Abusive Driver meets Off Duty Guards Cycling

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?

Lusk_Doyle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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?

Right back at you - is it really going to inconvenience you that much to wait until it is "safe" to overtake?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

You are on a public road at the end of the day, and you are on a bike while they are in a car.

What does this even mean?

MayoAreMagic

Fair enough, I wasn't trying to have a go at anyone at all or start a big argument. I just think that people on both sides can be more reasoned about it, and if people worked together a bit more everyone would be better off.

TonyStark

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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?

How fast do you think the average cyclists go? Your first point is about area of the road they take up and now the point is they are going too fast.

If the child is in the need of urgent medical attention... then I think you will find that the Ambulance service have sirens which can alert cyclists, or if an ambulance cannot be found the Gardaí can provide an escort.

Plenty of drivers out on the roads use their cars as a hobby, the souped up subaru and mitzy gang spring to mind. I don't begrudge them of it.

Johnny Jukebox

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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.

Your use case above demonstrates that the driver of the car is at fault because they started an overtaking maneuver that they could not complete safely because they could not see what was coming over the brow of the hill.

All regular cyclists are subjected to dangerous overtaking maneuvers and in my experience these happen more frequently when I am riding alone and in single file. The reason is because motorists are not prepared to wait until there is no oncoming traffic and prefer to maintain speed and squeeze through the gap, which inevitably places me in danger.

Go and ride up and down the Enniskerry road next weekend for this experience.

MayoAreMagic

Id just point out to the guys responding to me that the mod has made a point of deterring me from making an argument. I would like to answer some points raised as I believe I have genuinely fair answers for them but it has been indicated that I shouldn't.

RayCun

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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 clearly haven't reached a part of the road where you can safely overtake, if you can't see far enough in front of you to know that you can complete your overtaking manoeuvre safely.

RainyDay

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.

Unless we have a helmetcam to record the incident.

conditioned games

Cyclists on the road doubling up with the intention of obstructing traffic are one of the worst offenders on the road at present. To me they are fair game and I always try to knock the outer one off the bike when going past. Better to meet like with like when it comes to the rules of the road.

RainyDay

conditioned games wrote: »

Cyclists on the road doubling up with the intention of obstructing traffic are one of the worst offenders on the road at present. To me they are fair game and I always try to knock the outer one off the bike when going past. Better to meet like with like when it comes to the rules of the road.

Make sure to smile nicely for the rear-facing helmetcam as you approach, so that you look your best in the video that will be handed over to the Gardai, and the press, and will reach your employer when it gets around on YouTube.

Zyzz

conditioned games wrote: »

Cyclists on the road doubling up with the intention of obstructing traffic are one of the worst offenders on the road at present. To me they are fair game and I always try to knock the outer one off the bike when going past. Better to meet like with like when it comes to the rules of the road.

What a stupid post.

Chips Lovell

Thread locked. Troll banned.

Discussion has moved away from the OP to very well trodden ground, with predictable results.