cyclists caused a big traffic jam today

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

The person overtaking is responsible for doing so safely, whatever the perceived provocation. And while there may be such a thing as a dangerous cyclist, I have never seen or heard of a driver coming out second best in a collision with one.

Makes you wonder why so many cyclists take chances on the roads - though this whole cyclist versus motorist debate is way off topic. Please just stay on-topic

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

Wrong again Sudoc. I recommend you read the Rules of the Road before posting such uninformed nonsense. It would be a good idea to study the full book before using the roads and making an idiot out of yourself

Such erudition! No, I think you are the ignorant one old chap. A road user is entitled to use the entire lane. Is there an act/SI that says otherwise? Could you enlighten us?

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

Such erudition! No, I think you are the ignorant one old chap. A road user is entitled to use the entire lane. Is there an act/SI that says otherwise? Could you enlighten us?

Refer to my previous post. Please go and learn the rules of the road before coming on here with your own version!

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

Refer to my previous post. Please go and learn the rules of the road before coming on here with your own version!

I did. All that is referred to is to cycle in single file. You are still entitled to the entire lane if you are cycling. Learn to read.

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

I did. All that is referred to is to cycle in single file. You are still entitled to the entire lane if you are cycling. Learn to read.

so the part about having due consideration for other road users doesn't apply?
Apply some common sense to the reason why "single file" is required in traffic, it doesn't reconcile itself to taking over the full lane. Quit making an idiot out of yourself please!

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

so the part about having due consideration for other road users doesn't apply?
Apply some common sense to the reason why "single file" is required in traffic, it doesn't reconcile itself to taking over the full lane. Quit making an idiot out of yourself please!

You are entitled to the entire lane if you are a legitimate road user. Full stop. The ROTR recognises this. Applying common sense, wait until it is safe to overtake and then do so. Or act like an idiot and sound your horn and then come onto a message board and make some barely literate comments about cyclists delaying your oh so important Sunday afternoon spin.

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

You are entitled to the entire lane if you are a legitimate road user. Full stop. The ROTR recognises this. Applying common sense, wait until it is safe to overtake and then do so. Or act like an idiot and sound your horn and then come onto a message board and make some barely literate comments about cyclists delaying your oh so important Sunday afternoon spin.

I have no interest in debating with you Studoc. I am the OP on this thread, I asked some legitimate questions looking for advice on an issue that most reasonable people found unacceptable. On this website there is always at least one very unreasonable poster on any given subject. You're it in this case!
Your desire or need to use the full lane when cycling indicates serious personal issues you need to get over. Seek professional help and hopefully you can become a normal reasonable person in time.
Most reasonable people would consider using the left side of the lane and allowing traffic to progress unhindered. The rules clearly state that cyclists must cycle in single file in traffic - why would this be if it was expected that the single cyclist was going to hog the full lane anyways? Get an ounce of sense you cretin.

Studoc

I'm afraid that you are the unreasonable one. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a cretin. Do you behave like this on the street? Or in the home? Your interpretation of the ROTR is incorrect, you know it, and so you resort to personalised attacks to hide your blind ignorance and arch stupidity.

maidhc

Studoc wrote: »

You are entitled to the entire lane if you are a legitimate road user. Full stop. The ROTR recognises this. Applying common sense, wait until it is safe to overtake and then do so. Or act like an idiot and sound your horn and then come onto a message board and make some barely literate comments about cyclists delaying your oh so important Sunday afternoon spin.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#zza24y1961s98

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

I'm afraid that you are the unreasonable one. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a cretin. Do you behave like this on the street? Or in the home? Your interpretation of the ROTR is incorrect, you know it, and so you resort to personalised attacks to hide your blind ignorance and arch stupidity.

I take it you are going to ignore the substantive point of my last post! At least I will know you if I see you, hogging a full road lane and obstructing traffic. I know a guy in Malahide that does just that (spends his full day cycling around). He's called "Johnny beep beep", I understand that he suffers from a mental disability and people make allowances for him. Is that you Johnny?

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

I take it you are going to ignore the substantive point of my last post! At least I will know you if I see you, hogging a full road lane and obstructing traffic. I know a guy in Malahide that does just that (spends his full day cycling around). He's called "Johnny beep beep", I understand that he suffers from a mental disability and people make allowances for him. Is that you Johnny?[/quote

Again, obnoxious, personalised comments to hide your rank ignorance. Thanks to the last poster for the link to the relevant statute.

kona

First of all joe may I say that you sound like the most arrogant, ignorant arsehole on the roads:o
There are cyclists out there if you drive like a ignorant asshole towards them that will happily relocate your wingmirror or give you go faster stripes and you wont catch them so id take a chill pill tbh and learn to build a bridge and al that crap.
id be very suprised if you didnt drive a taxi , a 4x4 or a diesel.

i agree with you there is no excuse for the delay caused to you, BUT they obviously had permission so id be bitching about the gob****e who authorised the event, not the cyclists.

Joe Malone wrote: »

Kona, I wouldn't recommend you do this. For a start its completely illegal.?

why not??? its not totally illegal, its just being a almighty prick, and you could probably say its not due care for others or what ever.;):D

Joe Malone wrote: »

Why would anyone be "up your ass" if you are cycling in a responsible manner? Sounds like maybe you make a nuisance of yourself on the road on a regular basis.

thats the million dollar question;), why do cars tailgate at 120kmph, why do taxi drivers feels the need to cut up cyclists when turning left??
why do they sit on your arse??? have you had a 40 ton lorry pass you at 80kmph so close you could touch it???
my only explination is because the majority of road users in this country since they have got a bit of cash are selfish arrogant **** who couldnt give a **** about the rst of us as long as they get their car/jeep to the next set of lights so they can sit there for a extra few minutes and complain about it:rolleyes::D:D

i dont make a nuisance of my self unless im provoked....then i will be the biggest wanker you will ever see:eek::D

Joe Malone wrote: »

By the way, I expect the "see what he does" part would not be pretty.
Interesting question though. General question: If an ar$ehole (like Kona) decided to cycle in the middle of the road in front of your car for 5 minutes, what would you do?

id say they motorist , from experience will sit there, **** scared to overtake, will beep their little horn, and get all stressed:D:D

if he were to knock me over, tough ****, the law is 100% on cyclists side in the case of being rear ended by a car, so id sue your sorry ass for everything and piss it away on holidays, carbon fibre race bikes, downhill rigs, booze, parties, fast cars etc etc etc etc etc......:rolleyes:

do it i dare ya....i need a holiday:D

markpb

Saucers of milk to the motors forum please? There are two issues here that you guys could be dealing with if you could leave the personal abuse and slagging at the door for a few minutes.

The first is that it _is_ inconsiderate for the cycling group to cause that much of a delay without (appearing to) minimise the disruption. I'm not sure how exactly they could have done that - perhaps moving the entire group including support vehicles to the hard shoulder briefly when road conditions allow?

The second is that if the cyclists, an ambulance crew and the civil defense felt it was necessary to protect the cyclists from moving traffic, there must be an issue with the way cyclists are treated on the roads. It shouldn't be unsafe for a cyclist to use a main road, especially when it's been pointed out that R roads are very unsafe. Roads are there for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic without giving priority to any one of those groups. The only exception to that is HQDC which you'd want to be nuts to cycle on even though it's legal.

Joe Malone

still holding up traffic Johnny?

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

still holding up traffic Johnny?

How's the mortgage brokering Joe?

peasant

I can see this thread ending up in the Thunderdome

Joe Malone

kona wrote: »

First of all joe may I say that you sound like the most arrogant, ignorant arsehole on the roads:o
There are cyclists out there if you drive like a ignorant asshole towards them that will happily relocate your wingmirror or give you go faster stripes and you wont catch them so id take a chill pill tbh and learn to build a bridge and al that crap.
id be very suprised if you didnt drive a taxi , a 4x4 or a diesel.

i agree with you there is no excuse for the delay caused to you, BUT they obviously had permission so id be bitching about the gob****e who authorised the event, not the cyclists.



why not??? its not totally illegal, its just being a almighty prick, and you could probably say its not due care for others or what ever.;):D




thats the million dollar question;), why do cars tailgate at 120kmph, why do taxi drivers feels the need to cut up cyclists when turning left??
why do they sit on your arse??? have you had a 40 ton lorry pass you at 80kmph so close you could touch it???
my only explination is because the majority of road users in this country since they have got a bit of cash are selfish arrogant **** who couldnt give a **** about the rst of us as long as they get their car/jeep to the next set of lights so they can sit there for a extra few minutes and complain about it:rolleyes::D:D

i dont make a nuisance of my self unless im provoked....then i will be the biggest wanker you will ever see:eek::D




id say they motorist , from experience will sit there, **** scared to overtake, will beep their little horn, and get all stressed:D:D

if he were to knock me over, tough ****, the law is 100% on cyclists side in the case of being rear ended by a car, so id sue your sorry ass for everything and piss it away on holidays, carbon fibre race bikes, downhill rigs, booze, parties, fast cars etc etc etc etc etc......:rolleyes:

do it i dare ya....i need a holiday:D

careful what you wish for Kona, personal injury awards are made for actual injuries. I certainly wouldn't wish it on anyone but there are plenty of paraplegics etc who would not see the funny side of your post. Please withdraw the comment! Unless you want to live up to your own description, highlighted in bold from your own post

kona

Joe Malone wrote: »

careful what you wish for Kona, personal injury awards are made for actual injuries. I certainly wouldn't wish it n anyone but theer are plenty of paraplegics etc who would not see teh funny side of your post. Please withdraw the comment! Unless you want to live up to your own description, highlighted in bold from your own post

if ive survived intact downhill crashes coming off jumps at 20mph, im sure i can take a knock from a car at 5, remember if im in front i dictate the speed;)

nah dude id just sue you for personal injury, loss of earnings, post traumatic stress disorder......the list goes on!!
sure ill buy ya a pint, what do you drink??

TheDriver

Joe Malone wrote: »

Studoc - I was delayed for approx 45 minutes. And its not tough, such inconsiderate use of the roads is, in fact, in contravention of the rules of the road. I have had enough of it and my thread (if you bothered to read it) was posted looking for advice on how to ensure this doesn't happen again!

I hear what your saying and agree with you. I work with a volunteer group and regularly get booked to provide assistance for organised cycle runs. We are requested to follow them at rediculously slow speeds also, not our choice and if we don't, its found that motorists get way too close to cyclists and accidents have happened where motorists have hit into cyclists and driven off. I agree with your blocking up roads thing but at same time, we only do as we are told.
Ideally, these things should not be held during rush hour.

Studoc

TheDriver wrote: »

I hear what your saying and agree with you. I work with a volunteer group and regularly get booked to provide assistance for organised cycle runs. We are requested to follow them at rediculously slow speeds also, not our choice and if we don't, its found that motorists get way too close to cyclists and accidents have happened where motorists have hit into cyclists and driven off. I agree with your blocking up roads thing but at same time, we only do as we are told.
Ideally, these things should not be held during rush hour.

Well that explains it. The support vehicles are to prevent decerebrates like Joe M from crashing into cyclists.

heyjude

Joe Malone wrote: »

What?? You cannot presume that cyclists are going to be killed if support vehicles are not on the "outside" t protect them - that is completely over reaching to justify the behaviour of those who blatantly disregarded the rules of the road.
Clearly another "cyclist versus motorist" muppet!

You cannot presume that cyclists are going to be killed, but you can assume that it is a real possibility, so what I said stands, of course it seems to be the case that if you aren't a cyclist or don't know the victim, then it doesn't matter!

As regards "blatantly disregarding the rules of the road", I wasn't aware that there was a minimum speed limit on the road referred to in the original posting, though I conceed that the incident caused some delays, however many of the 'rules of the road' are vague and not clearly defined, so its hard to define whether they have been disregarded, it depends on which side of the debate you stand.

It should be noted that many posters on boards seem to regard drivers who drive at the speed limit as being a nuisance too, and seem to feel that anyone who is approached by faster moving traffic, no matter how fast they are travelling, should move aside and let the faster vehicle past, but of course, this is semi-encouraging other drivers to not only breach the rules of the road, but also the legal speed limit.

There also is no need for personal abuse. The Japanese have a saying that "whoever raises their voice first in a argument, has lost the argument", perhaps the same applies to the use of name calling and personal insults.

Joe Malone

TheDriver wrote: »

I hear what your saying and agree with you. I work with a volunteer group and regularly get booked to provide assistance for organised cycle runs. We are requested to follow them at rediculously slow speeds also, not our choice and if we don't, its found that motorists get way too close to cyclists and accidents have happened where motorists have hit into cyclists and driven off. I agree with your blocking up roads thing but at same time, we only do as we are told.
Ideally, these things should not be held during rush hour.

I completely agree with you. Choice of route and the timing make all the difference, I think the club will be making different arrangements in future!

Joe Malone

heyjude wrote: »

You cannot presume that cyclists are going to be killed, but you can assume that it is a real possibility, so what I said stands, of course it seems to be the case that if you aren't a cyclist or don't know the victim, then it doesn't matter!

As regards "blatantly disregarding the rules of the road", I wasn't aware that there was a minimum speed limit on the road referred to in the original posting, though I conceed that the incident caused some delays, however many of the 'rules of the road' are vague and not clearly defined, so its hard to define whether they have been disregarded, it depends on which side of the debate you stand.

It should be noted that many posters on boards seem to regard drivers who drive at the speed limit as being a nuisance too, and seem to feel that anyone who is approached by faster moving traffic, no matter how fast they are travelling, should move aside and let the faster vehicle past, but of course, this is semi-encouraging other drivers to not only breach the rules of the road, but also the legal speed limit.

There also is no need for personal abuse. The Japanese have a saying that "whoever raises their voice first in a argument, has lost the argument", perhaps the same applies to the use of name calling and personal insults.

you overreacted, full stop.

Joe Malone

Studoc wrote: »

Well that explains it. The support vehicles are to prevent decerebrates like Joe M from crashing into cyclists.

Complaining about personal insults. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh and keep the medical terminology to the classroom, I guess the Studoc handle means your a medical student! I have a relation who just qualified but he sure as hell doesn't use terminology like that in general conversation

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

Most reasonable people would consider using the left side of the lane and allowing traffic to progress unhindered. The rules clearly state that cyclists must cycle in single file in traffic - why would this be if it was expected that the single cyclist was going to hog the full lane anyways?

You're right on one point which is that a road user must keep to the left and take reasonable care to permit overtaking by others. What this last requirement means is a matter of opinion and must be balanced against the requirement on overtaking motorists not to cause inconvenience when doing so.

But you're wrong to say that there is a rule that cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic. This is a suggestion of the RoTR but it is not a rule. The rule is that cyclists must not cycle more than two abreast except when overtaking other cyclists, when three abreast is permitted. They must cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

There is no rule requiring cyclists to cycle on the hard shoulder. It's technically illegal to do so, but this is not prosecuted and the practice is widely encouraged on an informal basis. I am sure that if motorists would voluntarily not park or drive in cycle tracks or park on the roadway, and if they avoided clogging up the streets at rush-hour, many cyclists will voluntarily not get in their way on the open road.

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're right on one point which is that a road user must keep to the left and take reasonable care to permit overtaking by others. What this last requirement means is a matter of opinion and must be balanced against the requirement on overtaking motorists not to cause inconvenience when doing so.

But you're wrong to say that there is a rule that cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic. This is a suggestion of the RoTR but it is not a rule. The rule is that cyclists must not cycle more than two abreast except when overtaking other cyclists, when three abreast is permitted. They must cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

There is no rule requiring cyclists to cycle on the hard shoulder. It's technically illegal to do so, but this is not prosecuted and the practice is widely encouraged on an informal basis. I am sure that if motorists would voluntarily not park or drive in cycle tracks or park on the roadway, and if they avoided clogging up the streets at rush-hour, many cyclists will voluntarily not get in their way on the open road.

You are wrong, plain and simple. I have explained this one earlier in the thread but will explain it again in more detail to put the matter to rest.

The Rules of the Road book is sets out to differentiate between rules and suggestions by emphasising rules with the word "must" and identifies suggestions with the word "should".

Any direction in the book which states "must" is a Rule of the road, not a suggestion [hope I haven't lost you so far]

Page 161 starts with
"The table below sets down particular road traffic rules on cycling which you must obey." [I embolden the word "must" so that this will register with you that all items in the table on page 161 are "rules" not "suggestions"]

I will now quote two of the items listed in the table as follows:

"Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians."

and

"Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic."

So there you have it. Its a rule of the road.
The frightening thing is that you, (presumably a regular cyclist) are not even aware of your responsibilities on the road.
Do us all a favour and read the rules of the road and undertsand your responsibilities to yourself and other road users before making presumptions or, worse still, making a nuisance of yourself on the roads

Phaetonman

There are cyclists out there if you drive like a ignorant asshole towards them that will happily relocate your wingmirror or give you go faster stripes and you wont catch them so id take a chill pill t

I wouldnt be so sure. One cyclist in Dublin kicked in my mirror for some percieved injustice. I caught up with him at traffic lights, he diddnt see me. Knocked the prick clean out with a blow to the temple.
There are some disgusting scummy, aggresive cyclists out there.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

You are wrong, plain and simple. I have explained this one earlier in the thread but will explain it again in more detail to put the matter to rest.

The RoTR is not a legal document and you cannot rely on it to say what is law and what is not.

Always read the label.

Cionád

kona wrote: »

id be very suprised if you didnt drive a taxi , a 4x4 or a diesel.

Yea, diesel drivers are the worst :rolleyes:

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The RoTR is not a legal document and you cannot rely on it to say what is law and what is not.

Always read the label.

Wrong again. The rules of the road summarise legislative provisions (and identify them with the "must" word as explained ad nauseum earlier) as well as making common sense "suggestions" which do not have any standing in law but would obviously be deemed to be good practice. The items I highlighted are mandatory.
Basically to use the roads you must comply with the rules of the road. Simple as.
Earlier you said there was no rule that required cyclists to cycle in single file, now, when clearly proven wrong, you claim that the rules of the road have no legal standing. What a prat!