Conflict with a motorist over approach to T-junction

Oldlegs

Just to answer you questions ...

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Questions for you: are you a driver who cycles for sport/leisure, or are you a regular cycle commuter?

Sport/leisure and part-time commuter

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If you have children, do you transport them by bike, or do they cycle themselves to school or other places?

Used to transport them by bike when they were younger, but not most of cycling is along side them - and still have to take a "defensive" position to ensure that motorists give them adequate space.


Back to YOUR posting - you set out that you were taking a "Bolshie" approach to the situation. My responses are totally focused on whether I feel it is right to take a "Bolshie" approach which you are transporting kids. If you meant to use a different term, then you might want to re-edit the OP.

Adj. 1. bolshy - obstreperous
stroppy
obstinate, stubborn, unregenerate - tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield

If you feel you behaved completely in the right, then your description of your actions as "bolshie" might need to be reconsidered.

Oldlegs

coolbeans wrote: »

Complete and utter failure of a post.

Great to see a well argued point being made.

monument

Oldlegs wrote: »

...If you feel you behaved completely in the right, then your description of your actions as "bolshie" might need to be reconsidered.

From Cyclecraft based on the UK cycling training standard (we don't have one):

An important rule of road sharing is that no one should unnecessarily impede the passage of anybody else. However, you are quite justified in restricting the movement of other vehicles where this is important in protecting yourself, and you should not hesitate to do so when necessary.

At a junction as pictured in the opening post, Cyclecraft would seem to suggest taking a road position like what was described.

A lot of people would view this as being "bolshy" or "stubborn" etc.

rp

Oldlegs wrote: »

Adj. 1. bolshy - obstreperous
stroppy
obstinate, stubborn, unregenerate - tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield

I always understood Bolshie as a synonym for a Socialist: someone who puts the common good before their own personal advancement. A complement.

Bunnyhopper

Iwannahurl wrote: »

we were told that "it would not be an efficient use of Garda resources"

Ask them how many fatalities or serious injuries they need for the quota to be reached that will make it worth their while

Seriously, how many fines would a Garda have to issue, say in one hour, for a speed check like that to have paid for itself?

recedite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My 4-year-old loves a good argument!

In that case, I don't see that you should have done anything differently.

One-upmanship? I'm not so sure. Assertive cycling is part of formal cycle training, I understand.

Sure, being assertive is often best, but that doesn't mean its not one upmanship. Eg, if I'm in a queue and someone tries to slide in front of me, I'll tap them on the shoulder and remind them where the back of the queue is. Basically , that's what you did with this old woman driving a sports car. Even though the short term result may seem trivial, in the long term you have to maintain self respect.

galwaycyclist

Thud wrote: »

if you had any inkling that they were an agressive driver and going to pass you you should have left them off, yes be assertive on your own but not with the kids in the back.

If its saving time you are worried about then drive, if not factor in a few minutes into your trip time to allow for these sort of incidents which will happen.

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

Ah but here's the thing this is a narrow road. Who is to say that "leaving them off" would not have resulted in greater risk for the op and his passengers?

It is an unfortunate fact that some motorists will respond to "submissive" cycling by trying to "skim" past a cyclist at speed. Wherein lies the greater risk? Someone coming close to you at speed or them being forced to move out and actually overtake even if this results in you having to brake? It strikes me that there is less risk in a cyclist hitting car moving in the same direction than the car hitting the cyclist.

Sometimes avoiding conflict does not allow us to evade conflict. Sometimes conflict is going around looking for trouble anyway.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sometimes avoiding conflict does not allow us to evade conflict. Sometimes conflict is going around looking for trouble anyway.

And in such situations I think it more reasonable if the source of the conflict is manoeuvered into sharing some of the risks they choose to impose on others less protected than themselves.

But I might have an overdeveloped sense of fair play.

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Thud wrote: »

if you had any inkling that they were an agressive driver and going to pass you you should have left them off, yes be assertive on your own but not with the kids in the back.

If its saving time you are worried about then drive, if not factor in a few minutes into your trip time to allow for these sort of incidents which will happen.

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

Ah but here's the thing this is a narrow road. Who is to say that "leaving them off" would not have resulted in greater risk for the op and his passengers?

It is an unfortunate fact that some motorists will respond to "submissive" cycling by trying to "skim" past a cyclist at speed. Wherein lies the greater risk? Someone coming close to you at speed or them being forced to move out and actually overtake even if this results in you having to brake? It strikes me that there is less risk in a cyclist hitting car moving in the same direction than the car hitting the cyclist.

Sometimes avoiding conflict does not allow us to evade conflict. Sometimes conflict is going around looking for trouble anyway.

It's worth noting that it's not only on narrow roads that this is likely to happen. It's as likely to happen or sometimes more likely to happen elsewhere. For example:

-- On wide, multi-laned roads but ones which have narrow lanes. It even happens when the other lane is not full. Some bus lanes here in Dublin are prime examples.

-- Where there is a narrow cycle lane or where there is an ok looking cycle lane which narrows, the chances of a side swip are increased so can be better moving out further even if it means leaving the cycle lane.

-- This can also happen where there is an apprently good cycle lane but the lane then continues where there's no room for it but it's now painted within another lane... This can be understandably confusing for some motorists.

-- On roads without cycle lanes where the lane is wide enough looking but isn't really wide enough for a motorist to pass safely.

-- On multi-laned roads right hand lanes can be narrower or people will try to squeeze by on the turn, so if using a right hand turning lane you're often better to take the lane... The same applies to left turn filters on any road.

-- It's also often worth 'taking the lane', or enough of it, when passing stopped motorists or passing other obstructions.

Head The Wall

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Did she, in overtaking, cross the solid white line?

Overtaking across the solid white line is bad, mmmkay?

I'll second you on this, if the driver crossed the line as part of the manoeuvre she is effectively breaking the law doing so.