In defence of cyclists

wendell borton

Chamone MF wrote: »

I throw bananas at cyclists. On rare occasion breakfast puddings too but they're expensive and for special occasions.

When i go out for a cycle i always take a banana with me as they are good source of carbs and potassium, so thanks keep it up but please no puddings.:pac:

rubadub

GTDolanator wrote: »

Look all cyclists are **** its the end of it

So you would have called most of your friends & family **** at some stage, probably yourself too.

Cyclists -the last seemingly fair game for pathetic gobsh!te bigots & racists.

donvito99

I go through red lights all the time, don't see the problem to be honest.

There are no A or B pillars in my vision.

I am at one with my trusty two wheeled transportation.

*cyclists, a great bunch of lads*

Crooked Jack

rubadub wrote: »

So you would have called most of your friends & family **** at some stage, probably yourself too.

Cyclists -the last seemingly fair game for pathetic gobsh!te bigots & racists.

Didnt realise "cyclist" was a race.
Maybe stop cycling up the middle of the bloody road three abreast and people will stop thinking you're all dicks. keep your wee wheelyturn toy as close to the ditch as you can and all will be well.

shootermacg

I can't wait until one of you asshol3s kills a cyclist, you're typical scum, awfully sorry after the fact, big man before it, too stupid to see what complete tossers you are.

Mod: Banned.

Redjeep!

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Maybe stop cycling up the middle of the bloody road three abreast and people will stop thinking you're all dicks. keep your wee wheelyturn toy as close to the ditch as you can and all will be well.

Can't believe this has come up again. The reason cyclist go two abreast is because it's SAFER. It's been proven that it prevents the more retarded motorists around, with the more extremist anti-cycling views from squeezing past where it's not suitable and causing accidents.

Funnily enough it's exactly the same reason why we won't cycle in the ditch. It's because it's safer to cycle about a third of the way out to prevent the same retards from clipping you as they pass.

There's no excuse for going three abreast and I agree people shouldn't do it (it annoys me as well).

Oh yes, and 'wee wheelyturn toy'...w.t.f is that all about ?

Maybe when you can deal with your patronising attitude to other road users who have the same right to be there as you, it'll be a safer place.

Daveysil15

The King of Moo wrote: »

No, because we're helping to save the planet. *smug smiley*

Save the planet? We haven't learned to save ourselves yet. We can't even take care of each other - let alone save the planet!

Crooked Jack

Redjeep! wrote: »

Can't believe this has come up again. The reason cyclist go two abreast is because it's SAFER. It's been proven that it prevents the more retarded motorists around, with the more extremist anti-cycling views from squeezing past where it's not suitable and causing accidents.

Funnily enough it's exactly the same reason why we won't cycle in the ditch. It's because it's safer to cycle about a third of the way out to prevent the same retards from clipping you as they pass.

There's no excuse for going three abreast and I agree people shouldn't do it (it annoys me as well).

Oh yes, and 'wee wheelyturn toy'...w.t.f is that all about ?

Maybe when you can deal with your patronising attitude to other road users who have the same right to be there as you, it'll be a safer place.

I assure you, when I come around a corner and there are two of them taking up the road causing me to swerve around them or brake suddenly, it is not safer. And that is me driving at the legal limit by the way.
Perhaps there should be different rules for small and winding country roads.
As for "wee wheelyturn toy," I thought it was funny and it helped me vent some frustration.

Daveysil15

They're especially annoying when they cycle in big groups on winding country roads and you can't over-take the feckers! I hate that.

rab!dmonkey

Redjeep! wrote: »

Can't believe this has come up again. The reason cyclist go two abreast is because it's SAFER. It's been proven that it prevents the more retarded motorists around, with the more extremist anti-cycling views from squeezing past where it's not suitable and causing accidents.

Funnily enough it's exactly the same reason why we won't cycle in the ditch. It's because it's safer to cycle about a third of the way out to prevent the same retards from clipping you as they pass.

There's no excuse for going three abreast and I agree people shouldn't do it (it annoys me as well).

Oh yes, and 'wee wheelyturn toy'...w.t.f is that all about ?

Maybe when you can deal with your patronising attitude to other road users who have the same right to be there as you, it'll be a safer place.

Cyclists are allowed to cycle three abreast when overtaking, so long as it is safe to do so.

Redjeep!

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I assure you, when I come around a corner and there are two of them taking up the road causing me to swerve around them or brake suddenly, it is not safer. And that is me driving at the legal limit by the way.
Perhaps there should be different rules for small and winding country roads.
As for "wee wheelyturn toy," I thought it was funny and it helped me vent some frustration.

Thanks for clarifying.:)

It's not the cyclist's fault though if you come around a corner and can't stop in time, just because you're at the legal limit doesn't mean that it's safe to drive at that speed. What if it'd been a tractor and somebody was coming the other way ?

If you go around a corner and can't stop in your line of sight then it's your fault.

The reason i'm mentioning this is because it happened to me many years ago. Winding road, heavy rain, middle of the day. Less than speed limit. Accident ahead, road immediately around a corner completely blocked with emergency vehicles. Brakes jammed, car spun three around times into a safety barrier. Car = Right off. Nobody injured. Completely my fault.

du Maurier

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I'm a pedestrian, and I've only ever been hit by a cyclist. A lot of them seem to think that because they ride a bike, rules of the road don't apply to them. Not all, but I've seen it happen a fair bit that they run a red light to go around a corner. Either use the fucking footpath or stop at red lights, assholes.

I don't think any cyclists has ever stopped at a red light by the Bleeding Horse on Camden Street. There's always a collision with a pedestrian or shout off every morning:pac:

LH Pathe

Part of the appeal for cyclists is that they don't have to be corraled in with the auto-herd. They will take liberties.. particularly if it means not having to inhale their filthy nauxious carbon plumes at a standstill

smcelhinney

GTDolanator wrote: »

Look all cyclists are **** its the end of it

Well rounded argument there, delivered with all the panache of a toddler forcing a square block into a triangle hole...

:rolleyes:

rab!dmonkey

du Maurier wrote: »

I don't think any cyclists has ever stopped at a red light by the Bleeding Horse on Camden Street. There's always a collision with a pedestrian or shout off every morning:pac:

Goes both ways. Turning left off Westmoreland St onto the Quays pedestrians regularly ignore their crossing lights and cross in their droves in the face of left-turning traffic with a green arrow.

du Maurier

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

Goes both ways. Turning left off Westmoreland St onto the Quays pedestrians regularly ignore their crossing lights and cross in their droves in the face of left-turning traffic with a green arrow.

Yes, I agree with you regarding that left turn alright. But far less blatant as there is the assumption (which there shouldn't be, naturally) that the red light opposes traffic, temporarily, but the green arrow pops up a number of seconds later. People assume it's free to cross, which they shouldn't, but it's moreso an unwitting error.

The Camden Street light is just one set, straight through - there's no anomaly or confusion in the slightest here. It's just a blatant cycle through.

Melted

Cyclists who cycle side by side, came accros a group of five today three abreast coming out in the middle of the road in a 100kph zone when there was a hard shoulder they could have cycled in a column with out me needing to change road positions on a dangerouse part of the road "sure im wearing a high viz?" fcuk off.

Apart from that i dont see it as a problem its just some peoples attitudes and lack of respect for others...

LH Pathe

Honestly what city cyclist should give a flying fùck about the rules of the road for them the rigid, compliant bottlenecked nature of far too many car folk simply does not comply and is trying to hold them back. But sure enough the vitriol is for those who can be seen.. for its hard to hate on a protected bubble of anomnity alone so I guess they are hated for having the freedom to take their own choices in the moment instead of hemming themselves in

Keep on picking on the distincty overwhelming minority; underwhelming majority keep on berating these veritable 'hipsters' of the road when the truth is you're just so coralled it's only ever envy. Cyclists hate you too as do most civilians but they'd sooner be passive than aggressive.. as they pass you by. And I can grant you they care a lot more about the environment as a whole than their immediate, so put up and shut up. Show some fücking respect instead; for they are above you.

rubadub

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Didnt realise "cyclist" was a race.

They are not a race, that's part of my point, that's why they are seemingly fair game as the gobsh!tes are thinking "aha I can bitch & moan about this group of people and get away with it, brilliant". What I am getting at is that the sad bastards who moan about them as a group would probably have been openly racist, sexist etc in another era. Now that it is not acceptable they need somebody else to vent their frustrations on, sad really, and laughable when they ignore the fact that most were cyclists themselves at some time.

Bipolar Joe

rubadub wrote: »

They are not a race, that's part of my point, that's why they are seemingly fair game as the gobsh!tes are thinking "aha I can bitch & moan about this group of people and get away with it, brilliant". What I am getting at is that the sad bastards who moan about them as a group would probably have been openly racist, sexist etc in another era. Now that it is not acceptable they need somebody else to vent their frustrations on, sad really, and laughable when they ignore the fact that most were cyclists themselves at some time.

That is a massive leap you made there, Frogger. Saying someone is taking their frustrations out on cyclists because you're not allowed to be openly racist is probably one of the single most retarded things I've read in AH, home to a great deal of Ireland's idiots.

To top it off, heavy people (Chicks in particular), gingers and a whole lot more groups get WAAAAAY more sh!t than cyclists. This one thread constitutes about 50% of all hatred cyclists have ever gotten ever (Statistics made up).

Crooked Jack

rubadub wrote: »

They are not a race, that's part of my point, that's why they are seemingly fair game as the gobsh!tes are thinking "aha I can bitch & moan about this group of people and get away with it, brilliant". What I am getting at is that the sad bastards who moan about them as a group would probably have been openly racist, sexist etc in another era. Now that it is not acceptable they need somebody else to vent their frustrations on, sad really, and laughable when they ignore the fact that most were cyclists themselves at some time.

I think you'll find the only reason anyone bitches and moans about cyclists is because theyre a pain in the arse on the road, especially when they go around in packs, not because they arent allowed to say the 'n' word anymore.

Chips Lovell

Do people actually read the thread before replying?

mickydcork

Paparazzo wrote: »

I drive a motorcycle, I've been hit by one cyclist which knocked the bike over, broke the indicator and scratched my petrol tank. Also, 2 closest incidents to me seriously injuring someone in traffic was a cyclist going straight through a red light on a crossroads. I was close to coming off on one of those incidents and if I hit the cyclist in either, I'd have come off the bike at a decent speed and the bike probably written off and the cyclist badly injured too.
Simplest thing to do is to not break reds and remember that there's other road users out there.

There are some idiot cyclists, no doubt.

But probably the most dangerous road users for cyclists are motorbikes and scooters as they regularly occupy the road areas intended for cyclists or used by cyclists.

Scooters and motorbikes haring up the inside of traffic in the bike lane is a regular occurence.

Cars regularly break red lights also. Or speed up when the orange light is showing.

RobbieTheRobber

mickydcork wrote: »

There are some idiot cyclists, no doubt.

But probably the most dangerous road users for cyclists are motorbikes and scooters as they regularly occupy the road areas intended for cyclists or used by cyclists.

Scooters and motorbikes haring up the inside of traffic in the bike lane is a regular occurence.

Cars regularly break red lights also. Or speed up when the orange light is showing.

The biggest issue i have with mopeds and motorbikes in the cycle lane is them slowing me up, if i wanted to be traffic i would drive a car.

cuttothechase

I cycle myself and always do my best to be considerate to other road users in the interest of safety but last Sunday I saw red. I was in my car and a bunch of middle aged cyclists drew that red mist. I was driving on a main road between two towns in Cork, a road I live on and one that I know every bump and corner. Its the road I learned to drive on.

The morning was dry and warm but before I left home there was a heavy shower which left the road very wet. I came upon this "peloton of ignorant bastards" about 2 miles into my journey. The guys at the back cylcing two or three a breast. I couldn't pass. I came to a broken white line in the road, went to pass, or course nobody in the group was willing to pull in. In my opinion you should not have to cross completely to the other side of the road to pass cyclists. Suddenly a car came in the opposite direction. I braked hard and geared down. My car skidded uncontrolably for 5 to 10 seconds before grinding to a halt. I was now back behind the group of 15 to 20 who after hearing my brakes screaming still made no effort to accomidate a car on the road.

I had weave in and out through the whole group to get past them as there were a few bends on the road. I am aware of the cambers in the road but there is no excuse for cycling in double file in the middle of the road showing no duty of care to other motorists. A few of them even shouted at me for getting in the way. At this stage I started beeping the hell out of my horn. I'm usually very chilled out but I was ready to take on the lot of them. After passing them, I was in such a rage I stopped at a local country Garda station to make a complaint but of course no Gadai were there.

Since Sunday, everybody I have relayed this story to has a similar one to tell. Something similiar happened my sisters friend who almost crashed. She's 6 months pregnant. To be honest, I would compare the ignorance of these guys to those travellers who were sulkie racing up the Mallow road a few weeks ago. These middle aged guys out in their cycle groups on Sunday mornings think they are a law onto themselves. That is my honest opinion anyway.

Vladimir Kurtains

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do people actually read the thread before replying?

600 + replies? You must be joking.

Chips Lovell

And here were go again.

hardCopy

cuttothechase wrote: »

I cycle myself and always do my best to be considerate to other road users in the interest of safety but last Sunday I saw red. I was in my car and a bunch of middle aged cyclists drew that red mist. I was driving on a main road between two towns in Cork, a road I live on and one that I know every bump and corner. Its the road I learned to drive on.

The morning was dry and warm but before I left home there was a heavy shower which left the road very wet. I came upon this "peloton of ignorant bastards" about 2 miles into my journey. The guys at the back cylcing two or three a breast. I couldn't pass. I came to a broken white line in the road, went to pass, or course nobody in the group was willing to pull in. In my opinion you should not have to cross completely to the other side of the road to pass cyclists. Suddenly a car came in the opposite direction. I braked hard and geared down. My car skidded uncontrolably for 5 to 10 seconds before grinding to a halt. I was now back behind the group of 15 to 20 who after hearing my brakes screaming still made no effort to accomidate a car on the road.

I had weave in and out through the whole group to get past them as there were a few bends on the road. I am aware of the cambers in the road but there is no excuse for cycling in double file in the middle of the road showing no duty of care to other motorists. A few of them even shouted at me for getting in the way. At this stage I started beeping the hell out of my horn. I'm usually very chilled out but I was ready to take on the lot of them. After passing them, I was in such a rage I stopped at a local country Garda station to make a complaint but of course no Gadai were there.

Since Sunday, everybody I have relayed this story to has a similar one to tell. Something similiar happened my sisters friend who almost crashed. She's 6 months pregnant. To be honest, I would compare the ignorance of these guys to those travellers who were sulkie racing up the Mallow road a few weeks ago. These middle aged guys out in their cycle groups on Sunday mornings think they are a law onto themselves. That is my honest opinion anyway.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, unfortunately yours is wrong

locum-motion

stovelid wrote: »

...You can usually pass out a cyclist travelling single file easily enough without crossing the line. Two-three makes it incumbent to overtake when you shouldn't have to. Saying you shouldn't be overtaking is fine but 2-3 people are forcing traffic behind them to travel at about a quarter of the speed limit just so they can have a chat...

Passing out a 'single file' cyclist without crossing the line, as you advocate is dangerous.

Cyclist travelling together should not be three abreast, but two abreast is not only fine, but much safer, precisely because it discourages dickhead drivers from doing what you advocate above.

locum-motion

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes. Cars have to stay and wait. Using a bike tends to be slower, but huge amounts of time can be saved if you can still weave in and out of heavy traffic, and I'd assume there's usually enough space to do that.

The degree of ignorance in this post is frankly shocking.

Tonyandthewhale

cuttothechase wrote: »

I had weave in and out through the whole group to get past them as there were a few bends on the road. I am aware of the cambers in the road but there is no excuse for cycling in double file in the middle of the road showing no duty of care to other motorists. A few of them even shouted at me for getting in the way. At this stage I started beeping the hell out of my horn. I'm usually very chilled out but I was ready to take on the lot of them. After passing them, I was in such a rage I stopped at a local country Garda station to make a complaint but of course no Gadai were there.

You're probably lucky there weren't any Guards around because, judging by the way you desrcibed it, you were completely in the wrong and probably would have got a right bolloxing from the guard.

Paparazzo

mickydcork wrote: »

There are some idiot cyclists, no doubt.

But probably the most dangerous road users for cyclists are motorbikes and scooters as they regularly occupy the road areas intended for cyclists or used by cyclists.

Scooters and motorbikes haring up the inside of traffic in the bike lane is a regular occurence.

Cars regularly break red lights also. Or speed up when the orange light is showing.

Really? I call bullshíte. That's not in the least bit dangerous for cyclists.
I cycle too, and even when on the bicycle, the most annoying road users by far are other cyclists.

Stark

cuttothechase wrote: »

Since Sunday, everybody I have relayed this story to has a similar one to tell. Something similiar happened my sisters friend who almost crashed. She's 6 months pregnant.

Being 6 months pregnant, you would think she'd be a bit more careful.

mcmoustache

Paparazzo wrote: »

Really? I call bullshíte. That's not in the least bit dangerous for cyclists.
I cycle too, and even when on the bicycle, the most annoying road users by far are other cyclists.

I cycle every day in the city and I agree. Most cyclists are fine and I don't notice them but there's a few who really need to be smacked around a bit.

In no particular order, these are:

The Red Light Jumper - I hope your first collision is with a truck and not with a pram.

The Salmon Cyclist - May your next game of chicken be with a Harley who doesn't see you.

The Nighttime Ninja - Joyriders with no lights on a collision course with you will unwittingly do the world a favour.

The Footpad Cyclist - The footpath is for pedestrians and kids. You get the road. If you can't cycle on the road, walk.

The Dithery Old One Travelling at 6kph Hogging The Lane - It's OK, you'll be dead soon.

The rest of the cyclists that I encounter are fine. So fine that I barely notice them but the ones that I mentioned above bother me and the Salmon Cyclist actually scares me from time to time. I wish I could perform a citizen's arrest on them and call the Gárdaí.

By the way, some of the replies here have been quite retarded. How can so many drivers not know the rules of the road? I think the daily stress of being traffic as well as the added fat from lack of exercise is making people angry.

ThisRegard

Whoever resurrected this thread needs to be hung from the nearest lamp post with a used inner tube.

aaronjumper

ThisRegard wrote: »

Whoever resurrected this thread needs to be hung from the nearest lamp post with a used inner tube.

Not even willing to pay for new tube. Your revenge levels disappoint me.

Paparazzo

mcmoustache wrote: »

I cycle every day in the city and I agree. Most cyclists are fine and I don't notice them but there's a few who really need to be smacked around a bit.

In no particular order, these are:

The Red Light Jumper - I hope your first collision is with a truck and not with a pram.

The Salmon Cyclist - May your next game of chicken be with a Harley who doesn't see you.

The Nighttime Ninja - Joyriders with no lights on a collision course with you will unwittingly do the world a favour.

The Footpad Cyclist - The footpath is for pedestrians and kids. You get the road. If you can't cycle on the road, walk.

The rest of the cyclists that I encounter are fine. So fine that I barely notice them but the ones that I mentioned above bother me and the Salmon Cyclist actually scares me from time to time. I wish I could perform a citizen's arrest on them and call the Gárdaí.

By the way, some of the replies here have been quite retarded. How can so many drivers not know the rules of the road? I think the daily stress of being traffic as well as the added fat from lack of exercise is making people angry.

What about the dithery auld one that cycles at 6kph and holds up the whole cycle lane by cycling in the middle? The cyclone courier is mental too.

mcmoustache

Paparazzo wrote: »

What about the dithery auld one that cycles at 6kph and holds up the whole cycle lane by cycling in the middle? The cyclone courier is mental too.

Come up with some catchy nicknames and I'll add them to my list. Actaully, "Dithery Old One" is perfect.

rab!dmonkey

I'm going to stir the shizz a bit here and say that people - especially other cyclists - berating RLJing cyclists is really quite irritating. Most traffic controls have only been put in place since the proliferation of the private motor vehicle and are an entirely unneccesary inconvenience for cycle traffic. I'm not for a moment advocating blindly proceeding into crossing traffic, but I would be entirely in favour of a law which allowed cyclists to treat Stop signs and red lights as Yield signs, which is what I do on a daily basis.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

Sure theres nothing like seeing some lycra clad eco nazi tree hugger flying over da handlebars when yer man pulls out wit no mirror on da mini cab

SerialComplaint

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I assure you, when I come around a corner and there are two of them taking up the road causing me to swerve around them or brake suddenly, it is not safer. And that is me driving at the legal limit by the way.

The limit is a limit, not a target. If you had to swerve or brake suddenly, you were driving too fast.

cuttothechase

Today was my first time looking at this thread and I think my last due to the level of ignorance of the people posting. After my incident Sunday I dually checked the rules of the road for cyclists, you know, the good ol does and don'ts set out by no other than the Road Safety Authority, it clearly states "do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic" and wait for it on the don'ts "don't ever cycle side by side with more than one cyclist", alas a root analysis of my situation. I wouldn't have had a problem if these guys were obeying the rules of the road. It looks like a few Boards aristocrats are getting upset about this thread surfacing again or something, enjoy the bickering boys, I'm going back to the more interesting threads!!

rab!dmonkey

SerialComplaint wrote: »

The limit is a limit, not a target. If you had to swerve or brake suddenly, you were driving too fast.

I wish people would stop saying this. In the driving test you get a mark against you if you don't proceed at the speed limit when conditions permit it. Obviously it was inappropriate to go at the limit on this occasion but road users should aim to go as close to the limit as is safe.

cuttothechase wrote: »

Today was my first time looking at this thread and I think my last due to the level of ignorance of the people posting. After my incident Sunday I dually checked the rules of the road for cyclists, you know, the good ol does and don'ts set out by no other than the Road Safety Authority, it clearly states "do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic" and wait for it on the don'ts "don't ever cycle side by side with more than one cyclist", alas a root analysis of my situation. I wouldn't have had a problem if these guys were obeying the rules of the road. It looks like a few Boards aristocrats are getting upset about this thread surfacing again or something, enjoy the bickering boys, I'm going back to the more interesting threads!!

The ROTR is not a legal document, but an interpretation of the law. Their 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' are things that road users are advised to do, but are not legally required to (and the RSA regularly issues suspect advice regarding cyclists). The likely reason that the cyclists would not single out was because this would hugely increase the length of the group and encourage people who believe this:

cuttothechase wrote:

In my opinion you should not have to cross completely to the other side of the road to pass cyclists.

to overtake when it may not be safe to do so.

No one 'forced' you to weave in and out of the group and to do so when there was 'a few bends in the road' is incredibly dangerous. I am incredulous that you go on to berate the cyclists for supposedly abdicating their 'duty of care to motorists' when you have admitted to endangering the lives of a number of other road users. I imagine that they were shouting at you for your unbelievably dangerous driving, rather than getting in the way.

In any case cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast as they please and cycle three abreast when a single cyclist is overtaking two others.

S.I. No. 294/1964 wrote:

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.

locum-motion

cuttothechase wrote: »

... "don't ever cycle side by side with more than one cyclist"...

Or in other words, "You can cycle side by side with one other person", which is precisely what nearly everyone on this thread has been saying.

When quoting sources to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong, why don't you actually read them? You know, just in case what they actually prove is the opposite of what you think it proves!

Stark

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

I wish people would stop saying this. In the driving test you get a mark against you if you don't proceed at the speed limit when conditions permit it. Obviously it was inappropriate to go at the limit on this occasion but road users should aim to go as close to the limit as is safe.

Well I would say the golden rule is drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you see to be clear, which often means doing below the speed limit on roads with bad bends/concealed junctions etc. It does get on my tits though when people use "it's a limit not a target" to justify not driving at a reasonable speed on good roads in good conditions.

dan1895

donvito99 wrote: »

I'm a responsible, and I'm cyclist.

Ditto

SerialComplaint

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

I wish people would stop saying this. In the driving test you get a mark against you if you don't proceed at the speed limit when conditions permit it. Obviously it was inappropriate to go at the limit on this occasion but road users should aim to go as close to the limit as is safe.

If you're driving into a blind bend at a speed that requires you to swerve or brake suddenly, then you are too close to the limit. The speed limit is not reduced for every bend on the road. Common sense would suggest that a half-decent driver understands that the bendy bit is not the bit to drive 'at the legal limit'.

Korvanica

mcmoustache wrote: »

The Red Light Jumper - I hope your first collision is with a truck and not with a pram.

The Salmon Cyclist - May your next game of chicken be with a Harley who doesn't see you.

The Nighttime Ninja - Joyriders with no lights on a collision course with you will unwittingly do the world a favour.

The Footpad Cyclist - The footpath is for pedestrians and kids. You get the road. If you can't cycle on the road, walk.

The Dithery Old One Travelling at 6kph Hogging The Lane - It's OK, you'll be dead soon.

The Must be at the front of the queue when stopped at red lights. Passes everyone(cyclists) who is stopped at the lights. The rest of the cyclists pass them out between lights. They proceed to pass everyone out again at the next set of lights.

I Hope you all get run over by some of the ignorant drivers in this thread you slow cnuts ! All you're doing is holding the rest of us up!

SerialComplaint

Korvanica wrote: »

The Must be at the front of the queue when stopped at red lights. Passes everyone(cyclists) who is stopped at the lights. The rest of the cyclists pass them out between lights. They proceed to pass everyone out again at the next set of lights.

It's time to speak up against 'shoaling' cyclists like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_yLn_Oegg

mickydcork

Paparazzo wrote: »

Really? I call bullshíte. That's not in the least bit dangerous for cyclists.
I cycle too, and even when on the bicycle, the most annoying road users by far are other cyclists.

Bullshíte?

Assume average weight of a motorbike = 200kg
Assume average weight of rider = 70kg
Assume motorbike travelling at speed limit of 50kph

I don't think there is any need to work out the maths on this, but it is safe to say that a motorbike impacting with a cyclist is dangerous. And motorbike using bike lanes is simply dangerous.

Saying that it is not dangerous is bullshíte.

However I do concede that other cyclists can be annoying, but they are not more dangerous than a motorbike and my point was about danger not annoyance.