Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

Oink

A Neurotic wrote: »

Apologies for vague off-topicness.

Au contraire mon frere. You off-topicness is quite welcome. No Pants done broke OP anyway:

paddyland wrote: »

Now go on and have your little huff, as I am signing out.

So now we’re just throwing generalizations around for a laugh:

wrt40 wrote: »

Lets face it, the vast majority of cyclists have an attitude problem. .

No Pants

CramCycle wrote: »

on giant bicycles

I wish I'd known, I never would have bought that Cube...

Tenzor07

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I cant see which cyclist is cycling two abreast the first three seem to be single file and after that i cant make out if any are cycling two abreast.
Also you can cycle more than two abreast when overtaking, so even if we did know that there were three abreast we would need more than that photo to be able to identify any law breaking.

So why are the cyclists here not all in cuff's?

Well....

They appear to have numbers on the handlebars so it's safe to assume that local Gardai have been informed of an event, signs and marshals have been posted along the route and local residents out cheering them on...

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

And yes, I can make a sweeping general statement like that because its a fact, period, no arguing about it.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

CramCycle

wrt40 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist but I'm also a driver. Why do cyclists always assume drivers don't cycle?

So far the majority of cyclists on this thread have identified themselves as motor tax paying cyclists so not sure what your point is.

That it's us versus them? Lets face it, the vast majority of cyclists have an attitude problem. And yes, I can make a sweeping general statement like that because its a fact, period, no arguing about it.

I suggest you relax, take a deep breath and have a google about what the word fact means because I fear you don't actually know.

Being a cyclist myself I just accept that this is true. All cyclists should have to take lessons and pass a test on how not be a dick head on the road. It'll make everyone's journey a lot more pleasant, mainly their own. And lycra should be banned. You might as well be wearing a sign on your back saying "dick head up ahead".

To be fair if the driving test proved anything its that taking a test will not stop someone being a d*ck, not being a d*ck is about the only way to solve being a d*ck.

Some d*cks are cyclists, some are peds, some are motor vehicle users and some are a mixture of the 3. What i am trying to say, if its not clear, is that a small subset of the Irish population are d*cks. It seems like a large % but its not really, its just that we tend to remember when a d*ck gets in our face as we go about our daily lives and forget about those who had no affect on us whatsoever, which is a pity.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

I wish I'd known, I never would have bought that Cube...

LOL, Cubes look nicer

wrt40

Oink wrote: »

So now we’re just throwing generalizations around for a laugh:

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not a communist, haven't paid my dues this year yet.


Considering the number of cars that are english plated but have been driving in and out of my workplaces car park for over a year, alongside the number of cars that just simply have not paid (regardless of the SORN system). I don't think an excuse is necessary, apparently it only matters if there is a checkpoint and I have come across so few of them in my time in Dublin that my car would have paid for itself 10 times over if i never paid road tax. Not only does my motor tax contribute to the general tax pool, so does my USC, my PAYE, my VAT etc. All of which I see sapped away on councils repairing roads that do not need repair at the end of the fiscal year to use up the money in case it is not issued again.

Cars not being taxed or being English registered is a matter for the GS Customs and Excise, it still doesn't give you the right to use a second vehicle on the road with out the requisite tax, therefore please cyclists stop using the excuse " I've paid motor/road tax it's on the car parked in my driveway"

As to the USC/PAYE etc. being spent by councils they also spend their apportion of LGF which is made up of the entire contribution of motortax minus admin costs therefore motortax (AGAIN) is defacto a more DIRECT road tax than your USC/PAYE etc. plus ( for those who complain about engines ) every €1 that a motorist spends on fuel ( 2012 figures ) then somewhere around 55c goes in taxation, as you wouldn't tend to use fuel unless you are actually driving then again the motorist is paying MORE defacto ROAD TAX

CramCycle

wrt40 wrote: »

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

I see you googled fact and have now changed it to opinion. Next google generalisation. Actually, LMGTFY, :

a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

As in, you have a very small subset of examples or memories in your head and you have decided that this is a reasonable amount of examples to infer characteristics upon a huge number of people who you do not know and will probably never meet or see. So I suppose the next question is, can you justify your generalisation about the attitude of cyclists (which I am presuming you mean in a negative connotation as I am certain everyone has an attitude)?

Oink

wrt40 wrote: »

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

Ah but you see, this thread is about "Why do we tolerate them on our roads."
=> presumably OP is suggesting a change in law

Your suggestion is that the "All cyclists should have to take lessons"
=> You are suggesting mandatory training

Based on what?
=> “popular opinion”

So yeah, the whole premise is flaky.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Quite an assumption you've made there.


In rather the same way that a car would if using the same road. Are you saying that it's illegal for a car to be using that road?

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast, even if they were trackstanding they would still be obstructing the road.

No but it would be illegal (as well as inadvisable ) for a car to be more than 1 abreast on that road, just because the cyclists ARE breaking the law no need to start trying to obfuscate the post by intimating that a motorist is breaking the law by being on the road when they wouldn't

wrt40

CramCycle wrote: »

I suggest you relax, take a deep breath and have a google about what the word fact means because I fear you don't actually know.

Perfectly relaxed. It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?

CramCycle wrote: »

Some d*cks are cyclists, some are peds, some are motor vehicle users and some are a mixture of the 3.

Of course dick heads can be classified in all manner of ways. but I am specifically talking about cyclists. There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

Putting my cycling hat on (sorry), I'd say its because of the god awful state of Irish roads, both the physical degradation and the awful design and layout. When a motorist gets stressed he'll usually curse and shout in the privacy of his car, occasionally it manifests as road rage. When a cyclist gets stressed its on public display.

wrt40

CramCycle wrote: »

I see you googled fact and have now changed it to opinion. Next google generalisation. Actually, LMGTFY, :

arf arf its so funny lols LMAO....point proven.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast

Where?

wrt40

No Pants wrote: »

Where?

come off it now.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Cars not being taxed or being English registered is a matter for the GS Customs and Excise, it still doesn't give you the right to use a second vehicle on the road with out the requisite tax, therefore please cyclists stop using the excuse " I've paid motor/road tax it's on the car parked in my driveway"

As to the USC/PAYE etc. being spent by councils they also spend their apportion of LGF which is made up of the entire contribution of motortax minus admin costs therefore motortax (AGAIN) is defacto a more DIRECT road tax than your USC/PAYE etc. plus ( for those who complain about engines ) every €1 that a motorist spends on fuel ( 2012 figures ) then somewhere around 55c goes in taxation, as you wouldn't tend to use fuel unless you are actually driving then again the motorist is paying MORE defacto ROAD TAX

Ah spook.ie, the flaw with your logic has become apparent, my right to use the road is the same as yours. It is born from legal grounds set up by the state. If their was a tax on cycling, I would pay it but there is not so I cannot see why you are annoyed, my bicycle does far less damage to the roads which is what you think motor tax is their to alleviate ie the cost of maintaining roads. If you took the cost of admining a cycling tax away from the fair cost of damage done by a single cyclist to the roads, then you would find that the government would probably owe most cyclists money. Therefore to save money, they don't do it. Regardless of this, you are also forgetting the issues with Public Health. The govenment have a responsibilty not to put barriers up to the general public in regards to things that in the long run will be beneficial to the general health of the populace. If a tax was introduced, the number of cyclist would plummet, making the tax even more costly to administer but also increasing the strain on the public health service in years to come.

But forget that, make a suggestion, that is not ridiculous, does not affect public health and does not cost more to the government than it can ever hope to generate in regards cycling and then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.

But lets not even go into emmissions, traffic jams, obesity, lets only focus on a tax that does not even cover what you claim it covers and try and think of a way to impose it on a group of people who by their daily routine save the government money in the long run by not paying a tax you wish to introduce.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Where?

In the peloton, we've already deduced that it is an organised group ( based on the numbers on the cycles ) therefore the likihood of it being a timed event is increased exponentaly and the existance of a peloton also thus increased.

You do little to enhance your arguments by denying the ( to any reasonable person, a judge and jury are not always reasonable which is why I wouldn't be looking for the GS to prosecute anyone ) obvious

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

come off it now.

Cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. Cyclists are even allowed to cycle three abreast, as long as the third cyclist is overtaking the other two. That photo shows a group of cyclists, but if you look carefully you'll notice that very few of them are actually alongside another cyclist. They're quite staggered.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast, even if they were trackstanding they would still be obstructing the road.

It is a LANEWAY, if a car was driving on it, by definition, they would be obstructing it. Same with cyclist, if there was only one cyclist, he would still be obstructing it.

No but it would be illegal (as well as inadvisable ) for a car to be more than 1 abreast on that road,t

Actually it would be borderline impossible and incredibly dangerous to try.

wrt40 wrote: »

Perfectly relaxed. It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?

Are you saying that if someone went looking they could not find a cyclist who is not a d*ck.

Of course dick heads can be classified in all manner of ways. but I am specifically talking about cyclists. There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

Putting my cycling hat on (sorry),

Just because you have seen lots of d*ck heads and you yourself are or at least have been one (your words, not mine) does not mean all cyclists are d*ckheads.

When a cyclist gets stressed its on public display.

I don't understand this last point? Are you saying everyone who uses a vehicle is a d*ckhead, its just easier to see with cyclists?

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Ah spook.ie, the flaw with your logic has become apparent, my right to use the road is the same as yours. It is born from legal grounds set up by the state. If their was a tax on cycling, I would pay it but there is not so I cannot see why you are annoyed, my bicycle does far less damage to the roads which is what you think motor tax is their to alleviate ie the cost of maintaining roads. If you took the cost of admining a cycling tax away from the fair cost of damage done by a single cyclist to the roads, then you would find that the government would probably owe most cyclists money. Therefore to save money, they don't do it. Regardless of this, you are also forgetting the issues with Public Health. The govenment have a responsibilty not to put barriers up to the general public in regards to things that in the long run will be beneficial to the general health of the populace. If a tax was introduced, the number of cyclist would plummet, making the tax even more costly to administer but also increasing the strain on the public health service in years to come.

But forget that, make a suggestion, that is not ridiculous, does not affect public health and does not cost more to the government than it can ever hope to generate in regards cycling and then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.

But lets not even go into emmissions, traffic jams, obesity, lets only focus on a tax that does not even cover what you claim it covers and try and think of a way to impose it on a group of people who by their daily routine save the government money in the long run by not paying a tax you wish to introduce.

My logic isn't flawed at all, it is to debunk the oft perpetrated myth that cyclists trot out in these threads that they pay tax on their vehicles in the driveway therefore they are contributing ( in some glory seeking way without actually using the vehicle ) if that's the case then dispose of the vehicle and pay your motortax over in some other indirect taxation but don't use the feeblest of excuses about " I pay motor/road tax"

furiousox

wrt40 wrote: »

It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?
Of course dick heads can be classified in all manner of ways. but I am specifically talking about cyclists. There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

It is a LANEWAY, if a car was driving on it, by definition, they would be obstructing it. Same with cyclist, if there was only one cyclist, he would still be obstructing it.

<snipped>

But a motorist wouldn't be breaking the law by cycling 3 abreast in an organised group

wrt40

No Pants wrote: »

Cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. Cyclists are even allowed to cycle three abreast, as long as the third cyclist is overtaking the other two. That photo shows a group of cyclists, but if you look carefully you'll notice that very few of them are actually alongside another cyclist. They're quite staggered.

The point is, if they're holding up traffic and have the potential to cause a dangerous situation by forcing a motorist to over take on a bend or continuous white line, then they should do the right thing and move over in single file. Just because they are allowed doesn't mean they have to or that they have a god given right to.

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

forcing a motorist to over take on a bend or continuous white line

How does this happen? Do they use weapons?

MugMugs

I drive a car every day at least 100 miles.

I have a cracking wee road bike.

I don't cycle my road bike anymore out of complete fear for my well being because of the utter idiots that drive by me.

Tenzor07

wrt40 wrote: »

The point is, if they're holding up traffic and have the potential to cause a dangerous situation by forcing a motorist to over take on a bend or continuous white line, then they should do the right thing and move over in single file. Just because they are allowed doesn't mean they have to or that they have a god given right to.

They ARE traffic, therefore are not Holding up traffic...

Did one of the cyclists hop into the passenger seat and force the driver to overtake dangerously rather than just wait for a safe place to pass?

wrt40

CramCycle wrote: »

Are you saying that if someone went looking they could not find a cyclist who is not a d*ck.

Just because you have seen lots of d*ck heads and you yourself are or at least have been one (your words, not mine) does not mean all cyclists are d*ckheads.

I never said all cyclists are dick heads.

I have to say, you use an awful lot of energy trying to justify what is quite simply just a chronic bad attitude amongst cyclists. Arguing over the definition of "fact" and "generalisation" and twisting peoples arguments, because deep down you know what people are saying is true. I know it sucks, I'm a cyclist too. I just don't wear lycra (sorry, cheap dig) and don't go around as if I'm holier than thou. I'm also very careful not to do anything that would classify me as a dick head cyclist. Be it a generalisation or not, it's not really got anything to do with the argument, if I keep over to the kerb, travel in single file when appropriate, use the cycle lanes, stop at red lights, don't shout abuse at people and keep a polite and friendly demeanour I will always get to my destination stress free and without incident.

I would suggest you try it out and see how you get on. Trust me, you'll have a pleasant journey.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

My logic isn't flawed at all, it is to debunk the oft perpetrated myth that cyclists trot out in these threads that they pay tax on their vehicles in the driveway therefore they are contributing ( in some glory seeking way without actually using the vehicle ) if that's the case then dispose of the vehicle and pay your motortax over in some other indirect taxation but don't use the feeblest of excuses about " I pay motor/road tax"

But it is, there is no legal requirement to pay road tax, until it does become a requirement the insinuation that you have more right to use the road because you are in a motor vehicle is baseless. If motor tax is for repairing of the roads or to contribute to a tax to counteract the emissions caused by myself or my vehicle, then please figure out, what a cyclist should pay, make a petition to your local TD or sitting minister for transport explaining to him the justifying reasons that are present which makes taxing cyclists sensible or even viable. I pay motor tax but the difference is, despite what you have said up above, I don't believe it gives me more right to use the road than if I didn't have motor tax. The reason it is brought up by cyclists in these debates is that for some reason, some people get motor tax and road tax confused, and believe that only those who contribute to the motor tax pool should be allowed use the road. Some of us can't do that as there is no way to contribute to this pool unless we own a motor vehicle but as soon as we say we do own a motor vehicle it is a silly argument.

Decide what you think would be fair, put down a simple plan on how this could ever be implemented without costing the government huge amounts of money and then let us have a civil discussion.

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

Perfectly relaxed. It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?

It would be impressive if you did. The CSO reports that the population of Ireland in April 2013 was 4,593,100. Could you maybe sample 1,000 of the population and come back with the results?

wrt40 wrote: »

There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

I'd like to see some proof of this correlation.

No Pants

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Did one of the cyclists hop into the passenger seat and force the driver to overtake dangerously rather than just wait for a safe place to pass?

Held a Gillette to the drivers leg and threatened to shave it if he didn't overtake PDQ.

wrt40

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They ARE traffic, therefore are not Holding up traffic...

Of course they are traffic, but they are also holding up traffic. this is another example of people twisting words as a way to get out of an argument. Just move over and stop holding up traffic, simple. What exactly is the problem?

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Did one of the cyclists hop into the passenger seat and force the driver to overtake dangerously rather than just wait for a safe place to pass?

It applies to all road users. It's called cycling\driving without due care and attention and it can cause people to make dangerous decisions. You don't have to physically force the driver to do something in order to be responsible for the situation.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

But it is, t<snipped>

Decide what you think would be fair, put down a simple plan on how this could ever be implemented without costing the government huge amounts of money and then let us have a civil discussion.

No I don't need to, the fact of whether a person thinks they have more or less right to a use of something based on taxation isn't the point, the point is that cyclists in debate always throw in the red herring that motorists don't pay road tax either, when it is easily demonstrable that they do indeed pay a road tax.

I am also heading off the oft spouted adage about "I pay tax on my car in the drive way" if you pay tax on the motorcar it's a contribution for that motor car not a transferable contribution to another type of vehicle.

Spook_ie

wrt40 wrote: »

Of course they are traffic, but they are also holding up traffic. this is another example of people twisting words as a way to get out of an argument. Just move over and stop holding up traffic, simple. What exactly is the problem?


It applies to all road users. It's called cycling\driving without undue care and attention and it can cause people to make dangerous decisions. You don't have to physically force the driver to do something in order to be responsible for the situation.

Better still just cycle legaly 2 abreast unless overtaking and use hand signals etc. to show your intentions, of course if they aren't racing then the use of hand signals shouldn't be a problem.

wrt40

No Pants wrote: »

It would be impressive if you did. The CSO reports that the population of Ireland in April 2013 was 4,593,100. Could you maybe sample 1,000 of the population and come back with the results?


I'd like to see some proof of this correlation.

I'll see what I can pull out of my ass, it would suit the discussion.

Ironic how the attitude of some posters on here also has a direct correlation to being a cyclist.

CramCycle

wrt40 wrote: »

I never said all cyclists are dick heads

Apologies, I really thought you did, it was that all cyclists have an attitude, which is correct, so do most functioning people.

I just don't wear lycra (sorry, cheap dig) and don't go around as if I'm holier than thou.

How is that a cheap dig, I wear lycra once a week at an off road cycling track, I am civil enough to realise that my perfectly toned behind would be hypnotic to all warn blooded humanoids and risks causing multiple traffic accidents.

if I keep over to the kerb,

Dangerous and not recommended

travel in single file when appropriate,

I do this

use the cycle lanes,

I don't but I find them dangerous, we must cycle in different areas

stop at red lights,

I always do

don't shout abuse at people and keep a polite and friendly demeanour I will always get to my destination stress free and without incident.

Me too, see how much we have in common

wrt40 wrote: »

Of course they are traffic, but they are also holding up traffic. this is another example of people twisting words as a way to get out of an argument. Just move over and stop holding up traffic, simple. What exactly is the problem?

It doubles the overtaking distance, you should give one cyclist as much space as two. Irish roads are often not wide enough to accomodate two vehicles in one lane so this really makes no difference. If you can't see or recognise thia, I would recommend surrendering your license to the local garda station.

It applies to all road users. It's called cycling\driving without undue care and attention and it can cause people to make dangerous decisions. You don't have to physically force the driver to do something in order to be responsible for the situation.

You actually do, if you cannot decide for yourself when it is safe or reasonable to overtake traffic, it is again, your responsibility to stop driving for the consideration of all other road users you may come accross.

wrt40 wrote: »

The point is, if they're holding up traffic and have the potential to cause a dangerous situation by forcing a motorist to over take on a bend or continuous white line, then they should do the right thing and move over in single file. Just because they are allowed doesn't mean they have to or that they have a god given right to.

Are you saying you would overtake a single cyclist on a bend? Seriously, just stop driving now. PLEASE, won't someone think of the Children.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I don't need to, the fact of whether a person thinks they have more or less right to a use of something based on taxation isn't the point, the point is that cyclists in debate always throw in the red herring that motorists don't pay road tax either, when it is easily demonstrable that they do indeed pay a road tax.

I am also heading off the oft spouted adage about "I pay tax on my car in the drive way" if you pay tax on the motorcar it's a contribution for that motor car not a transferable contribution to another type of vehicle.

Sorry you missed my point, the red herring is that there is road tax. When there was a road tax, cyclists were exempt. I am not sure why we are even bringing this up. If a guy only has a bicycle, there is no way for him to pay road tax (or motor tax or whatever). The point is, there is no one hear with more right to use the road than anyone else provided they have met all legal requirements to do so. At this point in time, there are no legal requirements bar following the letter of the law while operating a bicycle in a public place, so I am not sure why we are still discussing it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Better still just cycle legaly 2 abreast unless overtaking and use hand signals etc. to show your intentions, of course if they aren't racing then the use of hand signals shouldn't be a problem.

Completely agree

wrt40

CramCycle wrote: »

Apologies, I really thought you did, it was that all cyclists have an attitude, which is correct, so do most functioning people.

How is that a cheap dig, I wear lycra once a week at an off road cycling track, I am civil enough to realise that my perfectly toned behind would be hypnotic to all warn blooded humanoids and risks causing multiple traffic accidents.

Dangerous and not recommended
I do this
I don't but I find them dangerous, we must cycle in different areas
I always do
Me too, see how much we have in common
It doubles the overtaking distance, you should give one cyclist as much space as two. Irish roads are often not wide enough to accomodate two vehicles in one lane so this really makes no difference. If you can't see or recognise thia, I would recommend surrendering your license to the local garda station.
You actually do, if you cannot decide for yourself when it is safe or reasonable to overtake traffic, it is again, your responsibility to stop driving for the consideration of all other road users you may come accross.

Are you saying you would overtake a single cyclist on a bend? Seriously, just stop driving now. PLEASE, won't someone think of the Children.

No, again, not what I said. I'll hand my licence over to the next lycra-cladded-Nazi-on-a-bike I see. Happy? Lets see how much further we can drag the discussion down. It's still not going to change the argument and you still won't have disproven any of the accusations made against cyclists. In fact, if anything, I think its point proven on our part.

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

It applies to all road users. It's called cycling\driving without due care and attention and it can cause people to make dangerous decisions. You don't have to physically force the driver to do something in order to be responsible for the situation.

I think you'll find that both parties would be held responsible in such a case. Just because one person behaves in a way that you do not agree with, it does not give you the right to behave in a dangerous or careless way.

Could you point towards some case law where a cyclist was even prosecuted for what you describe?

CramCycle

wrt40 wrote: »

In fact, if anything, I think its point proven on our part.

Who is "our" in this scenario. There is no giant collective of cyclists that agree on how to behave, same goes for motorists. There is the law, ignorance of it is not an excuse. From what I can tell, the law does not agree with you.

Godge

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists in full yellow warrior outfit storming through traffic light junctions and pedestrian crossings at full pelt when everyone else is stopped for one thing.

Cyclists who race to get into a narrow bus lane in front of a bus, and then stop pedalling, is another thing.

Cyclists going far too fast on public park footpaths and forest trails, where there are pedestrians, children, slow cyclists and dogs about.

Cyclists who do not leave adequate space between themselves and pedestrian and other traffic, despite admonishing everyone else for not leaving them space.

.

Have seen all of these. They are nothing to do with cyclists themselves as a group.

It is actually more to do with bad manners and lack of courtesy to other road-users. Lots of other road-users indulge in it.

However, it is only cyclists who appear to defend such type of behaviour on boards like this.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Originally Posted by paddyland View Post

Motorcyclists in full yellow warrior outfit storming through traffic light junctions and pedestrian crossings at full pelt when everyone else is stopped for one thing.

Taxi drivers who race to get into a narrow bus lane in front of a bus, and then stop moving, is another thing.

Horses going far too fast on public park footpaths and forest trails, where there are pedestrians, children, slow cyclists and dogs about.

School run MPV drivers who do not leave adequate space between themselves and pedestrian and other traffic, despite admonishing everyone else for not leaving them space.

Boy-Racers who practice militant hypocrisy, loudly remonstrating against anyone who they feel infringes on their divine right to drive as they please, but rubbish anyone who suggests there might be occasions when they should consider others.

Farmers in Tractors who travel in long lines and packs on busy country roads, leaving no possibility to safely overtake, and allowing long queues of traffic build up behind, until a hazardous situation develops where somebody does decide to overtake dangerously, and put everyone at risk. It is unfair, for example, to hold up traffic for miles on winding country roads such as the Roundwood road. Spread out, and let traffic pass when it is safe to do so. If you don't let them pass when it is safe, then someone will try to pass when it isn't safe.

The same elderly car drivers who pace along at 15-20kph in a long line on a country road, will then storm through a narrow village, where there are pedestrians, parked cars, and all kinds of distraction about. Elderly drivers find it sometimes hard to see. Your speed should be in relation to your ability to be seen, and to avoid and be avoided.

Fixed that for you.. So you see it's all relative.. but don't let that stand in the way of a good Rant! :rolleyes:

Agree with all of that. None of it takes away from the bad manners and lack of courtesy shown in the examples given by paddyland.

The problem is that too many road-users believe that the road is for themselves alone.

If I am on a road with a speed limit of 100kph and I am driving at 80 kph because of the elderly relative sitting in the car beside me and a car approaches at 100 kph from behind, I do move over as safely as possible to allow that car to pass. I wouldn't move over if there was no space to do so or if there was a cyclist in the hard shoulder etc. but I am showing respect to other road-users. Similarly I wouldn't lane-hog or drive in bus or cycle lanes. Don't expect a medal for doing so but I would expect similar courtesy from other road-users.

As a pedestrian, I have suffered more incidents with cyclists than with anyone else. Courtesy to other road-users is important.

While paddyland was over the top in his rant, I would hope that all would agree that the specific examples above of lack of courtesy shown by road-users both in his original post and the sarcastic reply are all equally unacceptable.

No Pants

wrt40 wrote: »

I'll see what I can pull out of my ass, it would suit the discussion.

No different to the rest of your points then.

Godge

No Pants wrote: »

Could you point towards some case law where a cyclist was even prosecuted for what you describe?

I didn't check that incident but you are quoting the last defence of a cyclist. Yes, what I was doing was rude, illegal, discourteous and inconvenienced other road-users but has anybody ever been prosecuted for it?

No Pants

Godge wrote: »

I didn't check that incident but you are quoting the last defence of a cyclist. Yes, what I was doing was rude, illegal, discourteous and inconvenienced other road-users but has anybody ever been prosecuted for it?

A cyclist cycling along a road is in itself not being rude, discourteous or in any way illegal. Nor do I understand the supposed inconvenience.

Tenzor07

Ah I just luv the Hyperbole and a Half that comes up on these sorts of threads..

Now we have the "Lycra-Clad Nazi's" or "Lycra louts", a group singled out because of the way they dress..Great!

Is this because the largest number of bike riders out there on the roads are Men, and "sports-cyclists", or "the young and the brave"...?

So let's then forget the majority of the population who wish to cycle there bikes in ordinary clothes, with there children in trailers or cycling beside them are kept off the road because of the stinking attitudes and general lack of actual driving skill and consideration by some car/van drivers?

Means Of Escape

No issue with cyclists .
Sulkies on the other hand ...........

furiousox

I must say this thread marks a refreshing change from all previous motorist vs cyclist threads.

Oink

furiousox wrote: »

I must say this thread marks a refreshing change from all previous motorist vs cyclist threads.

I know, right? We've made some progress. I feel we've made some progress. Can't wait for the next one!!!

wrt40

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So let's then forget the majority of the population who wish to cycle there bikes in ordinary clothes, with there children in trailers or cycling beside them are kept off the road because of the stinking attitudes and general lack of actual driving skill and consideration by some car/van drivers?

The discussion is about cyclists. Just because there are bad drivers doesn't give cyclists the right to be arse holes on the road.

I am one of those plain clothes cyclists and I get by just fine by being courteous to all other people: cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, animals etc

Just try it out. Eveyone is a winner, everyone will be happy, everyone will have a good day and nothing bad will ever come of it.

The northern Irish ad has it spot on, you know the one where the driver and the cyclist have a "no please, you go first...no I insist you go first" moment, the cyclist gives the driver the thumbs up and he responds with a warm smile and a nod.

Get home, take your lycra off and tell the wife you had a lovely cycle.

Pinch Flat

furiousox wrote: »

I must say this thread marks a refreshing change from all previous motorist vs cyclist threads.

These arguments are completely new and an utter revelation to me.

Tenzor07

Godge wrote: »

Have seen all of these. They are nothing to do with cyclists themselves as a group.
It is actually more to do with bad manners and lack of courtesy to other road-users. Lots of other road-users indulge in it.

Well, that's the basic point, consideration and patience are certainly missing from some interactions between the different road users. People fly off the handle too easy when incidents occur.

We should all do what Russell Brand did when he came across an incident between a cyclist and a van driver: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2625073/Russell-Brand-prevents-road-rage-HUG-cyclist-clipped-passing-van.html