cyclists caused a big traffic jam today

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

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!

I did not say the rules have no legal standing. I said the (book known as) the RoTR has no legal standing.

In the actual statutory regulations, governing cyclist movement on the roadway, the only time cyclists are explicitly instructed to ride in single file is when overtaking other traffic.

If you are going to argue that something is required by law, quote the law?

Turbodreams

Another reason why cyclists should not be on main roads- sliproads. especially when a car is joining a dual carriageway and gets stuck behind cyclists travelling at around 10-20mph and as a result the car then merges with traffic doing much higher speeds. this causes accidents. cyclying off road is much more fun- some of you guys should try it.

MadsL

Saw this, thought of you...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMqSmiC_xHg

Joe Malone

Phaetonman wrote: »

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.

I had a somewhat similar though less violent experience a few years back.
In Drumcondra stuck in traffic. Cyclist comes down betwen the two lanes of traffic, he has a napsack on his back but one of the handles are loose. Handle gets caught on my wing mirror, knocking him off his bicycle and onto my car. I get out to enquire if he's ok but he hops up and tell me to fcuk off, jumps on the bike and takes off. Mirror was broken on the car but it was a company car so I didn't really care but a cop (apparently keeping an eye on the bus lane during operation freeflow) sees the whole thing and nabs the cyclist at the lights. I thought it was really funny to be honest and didn't bother taking things further (would have been a different story if I had to pay for the damage myself to be honest). Cyclist was let go but I'd say he wasn't expecting to get nailed by a cop. I still chuckle when I recall the look of absolute shock on his face!

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I did not say the rules have no legal standing. I said the (book known as) the RoTR has no legal standing.

In the actual statutory regulations, governing cyclist movement on the roadway, the only time cyclists are explicitly instructed to ride in single file is when overtaking other traffic.

If you are going to argue that something is required by law, quote the law?

Page 7 of the Rules of the Road "The rules comply with and reflect the Road Traffic law as at 1 March 2007"

Page 8 of the book states "This book uses a 'how to' approach and covers many of the manoeuvres identified as factors in a road crash. It uses three methods to set down clearly and concisely how the law applies to all road users.

It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly demands or forbids.
It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in a situation where no legal rule is in place.
It illustrates and describes traffic lights, road markings and signs provided to regulate traffic."

Clearly the above indicates that the rules quoted earlier which were identified as mandatory "must" rules must be obeyed by law. One does not need to check every statute relating to road use, the rules of the road have done this for us all. I hope this has finally sunk in for you. No need to quote the law, a must rule on the ROTR will do just fine!

Seth Brundle

peasant wrote: »

I can see this thread ending up in the Thunderdome

Me too, but only after people get banned for the personal insults - should they continue!

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

if they avoided clogging up the streets at rush-hour, many cyclists will voluntarily not get in their way on the open road.

Ya, because all the evil motorists get into their cars for a spin at rush hour, just to annoy you Cyclo.:rolleyes: Did it ever occur to you that those people stuck in traffic might not like it, and might not have a choice? You cycle to work, that is not an option for many, and public transport in most parts of the country outside the greater Dublin area is appalling. In Cork busses are a rare sight at the busstops! Why does it always have to be cyclists Vs Motorists?! Many cyclists are motorists, yet they hate motorists as well, not a little hypocritical no? Showing due respect and courtest may not be written down in evey aspect of the law, but its common sense. Drivers stuck in traffic are probably not there out of choice, its a lack of viable alternatives.

Painting the cyclist as always the victim is a piss poor argument, looking at some of the attitudes of the cyclists here, no wonder Dublin drivers act the way they do towards ye! The arrogance and attitude of "I can do what I like" is staggering. Yes cyclists come off far worse in a crash, that is obvious, but lording it and acting like you are better then a motorist is plain ridiculous. Its not bikes ye need, its high horses.

Personally, I only like driving on weekends when there is less traffic and I can enjoy the roads and my car.

Esel

Phaetonman wrote: »

...Knocked the prick clean out with a blow to the temple.
There are some disgusting scummy, aggresive cyclists out there.

And some disgusting scummy, aggressive drivers too. You do know you could easily have killed that 'prick' with your blow to the temple? Still, if it made you feel better.....

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

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

Oh whatever. Glad to see someone in your family has a brain. Adopted? You should team up with your idiot friend who hit the cyclist, splice your DNA and create the next generation of pool cleaners and toilet cleaners.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

Page 7 of the Rules of the Road "The rules comply with and reflect the Road Traffic law as at 1 March 2007"
....No need to quote the law, a must rule on the ROTR will do just fine!

You can quote from that book all you like but the ROTR book is not law and it contains errors. So, let's go to the source.

If you want to assert that something is required by law, quote from an act or statutory instrument.

The only time cyclists are required, explicitly by law, to cycle in single file is when overtaking other traffic.

the_syco

Joe Malone wrote: »

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

This line shows why there are Civil Defence ambulances, so that they don't endanger anyone...

Joe Malone wrote: »

"Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic."

Sunday afternoon, dude, how much quieter can you get?

=-=

It sounds like they should be going single file so that you can pass them at high speed. Seeing how little room most drivers (esp the culchies who shouldn't be on the roads) give cyclists when passing them out, I'd hate to see them passing out the cyclists.

=-=

Oh, and I've just thought of the best time to do such a cycle... rush hour on the M50. Pity you can't cycle on the M50, as if you could, you'd fly past all the cars

Seth Brundle

Right - thats enough!