Skipping at traffic lights

meisce

The one I really hate is the guy with the battery pack strapped to his bike who skips through every set of lights only to then meander along blocking up the cycle lane

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

I am neither fit or fast. This lady wasn't overtaking anyone. She was cycling on the road. The car to my right was stuck in traffic and not moving. There was ample space for me to pass by the lady with space.
There was no one trying to cram into space that wasn't there. She simply got antsy because I passed her. She wasn't holding me up because the space existed to pass. If she was holding me up I would simply have waited until I could pass.

Do you feel that when space exists to safely overtake that somehow i should cycle behind someone for some reason?

To point out the glaringly obvious she was clearly overtaking the car. The fact that its stopped doesn't mean the manoeuvre is any different to other overtaking situations. Indeed the fact that the overtaking is happening on the non-standard side means more caution is needed.

I don't know why she got angry but based on your description of your own behaviour, it sounds as if you were behaving in an inconsiderate manner (at best).

Yes I think it is inconsiderate and obnoxious behaviour to push between two drivers when one is overtaking the other.

The fact that you thought you had enough space to get away with it does not appear to me to change the essential facts.

Plastik

Sorry, but that's utterly bewildering logic. If you were to adhere to what you are suggesting there would be gridlock in rush hour of vehicles in the lanes and cyclists waiting for the lane to become free so they could overtake someone bolt upright in flapping high-vis because they are at the head of the space between the lane and vehicles. If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

Zyzz

gadetra wrote: »

Try being a woman on an old racer. I'm like a target for them :rolleyes: 99% of other cyclists shoal by me at lights. I pass 90% when the lights go green and it's safe to go by. You rarely see them again. Guys On old mountain bikes with tracksuit bottoms on cycling with knees out are the worst offenders. Fcukwits!

This is all spoken in past tense* :P

ROK ON

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To point out the glaringly obvious she was clearly overtaking the car. The fact that its stopped doesn't mean the manoeuvre is any different to other overtaking situations. Indeed the fact that the overtaking is happening on the non-standard side means more caution is needed.

I don't know why she got angry but based on your description of your own behaviour, it sounds as if you were behaving in an inconsiderate manner (at best).

Yes I think it is inconsiderate and obnoxious behaviour to push between two drivers when one is overtaking the other.

The fact that you thought you had enough space to get away with it does not appear to me to change the essential facts.

We have very different views of how to commute.
I believe that one can safely overtake another cyclist when in traffic. Your view of my judgement appears different. I won't ever agree.

Baron Kurtz

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

I have said it to people before, but they get very defensive. Some parts of my commute are dangerous and to overtake a cyclist again puts me in more risk. I think it's pure ignorant.

Sometimes I position myself in an awkward position. If there is traffic, my bike is slanted so these eejits can't pass. Other parts of the road I just take up the centre road at the front (no traffic).

Yeah, briefly tried the slanting, but serves little opposition to the trenchant light dismissing tard.

On a similar note I was called plenty of choice names by an eager light breaking cyclist, who I was apparently impeding, for stopping up between curb and car at a red light. I legitimately wait here for a green to show (bottle-necking those behind who have already cycled gleefully through the last 4 sets of lights).

So by their assessment I'm the **** for stalling their progress through the next red. I said "pick another route through the traffic because I won't go until it's green and you won't fit through here". That's their prerogative to go another route through traffic but essentially rude, disingenuous and crass to attempt to bump me out of the way for abiding by the rules.

This proceeded with multiple tyre tapping and "come on, let me through!". Unreal. Where were they going at the red light? Subsequently I was cursed at profusely, for keeping to the rules. Sad state when this is supposedly normal behaviour and worse still that they actually thought my adhering to the rules was abnormal.

I'm generally relaxed about cycling as I've no hang up about making every light and rushing around but it's the unnecessary abuse I was subjected (especially as I wasn't doing anything wrong) to that grates, particularly on this occasion.

It's the casual expletives that get me and probably little did that person know (not being the hard man etc) that I might just follow you up, get off the bike and take you to task physically. It just seems so easy for people to do it on a bike in motion. The same people wouldn't do it as pedestrians I'd imagine.

eeeee

Zyzz wrote: »

This is all spoken in past tense* :P

You're so so mean Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it? *bambi face*

eeeee

rollingscone wrote: »

Can I try a. Being on an old racer or b. Being a woman without simultaneously experiencing the other or is it a package deal/magical bicycle scenario?.

It's a package deal with extra feminism

Harrybelafonte

gadetra wrote: »

You're so so mean Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it? *bambi face*

Wouldn't worry about it, I'm pretty much sat on my ass for the last two months, so you're probably doing more than me. It'll all end well.

CramCycle

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

This proceeded with multiple tyre tapping

I wouldn't be able to tolerate that at all, not a physical guy so probably would have just backed up awkwardly so they couldn't and let them go ballistic as the light went green and I didn't move.

rollingscone

gadetra wrote: »

You're so so mean Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it? *bambi face*

Yes. Yes it does. I decided to get a turbo the day I met Carpenter on the road and he, after months out due to a broken bone had to wait for me at the top of every climb. He explained how he'd been on the Turbo again since before he regained the ability to walk.

galwaycyclist

Plastik wrote: »

Sorry, but that's utterly bewildering logic. If you were to adhere to what you are suggesting there would be gridlock in rush hour of vehicles in the lanes and cyclists waiting for the lane to become free so they could overtake someone bolt upright in flapping high-vis because they are at the head of the space between the lane and vehicles. If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

ROK ON

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why presume that overtaking means that a person is hurried?
It simply means that one person is going faster than another.
That implies nothing. Different people travel at different speeds for all sorts of reasons - an o errand can't imply anything other than an overtake. As long as it is safe, not invading someones space and not discourteous then I can't perceive an issue.
Do you suggest that no overtaking occurs on urban streets even if space exists?
Should we all travel at some preordained unhurried space?
What is the issue about o retaking cars on the outside?
I can think of roads where I could safely overtake a fellow cyclists at say 20-25k but that cars outside of me may be going 60+

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

Why presume that overtaking means that a person is hurried?
It simply means that one person is going faster than another.
That implies nothing. Different people travel at different speeds for all sorts of reasons - an o errand can't imply anything other than an overtake. As long as it is safe, not invading someones space and not discourteous then I can't perceive an issue.
Do you suggest that no overtaking occurs on urban streets even if space exists?
Should we all travel at some preordained unhurried space?
What is the issue about o retaking cars on the outside?
I can think of roads where I could safely overtake a fellow cyclists at say 20-25k but that cars outside of me may be going 60+

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

Plastik

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

I'm not in a hurry. In fact for 95% of my time commuting in Dublin on bike I'm absolutely not in a hurry. I try and keep my HR right down in z1/z2. In case that means nothing to you, that's easy. Never the less, I'm quite a lot faster than a lot of commuters. But am I in a hurry, no.

I overtake filter through traffic in the safest way possible. I occasionally filter between two lanes of stationary traffic. I occasionally filter down the outside between traffic on my side and oncoming traffic, but by enlarge, I filter down the inside. And I'll explain it to you just to alleviate your facetiousness, I do it on the inside because it's generally the safest place to do it. It's where the cycle lane is. It's where the bus lane is. And most importantly of all, if you have ever spent time cycling on heavily congested roads, it's where drivers expect you to be. And that expectation counts for a lot if you don't want to get run over.

Please explain why you think that passing another cyclist, while we are both filtering through stationary traffic, puts us in conflict with each other? Why do you think that someone cycling slowly has the right to complain to someone that passes them if there was ample room to do it and there was no danger to either party?

ROK ON

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

I don't believe that passing other cyclists puts me into conflict with those cyclists - meaning that I pass when it is safe to do so. But I have also passed cyclists while cycling in front of cars moving behind me. The only time I go outside cars is when I am either turning right and/or cars are moving so slowly and there is no way past on the inside. In the circumstances I outlined there was plenty of space - I was in a bus lane as was the cyclist I passed. The cars stuck in traffic were sharing the same street but not the same exact lane. As I have mentioned - there was a lot of space.
It is unnecessary to overtake outside a car when ample space exists to overtake outside the cyclist in a standard fashion.

But don't worry, I wouldn't ever be able to overtake you safely. It would be impossible to navigate around the extraordinarily large chip on your shoulder.

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

I don't believe that passing other cyclists puts me into conflict with those cyclists - meaning that I pass when it is safe to do so. But I have also passed cyclists while cycling in front of cars moving behind me. The only time I go outside cars is when I am either turning right and/or cars are moving so slowly and there is no way past on the inside. In the circumstances I outlined there was plenty of space - I was in a bus lane as was the cyclist I passed. The cars stuck in traffic were sharing the same street but not the same exact lane. As I have mentioned - there was a lot of space.
It is unnecessary to overtake outside a car when ample space exists to overtake outside the cyclist in a standard fashion.

But don't worry, I wouldn't ever be able to overtake you safely. It would be impossible to navigate around the extraordinarily large chip on your shoulder.

Funny that you are only mentioning the bus lane part now. In congested conditions I usually pass on the right. So no it is unlikely that you would find yourself overtaking me.

Overtaking two vehicles in the same lane at the same time when one is also overtaking the other is, with regret, not describable as overtaking in the "standard" manner. It could be seen as a bit "daft".

Something tells me it would be interesting to get the other party's side of the story on this.

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Overtaking two vehicles in the same lane at the same time when one is also overtaking the other is, with regret, not describable as overtaking in the "standard" manner. It could be seen as a bit "daft".

The law considers bicycles three abreast in a single lane when overtaking to be normal.

lukegjpotter

Where are the cops to dish out a few €750 fines to these?

What I also find annoying is when the slower dudes stop in front of you at the lights. Like they're putting everyone in danger by having me to go around them.

When I'm driving, and I see cyclist not peddling, just coasting down a narrow road, it makes me feel sad for humanity.

Weepsie

I always have to stop at the 5 lamps heading into town. Generally people take their place in line as it can be a busy stretch. There's one guy who repeatedly goes up on the path and goes to the front and then goes quite slowly. He nearly got himself hit by a car and it would've been his fault as he didn't appear to be paying much attention.

A few days after his near miss and having had him do this again and again I was first in the queue and he did it again, I asked him to stop doing it, that he can't cycle on the path and he would arguably be better off otherwise. He said sorry but late passed me when I was stationery to turn to say something smart about what I was doing of which was nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.

As with every group their are a few who think they are more important and their journey and job or whatever is much more important. Some people might do it the odd time and by accident, might be having a bad day so I'd take that into account but you get used to seeing the same eejits doing and it grates

Weepsie

I always have to stop at the 5 lamps heading into town. Generally people take their place in line as it can be a busy stretch. There's one guy who repeatedly goes up on the path and goes to the front and then goes quite slowly. He nearly got himself hit by a car and it would've been his fault as he didn't appear to be paying much attention.

A few days after his near miss and having had him do this again and again I was first in the queue and he did it again, I asked him to stop doing it, that he can't cycle on the path and he would arguably be better off otherwise. He said sorry but late passed me when I was stationery to turn to say something smart about what I was doing of which was nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.

As with every group their are a few who think they are more important and their journey and job or whatever is much more important. Some people might do it the odd time and by accident, might be having a bad day so I'd take that into account but you get used to seeing the same eejits doing and it grates

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

It's possibly safer to do so. You or I do not know the exact situation. We do not know how much space there is. In most cases I find overtaking the cars on the right to be dangerous (stopped or slow traffic). They rarely look to their right when taking off and are more focused on the left side of their vehicle which is where they would expect to see a cyclist.

I, and many other cyclists I meet, would only overtake on the right if the car has not given me any room due to whatever reason (ignorance, carelessnes or pre-empting the approach of a large vehicle etc etc)

CramCycle

lukegjpotter wrote: »

What I also find annoying is when the slower dudes stop in front of you at the lights. Like they're putting everyone in danger by having me to go around them.

While annoying, if it's not safe to over take then you should wait till it is. They are not putting you in danger, they are annoying you, you are putting yourself in danger.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

CramCycle wrote: »

While annoying, if it's not safe to over take then you should wait till it is. They are not putting you in danger, they are annoying you, you are putting yourself in danger.

Why is it that every time a poster mentions "danger" and "overtaking" in the same sentence everybody automatically pictures a cyclist dangerously overtaking another cyclist?

The fools that jump you at the lights and stop cause myself and others to overtake them again. An overtaking maneuver will always contain an element of danger for a cyclist as we don't have the same power/torque a vehicle has, we cannot accelerate as fast and are limited in speed. How many times have you or anybody else overtaken a cyclist to have a car/motorbike/bus behind you before the maneuver has been complete?

It certainly quite common due to the fact that limits are not adhered to.

CramCycle

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

Why is it that every time a poster mentions "danger" and "overtaking" in the same sentence everybody automatically pictures a cyclist dangerously overtaking another cyclist?

because in the post I was responding to that's what he said. That the annoying, ignorant and rude sh1t (my description not the posters) put him in danger. They didn't, you can't force an overtake.

I have rude annoying and ignorant sh1t do this every day, they don't put me in danger though, they simply annoy the hell out of me.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

The law considers bicycles three abreast in a single lane when overtaking to be normal.

Uh no this is what the law states

Pedal Cyclists
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.

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

And this is what the law states on overtaking:

Overtaking
10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

So in situations like we were discussing - where a cyclist is overtaking a car or cars in the same lane e.g. "other traffic" - then other cyclists are required to stay behind each other - to stay in single file.

On the issue of cycling three abreast if there was no other traffic in the lane.

The prohibition on inconveniencing other road users while overtaking means you can only cycle two abreast by mutual consent. You can't just drive, or cycle, up beside someone else in the same lane unless you are overtaking.

So if the other cyclist has not consented for you to cycle beside them then arguably they also count as "other traffic"

ted1

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

It's possibly safer to do so. You or I do not know the exact situation. We do not know how much space there is. In most cases I find overtaking the cars on the right to be dangerous (stopped or slow traffic). They rarely look to their right when taking off and are more focused on the left side of their vehicle which is where they would expect to see a cyclist.

I, and many other cyclists I meet, would only overtake on the right if the car has not given me any room due to whatever reason (ignorance, carelessnes or pre-empting the approach of a large vehicle etc etc)

I over take on the right coming down Anglesa road, the inside road is in awful condition and there's a few pinch points. Much safer seen the oncoming cars.

CramCycle

ted1 wrote: »

I over take on the right coming down Anglesa road, the inside road is in awful condition and there's a few pinch points. Much safer seen the oncoming cars.

Same here, the road gets too narrow whenever there are parked cars. Took too overtaking on the right after one too many nitwits either attempted an overtake in a car when I was only a few feet behind the car in front and/or an overtake on the S bend part. Guy nearly drove into a bus then me trying to overtake there before. I still reached the lights at Ballsbridge at least 10 cars in front. Then the f wits on bikes trying to squeeze past when you slow for a pinch point, seen one guy knock himself down doing this. Another woman who nearly got crushed at a pinch point only the car spotted her at the last minute and swerved out. Luckily she escaped this near death experience without noticing so she could run a red light and nearly get hit by a guy going through crossing traffic.

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So in situations like we were discussing - where a cyclist is overtaking a car or cars in the same lane e.g. "other traffic" - then other cyclists are required to stay behind each other - to stay in single file.

I've really no idea what you thought you were discussing, but I thought ROK ON was describing overtaking other cyclists in-lane.

Maybe my reading comprehension failed.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

I've really no idea what you thought you were discussing, but I thought ROK ON was describing overtaking other cyclists in-lane.

Maybe my reading comprehension failed.

Let me remind you:

ROK ON wrote: »

<snip>
As I pass between her and a car stationary in traffic she goes a bit Bolshy and accuses me of breaking lights and giving cyclists a bad name.
I was furious given that I waited at the lights for a good while as the just turned red when I arrived at them.
Bit shocked - only thing I could say to her was relax.
Still a bit bugged by it. You simply can't win.
I think some people cannot accept that other peoples commuting pace is faster than them - so they take an overtake as an insult. I'm not fast. Just faster than about half the commuters with I'd say about half again faster than me.
I dress in Lycra commuting for comfort and utility. But I don't race while commuting - ever.
Find it nuts that I can't overtake some daft bird without getting a dose of verbals.

ROK_ON then continues in the same vein.

ROK ON wrote: »

I am neither fit or fast. This lady wasn't overtaking anyone. She was cycling on the road. The car to my right was stuck in traffic and not moving. There was ample space for me to pass by the lady with space.
There was no one trying to cram into space that wasn't there. She simply got antsy because I passed her. She wasn't holding me up because the space existed to pass. If she was holding me up I would simply have waited until I could pass.

Do you feel that when space exists to safely overtake that somehow i should cycle behind someone for some reason?

The user Plastik then offered this opinion - which was thanked by ROK_ON

Plastik wrote: »

<snip>
If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

The user Plastik also offered this which was also thanked by the user ROK_ON.

Plastik wrote: »

<snip>
Please explain why you think that passing another cyclist, while we are both filtering through stationary traffic, puts us in conflict with each other? Why do you think that someone cycling slowly has the right to complain to someone that passes them if there was ample room to do it and there was no danger to either party?

In all cases we seem to have particular users on this board admitting, and endorsing, unlawful behaviour. Specifically overtaking other cyclists in the same lane while those cyclists are also overtaking other traffic. Something that is clearly prohibited by the traffic regulations.