Driver takes revenge on 50 cyclists.

Joe Malone

kona wrote: »

inconvieniencing???

your having a laugh,

if we all had you interpritation, cyclists could take this stance:

motorists should pi$$ off the roads because the majority are a extremley dangerous inconvienience to cyclists.

parking in cycle lanes anybody??
lack of indication?
driving too close???

joe you will get more support over on motors such as the response to your, thread about the cyclists causing the all mighty motorist a "inconvienience" while doing a weekend event on a SUNDAY afternoon, surrounded by emergency vehicles and sanction by a supt.Garda.

maybe next time a busy monday at 8am on a busy N road???with no permission or authorisation?? If we are going to inconvienience you lot in your air conditioned tin cans we may as well do it properley

Was wondering when the mirror bashing Kona would arrive to save the day and give the evil motorist "what for". Any fresh criminal damage to boast about Kona?

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Oh no, sweet Jesus. This guy has a bee in his bonnet about cyclists, may have lost a girlfriend/boyfriend to one etc.

kona

Joe Malone wrote: »

Was wondering when the mirror bashing Kona would arrive to save the day and give the evil motorist "what for". Any fresh criminal damage to boast about Kona?

no but some **** head MOTORIST put a nice dent in my car door.
another MOTORIST almost crashed head on into me today because it seemed to be a inconvienience to drive on the left.:o:eek:
was it you?? sure the ROTR seem to a inconvinience.



wing mirrors smashing its not crimanal damage, not my fault motorists force me off the road,and my hand gets hit;) even while one abreast.

motorists are a inconvienience, the cheek of them, turning left:rolleyes::D:D

Tar.Aldarion

Prison I hope.

petethedrummer

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html


PART IV. CYCLE TRAFFIC.

Driving two abreast

29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.


(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


...thats all it says in the statute book about riding two abreast.

kenmc

So I would read that then as
"Cyclists may cycle two abreast unless overtaking other traffic, when they must do so in single file".
Q.E.D.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Let's be clear, it is not law or statute. It's a useful guide which contains some harmless inaccuracies, one of which has misled you. Nobody is obliged to obey the literal contents of that book, but they must obey the relevant laws and statutes. Your ignorance of the law and of my reasoned counter-arguments is not helping the discussion.

As to your assertion that cyclists should give way to motorists in heavy traffic, Did you know that the overtaking regulations effectively prohibit cars overtaking cyclists in heavy traffic, if to do so would cause inconvenience? This means that overtaking a cyclist and pulling back into a line of traffic, a short distance in front of a cyclist, obstructing his/her path, is illegal.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Let's be clear, it is not law or statute. It's a useful guide which contains some harmless inaccuracies, one of which has misled you. Nobody is obliged to obey the actual contents of that book, but they must obey the relevant laws and statutes. Your ignorance of the law and of my reasoned counter-arguments is not helping the discussion.

As to your assertion that cyclists should give way to motorists in heavy traffic, Did you know that the overtaking regulations effectively prohibit cars overtaking cyclists in heavy traffic, if to do so would cause inconvenience? This means that overtaking a cyclist and pulling back into a line of traffic, a short distance in front of a cyclist, obstructing his/her path, is illegal.

oobydooby

Joe, did you see what this thread was actually about? And you persist with this childish and irrational rant against cyclists, despite this context? Why don't you start a new thread instead of linking your (flawed and beaten) arguments to such an almost tragic incident as described at the start of this thread?

Why don't you get a bike and go for a nice spin on such a lovely day? Very good to see things from the other side. Also it's more healthy than being angry in front of a computer on a lovely weekend. Or being angry stuck in a line of traffic. Keep safe.

Cabaal

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

I'm sorry but a car being stuck behind cyclists for a min or two is not endangering anyone...unless of course the driver doesn't like being slowed down to 40km/hour and takes action that causes danger....in which case its the drivers fault

In relation to the news story, only one car was involved and there is no mention to say there was traffic being held up in anyway, as such the driver is 100% in the wrong based on all available facts and information regarding this story.

You Sir look like a bit of a muppet in relation to your rants regarding the topic/newstory involved in this thread

uberwolf

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

As cyclopath has pointed out, these are not requirements in law. Someone can only be sanctioned by the law, and not rules. A Garda may interpret failure to follow the rules of the road as dangerous or unsafe behaviour an prosecute on that basis. I have been trying to outline why I don't think the behaviour is unsafe in many circumstances.

I do think the rules represent a useful etiquette. In either case, I see no requirement for me to pull into single file where I believe such an act would endanger myself. Endanger me how? By encouraging a motorist to overtake me where it is unsafe for him to do so. Can I decide whats safe for him to do? Somewhat. The motorist is ultimately responsible for his/her own actions, but I am in a position to discourage any maneuver, and am unlikely to be prosecuted for trying to protect myself.



I got your reported post. I'm not doing anything about it, and here's why. You , intentionally or otherwise, did suggest that the actions of the motorist in the OP was in some small way excusable because he was driven to it. The actions of the cyclists triggered the assault. The parallel was reasonable.

Obviously the man in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the girl had worn a longer skirt

Joe Malone

WOW! What a parallel. Wearing a short skirt is provocation in your world. I think you hit rock bottom and brought in the kango hammer!
Please re-read my post. I did not condone the drivers actions, in fact I stated that it was wrong. I merely stated that this would be unlikely to occur in Ireland if cyclists followed the rules of the road. The other poster made an outrageous inference which you seem to condone and since then the posts have revolved around rules of the road versus statute!
In my opinion, only the most unreasonable of road users would choose to ignore the rules of the road because they don't suit their agenda.

daymobrew

It is time to close this thread. We're going in circles.