In defence of cyclists

Chips Lovell

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

I sometimes cycle on paths because I don't feel safe enough using the roads when there's no cyclepath available above the kerb. It hardly makes me a bad cyclist, especially when I take extra care on them. Like I said, how is it causing a problem when there's very few pedestrians whom I can very easily avoid? Most footpaths around my area at least are wide enough for both a person using a bike and at least one ped anyway,

This is the problem right here. You've decided that you know best and the law shouldn't apply to you.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, your own risk assessment is skewed and that cycling on the road isn't as dangerous as you seem to think it is? Given that the vast majority of cyclists use the road like they're supposed to, are you opening the papers every morning and discovering that scores of cyclists are being killed to death by errant motorists? I ride about 200km a week and have yet to be hit by a car. I've had a few close calls, but I've had close calls by driving too. The fatality figures for cyclists back that up. We're talking around 5 a year.

Does driving with a few pints on board make you a bad driver if you're careful and don't knock anyone down? Does breaking the lights or the speed limit make you a bad driver if you don't cause an accident? Aside from a small minority of psychos, everyone who breaks road traffic law usually does so because they think they aren't doing any harm.

SleepDoc

smash wrote: »

Safety reason: I wanted to pass them. So did everyone behind me.

Never said it did.


None of these apply. Like I said earlier, when I overtook a light turned red after a few yards. I'm talking about 50/60 yards here.

The basic point is that I gave them a beep after a few minutes of holding up traffic, I didn't blast them out of it. And as a result they decided to try and damage my car and then proceeded to break the law to get away with it.

As far as I can recall it's the only time I've had an issue with a cyclist. I've seen plenty weave in an out of traffic dangerously and break red light but I don't really care about them. They're not directly affecting me.

Wanting to overtake is not a safety reason. They had a right to be on the road.

Traffic signals were 50 to 60 metres ahead. Most road users are aware that they occasionally turn red.

Chips Lovell

The ins-and-outs of cycling two abreast were explained ad nauseum already earlier in this thread.

SerialComplaint

omega666 wrote: »

anyone that's going to block half the road and impede traffic is not going to have much common sense anyway.

Cyclists ARE traffic. They are no more an impediment to traffic than other cars/vans/tractors/tankers/pedestrians etc etc. If they happen to be in front of a car, the car driver needs to wait for safe opportunity to overtake, just like with other traffic. Also (and I know this may come as a huge surprise to many drivers), it is legally, technically and morally possible to wait behind the cyclist. Overtaking is not compulsory.

In most cases, the frustrated car behind the cyclists who busts his ass to overtake just gets to the next queue of traffic a few seconds earlier.

seamus wrote: »

That's condition dependent. Singling out may serve no additional purpose except to encourage a car to overtake dangerously.

Indeed - singling out also may make it even more difficult to overtake by creating a longer obstruction (two cyclists in line) which can't be seen clearly from behind.

smash

SleepDoc wrote: »

Wanting to overtake is not a safety reason. They had a right to be on the road.

Traffic signals were 50 to 60 metres ahead. Most road users are aware that they occasionally turn red.

Your passive aggressive tone must make you very popular...

I really don't care what you think or say about the situation because the bottom line is that they had no manners or cop on, and then tried to damage my car for no other reason than I gave them a little beep.

omega666

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Cyclists ARE traffic. They are no more an impediment to traffic than other cars/vans/tractors/tankers/pedestrians etc etc. If they happen to be in front of a car, the car driver needs to wait for safe opportunity to overtake, just like with other traffic. Also (and I know this may come as a huge surprise to many drivers), it is legally, technically and morally possible to wait behind the cyclist. Overtaking is not compulsory.

In most cases, the frustrated car behind the cyclists who busts his ass to overtake just gets to the next queue of traffic a few seconds earlier.



Indeed - singling out also may make it even more difficult to overtake by creating a longer obstruction (two cyclists in line) which can't be seen clearly from behind.

If im travelling along at 30 or 40mph im not going to sit behind a cyclist
crawling along at 1/2 the speed. If i wanted to do that i would buy a bike myself.

if your in a large group maybe but two cyclists by themselves riding two a breast to have a chat will just fustrate a driver which will more than likely make him do something stupid. 90% of the time you can pass single cyclists without doing anything dangerous. If you have to stop, wait and cross entirely onto the opposide side of the road is a lot more dangerous.

SerialComplaint

omega666 wrote: »

If im travelling along at 30 or 40mph im not going to sit behind a cyclist
crawling along at 1/2 the speed. If i wanted to do that i would buy a bike myself.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's the way the roads work. Mercs don't have an automatic entitlement to expect Micra's to get out of their way. Ferrari's don't have an automatic entitlement to expect Merc's to get out of their way. And motorists don't have an automatic entitlement to expect cyclists to get out of their way.

If you have room to safely overtake, by all means do so. Then you can get to the traffic lights quicker, and watch the cyclist filter past you and the other cars. If you don't have room to safely overtake, wait until you do.

omega666 wrote: »

if your in a large group maybe but two cyclists by themselves riding two a breast to have a chat will just fustrate a driver which will more than likely make him do something stupid. 90% of the time you can pass single cyclists without doing anything dangerous. If you have to stop, wait and cross entirely onto the opposide side of the road is a lot more dangerous.

They aren't cycling two abreast 'to have a chat'. They are cycling two abreast because that is the safest option. It means that cars can't force their way through where this no safe space to do so, and have to wait until their is a safe opportunity.

hardCopy

BX 19 wrote: »

There is bad drivers: FACT
There is proportionally as many crap cyclists: FACT

I should also hasten to add that there are posters here that have no clue how to treat treat cyclists on the road. Pretty clear by this thread.

Only yesterday did a lycra clad racer roar at me for slowing at a amber. And then he runs the red. (I did catch him later, favorite pastime of mine...)

I could giver numerous examples of how taxis cut me off in the bus lane and the cars that try run me off the roundabout.

Perhaps worth noting that bad drivers kill people, a lot. Bad cyclists are an inconvenience.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

smash

Cycling two a breast and not moving to a single file to allow other road users pass is akin to people driving at 50kph in the overtaking lane of the M50. It's just manners to let people pass. Everyone has a right to the road, but your right is not an entitlement to use it as you please and to hold up others.

SleepDoc

smash wrote: »

Cycling two a breast and not moving to a single file to allow other road users pass is akin to people driving at 50kph in the overtaking lane of the M50. It's just manners to let people pass. Everyone has a right to the road, but your right is not an entitlement to use it as you please and to hold up others.

No it is not. The overtaking lane on a motor way is specifically for overtaking.

Ordinary roads are specifically for all road users.

You don't have a right of way over cyclists.

seamus

hardCopy wrote: »

Perhaps worth noting that bad drivers kill people, a lot. Bad cyclists are an inconvenience.

This is really the crux of the matter.

Poor cycling is largely ignored (like poor walking is) by the authorities because it represents a much smaller public concern than poor driving. A fairly rough calculation which seems to hold across the world is that for about every one person killed either because they were hit by a cyclist or because they crashed into something on their bike, fifty are killed by motorised vehicles.

Or to put it in other terms, you are fifty times more likely to be killed by a poor driver than a poor cyclist.

SleepDoc

omega666 wrote: »

if your in a large group maybe but two cyclists by themselves riding two a breast to have a chat will just fustrate a driver which will more than likely make him do something stupid.

The driver can make a conscious decision to wait and overtake when safe to do so.

In the same way that I don't eat delicious dessert before dinner.

Self control.

GaryIrv93

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is the problem right here. You've decided that you know best and the law shouldn't apply to you.

I'm not in any way. I said earlier that my cycling on footpaths is kept to a minimum. I nearly always have a cycle path (off the road) available on the way to wherever I usually cycle. I never use footpaths unless there's no other alternative to avoid cycling on the road. I've had my own fair share of close calls cycling on roads. That's why I'd much rather not use them.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, your own risk assessment is skewed and that cycling on the road isn't as dangerous as you seem to think it is? Given that the vast majority of cyclists use the road like they're supposed to, are you opening the papers every morning and discovering that scores of cyclists are being killed to death by errant motorists? I ride about 200km a week and have yet to be hit by a car. I've had a few close calls, but I've had close calls by driving too. The fatality figures for cyclists back that up. We're talking around 5 a year.

From my own experience of close calls, some very close, I'm not willing to risk getting hit again - some people such as myself just like to stay safe by not using roads, whether or not it's as safe as others would say. Those figures are fatalities not injuries. I'm willing to bet that many cyclists are involved in accidents every day with cars. Many aren't so lucky as to escape a close call like us.

Does driving with a few pints on board make you a bad driver if you're careful and don't knock anyone down? Does breaking the lights or the speed limit make you a bad driver if you don't cause an accident? Aside from a small minority of psychos, everyone who breaks road traffic law usually does so because they think they aren't doing any harm.

I'm not talking about roads here, I was talking about paths. Cycling (very occasionally) at less than a few kilometres an hour on a pathway with always few peds is far less dangerous than speeding on a road, where you could lose control, crash, drink driving (which can make you crash) or breaking lights, which can end up in you hitting another car and God knows what else. Remember as well that I nearly always have a safe cylepath to use, and while it lasts, I'd only ever use the footpath to avoid broken glass or a pothole.

smash

SleepDoc wrote: »

No it is not. The overtaking lane on a motor way is specifically for overtaking.

Ordinary roads are specifically for all road users.

You don't have a right of way over cyclists.

Did you read my post? I said it's about manners. Everyone is entitled to use the road, but you should consider others.

AvidIrishReader

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The ins-and-outs of cycling two abreast were explained ad nauseum already earlier in this thread.

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Chips Lovell

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

I'm not in any way. I said earlier that my cycling on footpaths is kept to a minimum.....

There's obviously no reasoning with you so I'll leave you to it. Meanwhile the rest of us who're too stupid to not to cycle on the road will continue to get injured in droves.

Korvanica

smash wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said it's about manners. Everyone is entitled to use the road, but you should consider others.

So you expect cyclists to "have manners", cycle in single file for your convenience, and allow you to potentially put them in danger when you try to squeeze through the gap?

Overtake when its safe to do so, by overtaking properly. Like you would when overtaking a car.

SerialComplaint

smash wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said it's about manners. Everyone is entitled to use the road, but you should consider others.

Indeed - considering others is critical. So drivers should consider that trying to pass cyclists with in-lane overtakes is both bad manners and unsafe practice. To overtake, you need to move out to a different lane, and leave 1.5m room for the cyclist. Or does that 'consider others' only work one-way?

reprazant

I don't know why people are being so defensive about allow cars to pass.

I passed by two cyclists on my way to work, cycling two a breast, blocking cars from passing them. This was causing a huge tailback. There is more than enough room for the cars to pass if they were cycling single file. I know because I went by the tailback on my bike with ease before passing out the two lads.

I'm sorry but it was just ignorant of them.

sebastianlieken

This is the Law in Northern Ireland anyway, i'm not sure if the ROI is the same though?

[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

omega666

reprazant wrote: »

I don't know why people are being so defensive about allow cars to pass.

I passed by two cyclists on my way to work, cycling two a breast, blocking cars from passing them. This was causing a huge tailback. There is more than enough room for the cars to pass if they were cycling single file. I know because I went by the tailback on my bike with ease before passing out the two lads.

I'm sorry but it was just ignorant of them.

the funny thing is the cyclists here seem to think that by riding two a breast the driver behind will suddenly turn into the perfect driver by patiently waiting and overtaking like it's another car instead of in reality the driver will think "what a pair of c***s" and get more fustrated the longer he is there
instead of slipping past them and getting on with his journey.

smash

Korvanica wrote: »

So you expect cyclists to "have manners", cycle in single file for your convenience, and allow you to potentially put them in danger when you try to squeeze through the gap?

Overtake when its safe to do so, by overtaking properly. Like you would when overtaking a car.

No, I said have manners and temporarily move to a single file to make it safer for cars to pass.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Indeed - considering others is critical. So drivers should consider that trying to pass cyclists with in-lane overtakes is both bad manners and unsafe practice. To overtake, you need to move out to a different lane, and leave 1.5m room for the cyclist. Or does that 'consider others' only work one-way?

See above

reprazant

omega666 wrote: »

the funny thing is the cyclists here seem to think that by riding two a breast the driver behind will suddenly turn into the perfect driver by patiently waiting and overtaking like it's another car instead of in reality the driver will think "what a pair of c***s" and get more fustrated the longer he is there
instead of slipping past them and getting on with his journey.

Why are you generalising about all cyclists?

When I see somebody driving stupidly, am I to then presume that all drivers, by when I am behind the wheel, are knuckle dragging, sloped headed moron's who shouldn't be allowed to operate toy cars, let alone actual cars?

cyrusdvirus

To the cyclist that i nearly hit today, count yourself lucky that i didn't get out of my car and beat the bejaysus out of you!

IF YOU ARE GOING TO INSIST ON CYCLING ON THE FOOTPATH WHEN THERE IS A CYCLE LANE AT LEAST USE THE FOOTPATH ON THE RIGHT F*CKING SIDE OF THE ROAD!!!!

I was coming out of a blind junction and joining the flow of traffic, i stopped, checked traffic to my right, saw there was nothing coming, looked left to check for pedestrians, right again to make sure my way was clear and started moving forward.

Cue some lycra clad future darwin award winner whizzing past the front of my car after coming off the footpath.

Then the little sh1t stopped, got off his bike and started shouting at me. If i hadn't been a little bit shaken and thinking to myself "where the feck did he come from?" i would have got annoyed. When i opened the window he jumped on his bike and headed off




My brother in law is a cyclist, and i consider myself quite conscientious when it comes to giving cyclists space and time, as when he describes cycling to me in a city centre enviroment, he's not just looking where he's going etc, but he's also looking out for the next person who is going to try to kill him.

But people like th guy i encountered today give ALL road users a bad name.

hardCopy

sebastianlieken wrote: »

This is the Law in Northern Ireland anyway, i'm not sure if the ROI is the same though?

[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

I believe they must be used if provided in the Republic, however the law is (long over)due to be repealed and as such is not enforced.

Canis Lupus

Cycle lanes are mandatory in Ireland. In the UK they're not and you can use bus lanes which apart from a passing taxi or bus keeps you nicely out of traffic. If using bus lanes works in London I don't see why they can't adopt the same in ireland(Dublin)

reprazant

Most of the cycle lanes in Dublin city centre are also bus lanes so its much of a muchness really.

awec

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Cycle lanes are mandatory in Ireland. In the UK they're not and you can use bus lanes which apart from a passing taxi or bus keeps you nicely out of traffic. If using bus lanes works in London I don't see why they can't adopt the same in ireland(Dublin)

You can use the bus lanes as a cyclist.

The bus lane signs show a bus and a bicycle on them.

Canis Lupus

reprazant wrote: »

Most of the cycle lanes in Dublin city centre are also bus lanes so its much of a muchness really.

Fair enough. I remember in my younger days getting balled out of a bus lane by a garda.

seamus

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Fair enough. I remember in my younger days getting balled out of a bus lane by a garda.

Only contra-flow bus lanes can't be used by cyclists. All other bus lanes are fair game.

Capt'n Midnight

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Hand signals for "straight ahead"? Would motorists even recognise such?

Taxi drivers are completely unaware of them.

When a taxi with hazard lights on moves they must give hand signals.

awec

hardCopy wrote: »

I believe they must be used if provided in the Republic, however the law is (long over)due to be repealed and as such is not enforced.

It's easy to say use them, but some of them literally are not fit for purpose.

There are a few near where I live that have so many potholes and such an uneven surface that they could actually do damage to my bike (and my poor back and arse).

Capt'n Midnight

mossyc123 wrote: »

The benefits of the motor vehicle far outweigh the damage it does... if you ever do get knocked down on your travels I hope your fortunate enough to have an ambulance or passing motorist give you a lift to the hospital... a "backer" from one of your cycling buddies mightn't do the job very efficiently!

By that sort of logic the safest place to be is near a battle because there's bound to be a field hospital nearby in case you get shot

If there were no passing motorists then you are extremely unlikely to get knocked down.

Capt'n Midnight

Meauldsegosha wrote: »

Would you let a children on a bike without a helmet because it has VAT on it and therefore a luxury?

Would you let a child wear a cycling helmet when not on a bike ?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

hardCopy

awec wrote: »

It's easy to say use them, but some of them literally are not fit for purpose.

There are a few near where I live that have so many potholes and such an uneven surface that they could actually do damage to my bike (and my poor back and arse).

I agree, they're a joke and I only use the decent ones. The government agreed and hence said they would repeal the law. Then we got embroiled with the Troika and it got left on the back-burner, I don't know if it's been commented on since the new government came in (a pity since the Taoiseach is an avid cyclist)

Also, the vast majority of "Cycle Lanes" in the country don't fall within the law anyway as the councils decided to use their own makey-uppey signs with no legal basis.

hardCopy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

By that sort of logic the safest place to be is near a battle because there's bound to be a field hospital nearby in case you get shot

If there were no passing motorists then you are extremely unlikely to get knocked down.

Don't worry, these boys will be on hand when the ambos can't get through the gridlock.

Chips Lovell

On the issue of beeping at cyclists, it's worth considering that if you're beeping at them because you think their violating what you think traffic law should be rather than what it actually is, it's quite likely they're not going to have a clue as to why you're beeping at them. Cyclists aren't psychic, so they're unlikely to know what your own personal rules of the road are, rendering the exercise pointless on your part and confusing on the cyclist's part.

The majority of times I'm beeped at I've no idea as to why.

smash

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The majority of times I'm beeped at I've no idea as to why.

Maybe because you're riding it like you stole it

seamus

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The majority of times I'm beeped at I've no idea as to why.

Indeed, 9 times out ten, my response to someone beeping (whether I'm cycling, driving or walking) is, "What are you beeping at, you fncking moron". Not because I'm annoyed that they've beeped, but because there is genuinely no reason for them to have beeped.

Capt'n Midnight

smash wrote: »

Cycling two a breast and not moving to a single file to allow other road users pass is akin to people driving at 50kph in the overtaking lane of the M50. It's just manners to let people pass. Everyone has a right to the road, but your right is not an entitlement to use it as you please and to hold up others.

Actually it's like driving at 50kph in the left lane on a motorway.

Which thanks to our "no under 50Kph" motorway laws you are quite entitled to do.

As you say everyone has a right to the road.

But cycling two abreast means there are more of them than you and they are second class road users and you are a third class road user so all else being equal they have right of way.

When we get enforced laws here that force tractor and other slow drivers to pull in to the hard shoulder to allow traffic to overtake, then maybe we could look at requiring cyclists to go single file to allow overtaking where it is safe to do so, maybe.

Surveyor11

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Hand signals for "straight ahead"? Would motorists even recognise such?

Taxi drivers are completely unaware of them.

When a taxi with hazard lights on moves they must give hand signals.

Taxis I will always treat with extreme caution, they will gladly put your life as a cyclist in peril for that ellusive fare. Example - stopped at the top of high street at the junction if christchurch the other morning. Taxi driver along side me pulls off, then swerves in to the cycling lane to pick up a fair, nearly took me clean off the bike, he didn't even pay the blindest bit of attention to nearly killing me. Scary

Surveyor11

seamus wrote: »

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The majority of times I'm beeped at I've no idea as to why.

Indeed, 9 times out ten, my response to someone beeping (whether I'm cycling, driving or walking) is, "What are you beeping at, you fncking moron". Not because I'm annoyed that they've beeped, but because there is genuinely no reason for them to have beeped.

Don't ever underestimate the driver's impulse to beep, its almost primal (and pointless )

SerialComplaint

reprazant wrote: »

I don't know why people are being so defensive about allow cars to pass.

I passed by two cyclists on my way to work, cycling two a breast, blocking cars from passing them. This was causing a huge tailback. There is more than enough room for the cars to pass if they were cycling single file. I know because I went by the tailback on my bike with ease before passing out the two lads.

I'm sorry but it was just ignorant of them.

The space required for a cyclist to filter through on the left hand side of stationary or slow moving traffic is very, very different from the space required for a car to safely overtake a driver. Different ballgame.

omega666 wrote: »

instead of slipping past them and getting on with his journey.

Your 'slipping past' is what puts cyclist lives at risk. If you don't leave enough room (i.e. 1.5 metres) then in 'slipping past' at the wrong time, where there is a pothole, or a gust of wind, or a small branch in the gutter, the cyclist gets hurt. You don't 'slip past' another car - you leave enough room - so why would you slip past a cyclist.

smash

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When we get enforced laws here that force tractor and other slow drivers to pull in to the hard shoulder to allow traffic to overtake, then maybe we could look at requiring cyclists to go single file to allow overtaking where it is safe to do so, maybe.

Tractors do this all the time. They are considerate of the motorists they are holding up.

seamus

smash wrote: »

Tractors do this all the time. They are considerate of the motorists they are holding up.

"All the time" is stretching the truth a bit. Tractors pull over when it's safe to do so.

Like cyclists do.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Tractors do this all the time. They are considerate of the motorists they are holding up.

That must be why nobody ever gets stuck behind tractors on Irish roads.

smash

seamus wrote: »

"All the time" is stretching the truth a bit. Tractors pull over when it's safe to do so.

Like cyclists do.

Tractors will always pull over when there is a hard shoulder and traffic behind them. A lot of cyclists don't pull into a cycle lane when there's one present and a lot of them don't form a single file while holding up traffic, they expect the motorist to wait.

Stark

Rare enough that I'm stopped behind cyclists for more than a few seconds when I'm driving. I can only remember one incident a few years ago with an obnoxious cycling club where I was stopped for a while, all other times they've been courteous and I wasn't held up at all hardly (and I drive roads like the Glendalough road quite regularly). The nice thing about them is they can't put the foot to the floor when you go to overtake them like the most of the dickheads you encounter when driving on Irish roads.

My belief is people are annoyed by their personal dislike of cyclists rather than the delay itself.

SerialComplaint

Stark wrote: »

Rare enough that I'm stopped behind cyclists for more than a few seconds when I'm driving.

This really is the key issue.

All the hot air about being stuck behind cyclists is nonsense in urban environment. Cars are only stuck from getting to the back of the next queue of cars for a few seconds.

Really, what's all the fuss about?

smash

smash wrote: »

Tractors will always pull over when there is a hard shoulder and traffic behind them. A lot of cyclists don't pull into a cycle lane when there's one present and a lot of them don't form a single file while holding up traffic, they expect the motorist to wait.

Are you even reading any of the replies to your posts?