Abusive Driver meets Off Duty Guards Cycling

CramCycle

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Geez they printed O’Sheas address in that article. Cyclist are going to be protesting up and down his street

If he had any sense he would have put a strava segment up on the main parts of his commute to speed people up :pac:

a148pro

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I find it hard to believe two Gardai out for a cycle would risk assaulting someone then lie about it in court. As someone said, they would have a lot to lose.

Have you read the Morris Tribunal Report?

In fairness, anyone with enough time to read the Morris Tribunal Report should really be out cycling instead, but you get the point.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

Not unless there are Strava segments there.

Beaten by seconds, my boards profile is alot like my Strava one.

brayblue24

a148pro wrote: »

Have you read the Morris Tribunal Report?

In fairness, anyone with enough time to read the Morris Tribunal Report should really be out cycling instead, but you get the point.

I did, yeah. I don't recall any reference to cycling though

Lusk_Doyle

donegal. wrote: »

disrupting the flow of traffic by making it as difficult as possible for people to overtake?

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

buffalo

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I think their frustration is borne of jealousy and sexual attraction.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I think their frustration is borne of jealousy and sexual attraction.

It's the pink!

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I've seen motorists slow down for a dog crossing, at a junction where driving on the footpath, breaking red lights and accelerating through the Green Man are routine behaviours.

The psychology of driving is complex I guess.

Cee-Jay-Cee

detones wrote: »

Seems a sorry state that it has to be a Garda that can only see any justice done when affected personally by abusive behaviour on the roads. The rest if us just gave it put up with it.

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

buffalo

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

I disagree. I was involved in an incident about a year ago now I'd say. I had a witness, reported it to the Gardaí, and haven't heard anything since. I'd love to believe that if anyone else had been in the Gardaí's place in this incident [edit: in the article], the same result would have happened, but given my past experiences, I sincerely doubt it.

I'm also still waiting for a call on an incident with Dublin Bus about a month ago.

...they may have my name and number in the 'cranks' file though.

cerastes

fits wrote: »

If you experience enough people try to run you off the roads with dangerous overtaking manoevres then you might cycle two abreast as well. In many cases, if there's not enough room to pass two abreast, there isnt room to pass one.

eh? there are many situations were two abreast is just being inconsiderate of other road users though, while the guy sounds foolish to do what he did, that doesnt discount the possibility that it makes sense to allow other road users, use the road and not impede them.

The article reads like the cyclist put his hand out to indicate, and both sides seem to confirm this, indication isnt a right of way, if this was done in a car it wouldn't infer right of way either. I dont know what the layout of the road is but Im suspicious both sides are at fault.
As a former cyclist, despite what Conor Faughnan says, it isn't safe on the road, but there are bad drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

Because most people know it will be a complete waste of their time, if it wasn't relevant that the cyclists were gardai, then why does the article suggest the Gardai were referred to as Gardai in court?

detones

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

Was waiting for this counter argument and surprised it took so long ;-)

I don't disagree with the sentiment to what your saying. However the fact the person involved was a Gaurd is not irrelevant IMHO. It is the basis for this whole discussion for 1 thing.

Unfortunately there is a opinion from cyclists born from both experience and perception that pursuing such cases is a fruitless endeavour. This should not be the case, but it is what it is.

Wishbone Ash

buffalo wrote: »

I disagree. I was involved in an incident about a year ago now I'd say. I had a witness, reported it to the Gardaí, and haven't heard anything since. I'd love to believe that if anyone else had been in the Gardaí's place in this incident [edit: in the article], the same result would have happened, but given my past experiences, I sincerely doubt it....

I was involved in an accident in October 2012 where the Gardai attended the scene and I was hospitalised afterwards. I'm still waiting for a court appearance.I've made several calls to the station and they are still "looking into it".

(In my situation the 17 year old driver was blatantly wrong - she made a right turn across my path while being unaccompanied on a learner permit and left the scene ofthe accident. There were 3 witnesses).

No Pants

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

I agree with your point, but I do think that the word of a Guard is taken more seriously by the judicial system. With two Garda witnesses, this chap was done for, and rightly so. The offender didn't help himself by going too far in the opposite direction though. Claiming to be driving at 5mph was transparent nonsense.

MayoAreMagic

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

It is different though. A slow moving truck cant do a whole lot, it is what it is. Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass. They could stagger their pattern and still chat, while allowing consideration for a car behind. I have been in a situation where not 2 but 3 cyclists were lined up, chatting away and peddling along leisurely for over a mile of road where in that formation it was difficult to overtake them. Had they been in single file, it would have been fine. There was 10 cars behind them, unable to get passed. Now I am sure cyclists get some serious flak, but I ask you, would these lads being doing that if there was a squad car behind them? It works both ways and cyclists are not totally innocent either.

No Pants

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass.

Please explain how it is not possible to pass two cyclists safely, yet possible to pass one.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was involved in an accident in October 2012 where the Gardai attended the scene and I was hospitalised afterwards. I'm still waiting for a court appearance.I've made several calls to the station and they are still "looking into it".

(In my situation the 17 year old driver was blatantly wrong - she made a right turn across my path while being unaccompanied on a learner permit and left the scene ofthe accident. There were 3 witnesses).

Snap! Hospitalised and Garda attended the scene. He didn't take details of the driver who caused it, nor any witnesses, and then lied to me when I asked for them. Which reminds me, I must get on to GSOC...

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It is different though. A slow moving truck cant do a whole lot, it is what it is. Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass. They could stagger their pattern and still chat, while allowing consideration for a car behind. I have been in a situation where not 2 but 3 cyclists were lined up, chatting away and peddling along leisurely for over a mile of road where in that formation it was difficult to overtake them. Had they been in single file, it would have been fine. There was 10 cars behind them, unable to get passed. Now I am sure cyclists get some serious flak, but I ask you, would these lads being doing that if there was a squad car behind them? It works both ways and cyclists are not totally innocent either.

Cyclists two abreast are not hugely wider than a single file cyclist (taking up approximately 2/3 of a traffic lane compared to a 1/2) but single file they will be twice as long which means you will need a longer line of sight to safely overtake as you need to be sure the road is clear for the time needed to overtake. The truth is that if you cannot over take two cyclists side by side safely, in the majority of cases you can't over take 2 cyclists in single file safely. On the majority of irish roads you need to cross the white line to make a safe overtake. If it is safe to do this, then it is safe to overtake, and if it is safe to do this, then it is safe to complete a proper overtake of two cyclist, in a shorter time.

Is there anything about this statement that is confusing?

MayoAreMagic

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself, so people can straight away drop the 'them v us' approach before it starts. The reality of this situation is that cycling 2 or 3 abreast isn't leaving sufficient room between vehicles - other bicycles are vehicles too. Keeping with the rules of the road, they should be in single file and they should be keeping left, should they not? Secondly, two cyclists side by side requires over twice as much room as 1 cyclist in single file, simply because it is far more dangerous and unpredictable. They could collide, one guy could be forced to swerve because of the other, etc etc, therefore because their pattern is haphazard, they in fact need over double the room that 1 cyclist would need.

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

Skrynesaver

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself, so people can straight away drop the 'them v us' approach before it starts. The reality of this situation is that cycling 2 or 3 abreast isn't leaving sufficient room between vehicles - other bicycles are vehicles too. Keeping with the rules of the road, they should be in single file and they should be keeping left, should they not? Secondly, two cyclists side by side requires over twice as much room as 1 cyclist in single file, simply because it is far more dangerous and unpredictable. They could collide, one guy could be forced to swerve because of the other, etc etc, therefore because their pattern is haphazard, they in fact need over double the room that 1 cyclist would need.

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

Actually the rules of the road allow for bikes 2 abreast, or 3 when overtaking.

If you don't have room to go into the opposite lane due to oncoming traffic, you do not have sufficient space to overtake a bike in most roads in Ireland.

Not a them and us cyclist v driver thing, more an informed v uninformed thing...

Lumen

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself, so people can straight away drop the 'them v us' approach before it starts. The reality of this situation is that cycling 2 or 3 abreast isn't leaving sufficient room between vehicles - other bicycles are vehicles too. Keeping with the rules of the road, they should be in single file and they should be keeping left, should they not? Secondly, two cyclists side by side requires over twice as much room as 1 cyclist in single file, simply because it is far more dangerous and unpredictable. They could collide, one guy could be forced to swerve because of the other, etc etc, therefore because their pattern is haphazard, they in fact need over double the room that 1 cyclist would need.

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

That is just complete nonsense.

Firstly, it's only legal to cycle three abreast when overtaking. Nobody here will therefore advocate cycling three abreast except when overtaking, and you should never attempt to overtake someone who is overtaking, you should slow down and wait for the overtake to complete before executing your own.

Secondly, the stuff about "levels of change of direction required" is gibberish. A properly planned and executed overtake on a single carriageway can be done with the overtaking vehicle fully on the opposing side without any drama at all. If it isn't safe to do this, it's not safe to overtake at all.

Thirdly, riders two abreast are present a shorter obstacle to overtake, reducing the time exposed to danger (TED) of the overtaking vehicle.

ford2600

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself,

Stopped reading there

rp

My handlebars are 0.9m wide, and say I'm 100cm out from the gutter, that makes me 1m wide, and advice for safe overtaking distance (as included in the Motor Tax reminder) is 1.5m, and a car is about 1.8m, then to safely overtake a single cyclist without crossing into the other lane, the road would have to be 4.3m wide. I think few are, so adding a second 1m of bicycle will change nothing for the motorist, assuming the overtake is executed correctly from a safe following distance before starting to overtake, and not a wild swerve at the last minute, as suggested in the post above.

MayoAreMagic

Well I will admit I didn't know you were allowed to cycle 2 abreast, Im not a guy who does road races etc, but I have cycled all my life. Maybe that is a problem also, people don't really know these things, and then they see 2 lads there having the craic side by side on bikes and obviously, that could annoy people waiting behind them, needing to get somewhere. However, can people not see that this is a good deal more hazardous than single file? It is another vehicle at the end of the day. I mean, should cars be allowed drive side by side at a slow pace on the motorway? Legal or not, there is definitely dangers there.
As I already said, I also have seen guys cycling 3 abreast, and not overtaking, just a line of 3, freewheeling along so they can have the craic, even though a line of cars have built up behind. That kind of attitude is doing cyclists no favours. It is putting people in danger. If cyclists can flout the rules when they like, then why cant the drivers or the pedestrians? There is a duty of care that goes both ways.

I disagree that what I said as regards overtaking is jibberish, it is accurate. The physics back that up and I have seen it in practice also, drivers are required to go far wider when overtaking 2 rather than 1 because they have to allow for the 2 cyclists having an accident themselves and going wider means you have to slow down a lot more - that is just good driving.

Im not trying to get into a big argument here, but my point is a little understanding goes a long way, and this militant view that has built up, on both sides, isn't helping anyone. Put yourself in the other person's position. It might be within the letter of the law to go 2 abreast, but if there is a big line of cars building up, is it so much to ask to use your head, pull in a little bit and slow down to let them go? Is it really going to inconvenience you that much? Maybe there is a child who has to go to the doctor in that car that just cut you off? You are on a public road at the end of the day, and you are on a bike while they are in a car. That is what I do and personally I don't like the idea of me being the reason that people couldn't get to where they genuinely needed to be because me and my friends wouldn't consider them in what is my hobby. Maybe that is just me?

droidus

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I disagree that what I said as regards overtaking is jibberish, it is accurate. The physics back that up...

Bravo!

This a tour de force. Keep it up. :pac:

TonyStark

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

How do you maintain the 1.5m distance away from cyclists as you go past them with the approach that you suggest?

I really hope you realise that to safely overtake a cyclist even on their own never mind a group that it will require you to cross the white line in order to maintain the mandatory legal distance between your vehicle and them. Even to drive 1.5 meters from the edge of the road will mean you need to cross over the white line with a lot of the roads in this country.

What happens when you overtake and meet an oncoming vehicle? Since cyclists wobble when they look over their shoulder and there is no requirement for bicycles to have rear view mirrors. Where exactly do you expect to go presuming your in the middle of overtaking a long line of cyclists in single file.

I would presume you would decide its safer for yourself to wodge in on top of the cyclists dangerously rather than be culpable for a head on smash with another vehicle and put the cyclists in direct danger than suffer damage to your property.

In relation to your point of "losing momentum" it just makes you sound that you haven't quite mastered driving yet.

Chips Lovell

@MayoAreMagic

Please take the time to read the forum charter, in particular section 8.

In short, this discussion has been had many times before and you're the latest in a very long line of people who've made the same incorrect assumptions.

Given that the law on cycling two or three abreast hasn't changed and the width of most Irish roads hasn't changed, I think it's a bit much to ask the denizens of this forum to once again wade through explaining this to someone. Everything you need to know can be found by searching the forum.

MayoAreMagic

The thing with that is though rp, and indeed others too, you are assuming that all overtaking manoeuvres have to be perfect, they don't, they just have to be legal and reasonable, and sometimes even that isn't enough. You know this yourself from driving. Consider a situation where you are driving and are behind 2 cyclists for a period. You are driving slowly behind them until you can overtake, as you should. You then reach a part of the road where you can overtake and you start accelerating, get outside them and then another car comes over the brow at speed. you end up nearly having to cut them off a bit because you are driving a small car that lacks acceleration, and you cant go slowing down because they are not moving quickly enough to overtake you. These things happen and it isn't anyone's fault - the guy coming towards you might be just within the speed limit. This is why I don't like this militant attitude, people will end up badly hurt because of it.

magicbastarder

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

drivers are required to go far wider when overtaking 2 rather than 1 because they have to allow for the 2 cyclists having an accident themselves and going wider means you have to slow down a lot more

so? if you need to overtake a single cyclist, the conditions required are such that it is automatically safe to overtake two cyclists - the implication being that if not, you don't have clear space in front of you to allow an oncoming car. in which case you shouldn't be overtaking at all.

magicbastarder

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

You are driving slowly behind them until you can overtake, as you should. You then reach a part of the road where you can overtake and you start accelerating, get outside them and then another car comes over the brow at speed.

you realise you're actually providing a reason *for* cycling two abreast, if it prevents people from overtaking you while approaching a blind brow?