an Ironman contender to be *able* to run there, and the general lack of concern for your personal safety of kamikaze pilot to actually do so.

niceonetom

Fey! wrote: »

Just for Cyclopath et al.

Down here in Galway we have cycle paths on most of our 4 lane roads inside the city limits, which include the Quincentennial Bridge and the Tuam Road to Headford Road bypass. I have yet to see anyone "parked" on them.

Despite this, cyclists insist on not using the cycle path, instead cycling on some of the citys busiest roads and generally slowing traffic down.

Would you care to explain the mindset there? When there's a clear lane especially for cyclists, why won't ye use them?

Also, we have the issue of unlit "joggers" and cyclists; after spending so much on the lycra shorts, are ye so broke that ye can't afford lights/hi-vis vest/helmets?

Some of you here have been preaching about how motorists put your safety in jeapordy, yet you won't use the necessary and, in a lot of case, obligatory safety equipment which you should have.

By the way, a light on the back of a bike saddle is of no use when it's covered by the tail of your jacket.

i don't know anything about galway, i'm a dub. but - without knowing the lanes in question - there are many many examples of cycle lanes that are unsafe for use. the council sending some lads out with a tin of red paint does not mean you'll end up with cycling infrastructure. go out on a bike once in while and you'll get it. there may be good reasons why the use another lane, and believe it or not, they're not using it to annoy you. remember, a large proportion of cyclists are motorists too. the reverse is not so true.

you will not find any cyclists who post around here out in the dark without lights. that type generally don't consider themselves to be "cyclists" and are a danger to themselves and others. you're preaching to the choir here, and it's very obvious and dull.

lightening

Fey! wrote: »

...I have yet to see anyone "parked" on them.

Despite this, cyclists insist on not using the cycle path

Ditto... In Dublin there is a cycle path from East Wall to Sutton. Perfectly smooth, lit up, two lanes. A fantastic cycle road. I have cycled it hundreds of times, its perfect. However, (mostly older men in lycra) insist on ignoring it and cycling on the road! Now don't get me wrong, I slow down, check my mirrors, indicate and overtake them, I just think they are a bit silly not using an excellent safer amenity built for them.

niceonetom

MYOB wrote: »

Do you have any concept of what the Sally Gap is?

well i was up there that direction las weekend (on a bike!) so yes, i have a concept of it.

MYOB wrote: »

The road through it is a one and a half lane, unmarked, mostly unsigned, twisty mountain road with frequent 20%+ gradients. Cars can't pass without slowing down significantly or one pulling in.

if it's that treacherous then surely you should be driving with great care - making it ideal for a runner (or a cyclist) who relys on drivers behaving safely? why do you think it's everyone else's responsibility to get out of your way?

jaggiebunnet

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They're not required by law to do so.

according to the ROTR they are:

"Don't ever cycle side-by-side with more than one cyclist."

in addition they must

"Make sure you keep to the left. Always look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn"

sourced here:
http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

L1011

I was driving with great care - the Mercedes SUV that tried to overtake me at a passing place (I let him past at the next one - wasn't able to stop at that one) wasn't, for instance. One driver out of the hundreds/thousands that use the road per day is all it takes to kill someone out jogging. Of course, this is true for every road - a muppet can mount the footpath anywhere - but the likelyhood is MASSIVELY heightened on roads of that 'quality'.

Fey!

niceonetom wrote: »

i don't know anything about galway, i'm a dub. but - without knowing the lanes in question - there are many many examples of cycle lanes that are unsafe for use. the council sending some lads out with a tin of red paint does not mean you'll end up with cycling infrastructure. go out on a bike once in while and you'll get it. there may be good reasons why the use another lane, and believe it or not, they're not using it to annoy you. remember, a large proportion of cyclists are motorists too. the reverse is not so true.

I have used these CUSTOM BUILT lanes for cyling myself, and there is nothing wrong with the surfaces. They are also wide, as are the paths beside them.

niceonetom wrote: »

you will not find any cyclists who post around here out in the dark without lights. that type generally don't consider themselves to be "cyclists" and are a danger to themselves and others. you're preaching to the choir here, and it's very obvious and dull.

So, just because someone rides a bike doesn't make them a cyclist? That sounds a bit odd. Does that mean that the people who post on here are also not the ones who run red lights or cut off cars without looking?

As for "obvious and dull", if it was that obvious I'd see less two wheel prefering idiots without lights on my drive home. Or was that just your attempt at a put down to make others STFU?

niceonetom

jaggiebunnet wrote: »

"Don't ever cycle side-by-side with more than one cyclist."

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

more than. two abreast is legal. three is not. that's what it seems to say to me...

jaggiebunnet

niceonetom wrote: »

more than. two abreast is legal. three is not. that's what it seems to say to me...

That's a very good point

niceonetom

Fey! wrote: »

I have used these CUSTOM BUILT lanes for cyling myself, and there is nothing wrong with the surfaces. They are also wide, as are the paths beside them.



So, just because someone rides a bike doesn't make them a cyclist? That sounds a bit odd. Does that mean that the people who post on here are also not the ones who run red lights or cut off cars without looking?

As for "obvious and dull", if it was that obvious I'd see less two wheel prefering idiots without lights on my drive home. Or was that just your attempt at a put down to make others STFU?

look i clearly said i don't know the lanes in question. i'm just saying there are some cycle lanes out there that are not usable. if you ride a bike very much i'm confident you'll agree.

second, by putting cyclist in inverted commas i was trying to say that the type of person who rides a bike at night without lights would probably not describe themselvesas a cyclist. they wouldn't be posting here as a cyclist. the self-described cyclists who do post here already wear lights, so telling us to wear lights is... obvious and dull?

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote: »

more than. two abreast is legal. three is not. that's what it seems to say to me...

The ROTR is not a legal document. Three-abreast is legal when overtaking other cyclists. Single file is required when overtaking other traffic.

Timmaay

MYOB wrote: »

Do you have any concept of what the Sally Gap is? Living in Wicklow I'd expect you do, but that could be Bray...

The road through it is a one and a half lane, unmarked, mostly unsigned, twisty mountain road with frequent 20%+ gradients. Cars can't pass without slowing down significantly or one pulling in. Its not suitable territory to be jogging on any time of day, let alone evening. You'd need the fitness of an Ironman contender to be *able* to run there, and the general lack of concern for your personal safety of kamikaze pilot to actually do so.

Wow, thanks, I must have twice the fitness of Ironman contenders so, I had a hill race 2wks ago with a 46% incline in it (obviously not a road!). But the gradient isn't the point, I've often been out running in quite flat country roads only to have some muppet barrelling down the road at 100kph or so, the only hope I have is to jump into the ditch or whatever is on the side of the road. In this respect, the Sally gap is no different, worse case is the runner hops in the ditch, playing chicken with a car is what i'd call Kamikaze.

Quoting the rules of the road (link):
"A vehicle shall not be driven at a speed exceeding that which will enable its driver to bring it to a halt within a distance the driver can see to be clear." In theory it should be safe to run on any road, but of course there are far to many lunatic drivers out there.

astraboy

I jog a lot, generally on the track in the gym. However, recently I decided to jog around the area of Cork where I live. The amount of times I was forced out onto the edge of the road by very narrow footpaths, or dangerously unmaintained ones, was crazy. I jogged in Boston every evening last summer and the footpaths were a joy, in Cork anyway they are a hazzard, not the mention the poor lighting around the the local park or "The Lough" as its known. Still, no excuse for jogging in the middle of the road or lacking common sense!

L1011

Timmaay wrote: »

In this respect, the Sally gap is no different, worse case is the runner hops in the ditch, playing chicken with a car is what i'd call Kamikaze.

Should add that he was on the wrong side of the road for walking/running also - with rather than against traffic - meaning basically invisible in to corners. There's always the option of leaping in to the river at the point I passed him on that side though

cyclopath2001

astraboy wrote: »

I was forced out onto the edge of the road by very narrow footpaths, or dangerously unmaintained ones, was crazy.!

Lucky for you there was no driver forced into your path by an aggressive overtaker acting the muppert [sic].