Cyclists on the roads

glic71rods46t0

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

One bad experience with a cyclist does not justify tarring them all with the same brush. I've had stuff thrown at me while running on the footpath so yeah, in general that kind of crap is randomly done by scumbags for the lulz.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

Worth a read, it shows the aboslute bias against cyclists on the road.

I'm sure that some motorists do have a bias. However this thread was specifially about poor anto social and illegal behaviour by cyclists - it really hijacks the intent of the thread

snollup

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

Thats just the kind of tosser I'm talking about. Then they wonder why they get a bottle of coke emptied on them by some, less patient motorists.
I'm thinking how nice it would be to fit some "Ben-Hur" type device to my wheels:D

You should have your fooking licence taken off you with that sort of thinking. Yes, there are stupid cyclists out there bet at least they tend to only kill themselves. A car is a weapon and the stupid drivers are putting more then their own lives at risk.

BostonB

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

I'm sure that some motorists do have a bias. However this thread was specifially about poor anto social and illegal behaviour by cyclists - it really hijacks the intent of the thread

I think the question is to understand what they are doing. Rather than than simply dismissing it as being wrong through a drivers impatience.

marious

I like those cyclists in groups of 5-7 on country roads trips, riding next to each other having nice chat, doing 20km/h holding cars behind them using full width of the lane
Its so natural....

glic71rods46t0

BostonB wrote: »

I think the question is to understand what they are doing. Rather than than simply dismissing it as being wrong through a drivers impatience.

The ones who take the middle of the road and then sail through a red light are anti social law breakers. I dont think that there is anything else to be understood from it or looking at it from their perspective. Its especially annoying when you have just overtaken such a cyclist to have to repeat the feat because said cyclist didnt want to know about the rules of the road when it didnt suit him/her

Cutevelvet

marious wrote: »

I like those cyclists in groups of 5-7 on country roads trips, riding next to each other having nice chat, doing 20km/h holding cars behind them using full width of the lane
Its so natural....

LOL, exactly the type of cyclists I am talking about nonchalantly cycling along country roads holding the whole bloody place up (apart from the minority mentioned in this thread, cycling in and out through traffic like daredevils are accidents waiting to happen)

Capt'n Midnight

MunsterCycling wrote: »

What cage drivers don't seem to acknowledge is that riders have the exact same rights to the road as their polluting cousins.

Here in Ireland Pedestrians are first class road users, cyclists second class and Motorists are third class road users.

After applying all the other rules of priority , if all else is equal then a cyclist has right of way over a car.


Road users are only allowed to overtake when it is safe to do so. If you aren't giving a cyclist enough room to avoid a shore / pot hole / broken glass / manhole cover at the edge of the road then you aren't overtaking safely.

Road users should not obstruct the progress of others. Most motorists won't pull in to the hard shoulder to let faster traffic past, so this is not just a cyclist issue. If there isn't a lot of room to overtake I'll cycle a little further out from the edge. This means that motorists will have to think twice about overtaking as they will have to pull out, rather than trying to drive past. In a potentially dangerous situation I'd rather have the motorist having to use their brains and an escape route rather than have no leeway and a motorist passing without a thought.

marious

and imagine sharp bend and You're doing what? probably less then 80 because its a bend but say 60 and meeting them behind the corner, another car incoming from opposite direction what would You do? head on other car, go through them or take the ditch ?

they wouldn't think that far even probably all of them have driving licences tough

Anan1

marious wrote: »

and imagine sharp bend and You're doing what? probably less then 80 because its a bend but say 60 and meeting them behind the corner, another car incoming from opposite direction what would You do? head on other car, go through them or take the ditch ?

they wouldn't think that far even probably all of them have driving licences tough

I'd be entering a bend at a speed that would allow me to stop within the distance which I could see to be clear.

peasant

marious wrote: »

and imagine sharp bend and You're doing what? probably less then 80 because its a bend but say 60 and meeting them behind the corner, another car incoming from opposite direction what would You do? head on other car, go through them or take the ditch ?

they wouldn't think that far even probably all of them have driving licences tough

Well, then just imagine that instead of a few cyclist riding abreast you find a broken down steam roller behind that bend ...you might have just enough time left to realise that you were going too fast round that bend in the first place

glic71rods46t0

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here in Ireland Pedestrians are first class road users, cyclists second class and Motorists are third class road users.

After applying all the other rules of priority , if all else is equal then a cyclist has right of way over a car.

.

There is no provision in law for classes of road users in Ireland and a cyclist has no right of way over a car. A bicycle is classified as a vehicle - the same as a car.
What the bleeting hearts cyclists dont seem to want to acknowledge is that any "rights" they feel they have comes with responsibility. A lot of them want to be "pretend cars" when it suits them to take over a lane and glorified pedestrians when it comes to red lights which they feel they can ignore.

With the increased numbers of cyclists on the roads this glaring disregard for the law has to be tackled and quickly

marious

yeah I see that everybody slowing down to 20 expecting obstacles on the road on each bend they're passing

I'd say come back from dreamland, f...en rabbit can come across your car every second on every road, are U doing always 30km/h in case that happening? people please be reasonable

-Corkie-

peasant wrote: »

Well, then just imagine that instead of a few cyclist riding abreast you find a broken down steam roller behind that bend ...you might have just enough time left to realise that you were going too fast round that bend in the first place

hah hah:D:D

Anan1

marious wrote: »

yeah I see that everybody slowing down to 20 expecting obstacles on the road on each bend they're passing

I'd say come back from dreamland, f...en rabbit can come across your car every second on every road, are U doing always 30km/h in case that happening? people please be reasonable

Have you honestly never heard of the concept of being able to stop within the distance which you can see to be clear? No offence, but how long have you been driving?

marious

well if it was broken down steam roller than he should put emergency triangle before the bend to warn incoming traffic, I'm just saying that cyclists could and should go one behind each other even for their own sake to stand a chance in these situations on the roads

peasant

marious wrote: »

well if it was broken down steam roller than he should put emergency triangle before the bend to warn incoming traffic, I'm just saying that cyclists could and should go one behind each other even for their own sake to stand a chance in these situations on the roads

In your example it makes very little difference whether the cyclists are riding abreast or behind each other ...you'll just cream them in one swoop or one after the other.

Replace cyclists or the extreme example of broken down steam roller with slow moving tractor (which is highly realistic) and then where are you?

Driving too fast for the conditions, that's where you are.

marious

Anan1 wrote: »

Have you honestly never heard of the concept of being able to stop within the distance which you can see to be clear? No offence, but how long have you been driving?

long enough I'd say but some of You people are just off this world, I take it You're perfect drivers, foreseeing everything, always prepared for everything... good for You

and why You still thinking its gonna be me behind the wheel? I drive a lot I know how people driving

glic71rods46t0

marious wrote: »

well if it was broken down steam roller than he should put emergency triangle before the bend to warn incoming traffic, I'm just saying that cyclists could and should go one behind each other even for their own sake to stand a chance in these situations on the roads

I Totally agree with that marious .. cyclists riding 2 or more abreast is just suicidal in such circumstances

Anan1

marious wrote: »

long enough I'd say but some of You people are just off this world, I take it You're perfect drivers, foreseeing everything, always prepared for everything... good for You

and why You still thinking its gonna be me behind the wheel? I drive a lot I know how people driving

That's just not good enough. If you drive into bends at a speed that won't allow you to stop before hitting something then you're not a safe driver. The best thing you can do is forget about cyclists for now and learn the basics of roadcraft.

marious

peasant wrote: »

In your example it makes very little difference whether the cyclists are riding abreast or behind each other ...you'll just cream them in one swoop or one after the other.

Replace cyclists or the extreme example of broken down steam roller with slow moving tractor (which is highly realistic) and then where are you?

Driving too fast for the conditions, that's where you are.

are U saying that theres no difference from safety point of view between going next to each other and one behind the other?

marious

Anan1 wrote: »

That's just not good enough. If you drive into bends at a speed that won't allow you to stop before hitting something then you're not a safe driver. The best thing you can do is forget about cyclists for now and learn the basics of roadcraft.

did U read my last sentence or Ure blinded by some unnecessary anger towards me?

peasant

marious wrote: »

are U saying that theres no difference from safety point of view between going next to each other and one behind the other?

When the road is not wide enough that cyclists can be overtaken safely (and with a safe distance) while keeping left, it is actually safer for them to take the middle of the lane or ride abreast.



I do hate it though when cyclists riding abreast insist on continuing to do so once the road improves

glic71rods46t0

Anan1 wrote: »

That's just not good enough. If you drive into bends at a speed that won't allow you to stop before hitting something then you're not a safe driver. The best thing you can do is forget about cyclists for now and learn the basics of roadcraft.

The point is not about the driver in this instance. Of course the driver should be traveling at a speed that allows him to stop. The point is that the cyclists should not assume that a driver will do this and should reduce the risk of injury or death by riding in single file around bends - its crazy to take the chance that a driver can stop - even if driving appropriately there could be unforeseen circumstances, like an oil spill or any such thing

Slideshowbob

Cyclists have the foresight to believe in sustainability

What will happen when we run out of oil in a few years

glic71rods46t0

peasant wrote: »

When the road is not wide enough that cyclists can be overtaken safely (and with a safe distance) while keeping left, it is actually safer for them to take the middle of the lane or ride abreast.

Safer in their minds maybe, but against the rules of the road!

glic71rods46t0

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Cyclists have the foresight to believe in sustainability

What will happen when we run out of oil in a few years

We will all be driving hydrogen powered cars then. The cyclists wont even hear the cars coming - ipods on or not ... its not going to be pretty!

robinph

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

There is no provision in law for classes of road users in Ireland and a cyclist has no right of way over a car. A bicycle is classified as a vehicle - the same as a car.

Pedestrians and cyclists have a right not to be killed by other road users.

I assume if you were being followed closely down the road by a large HGV as you were driving along in your small car and the HGV then overtook you without leaving any space and pulled in too close infront then you would be a bit concerned for your safety?

Have respect for other road users and especially the ones that are more vulnerable than yourself. That goes in order pedestrians-cyclists-motorbikes-cars-hgv.

McCruiskeen

In my view, I think a lot of motorists find it hard to stomach it, when a fit athletic cyclist goes flying past them as they're stuck choked in traffic.

They then realise that their car is costing them about €200 quid a week and they haven't exercised in 12 years.

and it's taking them longer to get to work than of they cycled.

Then then get bitter at cyclists.

Who could blame them!

marious

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

I Totally agree with that marious .. cyclists riding 2 or more abreast is just suicidal in such circumstances

one reasonable in whole bunch

why some people wouldn't understand some simple things

If it was You in than group of cyclists would You leave all the safety to car drivers passing You and say its their (car drivers) responsibility to go slow enough? And does it matter when You're landing on a wheelchair whose fault was that? You're still on that wheelchair despite bad driver is going to jail over it. So would You rely 100% on drivers passing You by? I would't

glic71rods46t0

McCruiskeen wrote: »

In my view, I think a lot of motorists find it hard to stomach it, when a fit athletic cyclist goes flying past them as they're stuck choked in traffic.

They then realise that their car is costing them about €200 quid a week and they haven't exercised in 12 years.

and it's taking them longer to get to work than of they cycled.

Then then get bitter at cyclists.

Who could blame them!

ooh, the self righteous cyclist appears ... emm, no, you can keep the bike, I'm sure that veil of self righteousness keeps you warm and dry on those wet days ... but the pong of sweat is really off putting .. emm I'll stick with the car thanks:D

Anan1

marious wrote: »

did U read my last sentence or Ure blinded by some unnecessary anger towards me?

I'm not angry with you at all, i'm just trying to give you some advice that will make you a safer driver. You can't influence the behaviour of others on the roads, but you can make your own driving safer by learning to anticipate the unexpected.

glic71rods46t0

robinph wrote: »

Pedestrians and cyclists have a right not to be killed by other road users.

I assume if you were being followed closely down the road by a large HGV as you were driving along in your small car and the HGV then overtook you without leaving any space and pulled in too close infront then you would be a bit concerned for your safety?

Have respect for other road users and especially the ones that are more vulnerable than yourself. That goes in order pedestrians-cyclists-motorbikes-cars-hgv.

So you accept that this hierarchy of responsibility has no basis in law then - earlier you were setting out a legal framework for roadusers!

Regarding a HGV - I'd never be caught driving slow enough for one to overtake me so your analogy is lost on me:D

robinph

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

Safer in their minds maybe, but against the rules of the road!

How is it safer to ride over to the left leaving half a lane available that is not wide enough for the car to overtake in, but giving the car driver half a chance of thinking they might just get away with it? By riding towards the centre of the lane they remove the chance that the car driver will attempt to make that dangerous move where it is not safe to do so.

Anan1

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

The point is not about the driver in this instance. Of course the driver should be traveling at a speed that allows him to stop. The point is that the cyclists should not assume that a driver will do this and should reduce the risk of injury or death by riding in single file around bends - its crazy to take the chance that a driver can stop - even if driving appropriately there could be unforeseen circumstances, like an oil spill or any such thing

The counter argument is that a group of cyclists riding in single file around a bend are far more likely to be overtaken on the bend by an incompetent driver, even if there isn't enough room to do so safely. Add in an oncoming car and things are liable to end badly for the cyclists.

glic71rods46t0

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm not angry with you at all, i'm just trying to give you some advice that will make you a safer driver. You can't influence the behaviour of others on the roads, but you can make your own driving safer by learning to anticipate the unexpected.

and equally cyclists can make themselves safer by keeping in and not trying to influence the behaviour of others on the road - that was the substantive point all along

Cutevelvet

A lot of cyclists around Dublin City are couriers and while they are probably quicker than cars they really should have to undergo a test as have seen a few near misses in the recent past with their total lack of respect for motorists and pedestrians alike.

marious

theres sth better , U can assume that all of them or most of them have driving licences and I wouldn't be surprised if they're swearing when seeing other cyclists on the road doing the same :)

peasant

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

and equally cyclists can make themselves safer by keeping in

Except that keeping in doesn't make them any safer if there isn't room to overtake in the first place ...it makes them less safe by "influencing" the car driver behind into thinking that he might just get away with it.

Because that's what you're getting at ...stay in so that I can get past.

Well, there simply are situations where you can't get past (no matter where on the road the cyclist is), you'd better learn to accept and live with that fact.

Anan1

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

and equally cyclists can make themselves safer by keeping in and not trying to influence the behaviour of others on the road - that was the substantive point all along

And my point is the opposite - that it is sometimes safer for cyclists to prevent cars from overtaking dangerously by taking up more of the road.

Anan1

marious wrote: »

theres sth better , U can assume that all of them or most of them have driving licences and I wouldn't be surprised if they're swearing when seeing other cyclists on the road doing the same :)

The stupid ones might be, but there are stupid people in all walks of life (and on all modes of transport.;)).

dunleakelleher

peasant wrote: »

By your logic you as a car driver should then always give way to buses, tractors and trucks.

Correct. Personally I believe self preservation should kick in over stupidity.

glic71rods46t0

peasant wrote: »

Except that keeping in doesn't make them any safer if there isn't room to overtake in the first place ...it makes them less safe by "influencing" the car driver behind into thinking that he might just get away with it.

Because that's what you're getting at ...stay in so that I can get past.

Well, there simply are situations where you can't get past (no matter where on the road the cyclist is), you'd better learn to accept and live with that fact.

I accept that there are times when I simply cant get past - I dont have a problem with that. I dont appreciate the way you suggested that I have a problem with it in all scenarios - please dont try to infer something that I didnt say!
I do have a problem with the times when I know its safe to pass and some cyclist (who possibly doesnt know how to drive) decides that its not safe. The cyclist doesnt have the right to make that call. If a cyclist continues to feel unsafe on the road then maybe the road isnt the place for him/her

marious

Anan1 wrote: »

And my point is the opposite - that it is sometimes safer for cyclists to prevent cars from overtaking dangerously by taking up more of the road.

and how cyclist knows better if its safe for car to overtake? its like doing 80km/h on fast lane on M7 because I think its safer than 120 and everybody should follow me

glic71rods46t0

Anan1 wrote: »

And my point is the opposite - that it is sometimes safer for cyclists to prevent cars from overtaking dangerously by taking up more of the road.

and earlier you were saying that you cant influence others on the road :rolleyes:

marious

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

and earlier you were saying that you cant influence others on the road :rolleyes:

well spotted

robinph

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

I accept that there are times when I simply cant get past - I dont have a problem with that. I dont appreciate the way you suggested that I have a problem with it in all scenarios - please dont try to infer something that I didnt say!
I do have a problem with the times when I know its safe to pass and some cyclist (who possibly doesnt know how to drive) decides that its not safe. The cyclist doesnt have the right to make that call. If a cyclist continues to feel unsafe on the road then maybe the road isnt the place for him/her

Most cyclists will be car drivers as well, unless your on about school kids on bikes. They absolutely have the right to decide where the safest place for them to be on the road is. The vehicle behind them on the road has zero right to overtake them. If you are behind the cyclist then you have a lesser view of the road ahead so how do you think that your opinion of the situation overrules theirs?

glic71rods46t0

robinph wrote: »

Most cyclists will be car drivers as well, unless your on about school kids on bikes. They absolutely have the right to decide where the safest place for them to be on the road is. The vehicle behind them on the road has zero right to overtake them. If you are behind the cyclist then you have a lesser view of the road ahead so how do you think that your opinion of the situation overrules theirs?

The Rules of the Road dont give "rights" to anyone but they bestow responsibilities on all those who wish to use the roads. One is that slow moving vehicles must pull in to allow other traffic to progress! So one expects cyclists to pull in to allow traffic to progress on the road - its not rocket science!

Anan1

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

and earlier you were saying that you cant influence others on the road :rolleyes:

I thought my post was clear, but it looks as though i'll have to spell it out. marious cannot prevent other drivers from entering bends too fast, but he can learn to negotiate bends safely himself. Clear enough?:)

marious

robinph wrote: »

The vehicle behind them on the road has zero right to overtake them. If you are behind the cyclist then you have a lesser view of the road ahead so how do you think that your opinion of the situation overrules theirs?

Am I suppose to drive behind them till they go off the road?

how are U overtaking other cars or tractor ????

Anan1

gjt58dl06hpzbs wrote: »

The Rules of the Road dont give "rights" to anyone but they bestow responsibilities on all those who wish to use the roads. One is that slow moving vehicles must pull in to allow other traffic to progress! So one expects cyclists to pull in to allow traffic to progress on the road - its not rocket science!

Sure, where it is safe to do so.