Is this aggression "normal"? MOD WARNING: read post #219

Lumen

mrcheez wrote: »

What is particularly dangerous are cycling 2-abreast on narrow 2-way cycle lanes, for example the bike lane along the coast in Clontarf-Sutton.

Cycling single file on that is dangerous enough, the tracks are barely wider than handlebar width. And the outbound one is conveniently bounded by a low wall, perfectly positioned to spew a crashing rider onto the road into oncoming traffic. And this on a stretch of exposed coastline where there are frequently high winds.

Which moron designed that?

mrcheez

I'm mainly talking about the Raheny - Clontarf stretch. After Raheny, heading to Sutton, you can avoid collisions by encroaching on the pedestrian path if you have to... the lane on the wall-side is so riddled with weeds/grates/dips/glass as to essentially make it unusable.

ThisRegard

johnty56 wrote: »

by a particular type of cyclist- late middle aged, fully Lycra clad, with all the bells and whistles,

They're not very Euro if they leave their bells on are they ?

No Pants wrote: »

So if they're younger or older, with no lycra and on less expensive bikes (I assume that's what you're referring to here) they're okay?

I more worried about what constitutes middle aged these days ?

MugMugs

I am a motorist. I drive in excess of 30,000 miles a year.

I've recently picked up Mountain biking and even more so road biking. I am riding rural roads around my area lapping my town and stretching it further to surrounding towns and I have to say, the drivers I am sharing the roads with are scaring the living daylights out of me. I've been overtaken by cars who are hugging the ditch on blind corners nearly taking me with them.

For the extra some twenty seconds that these people are saving by doing what they do they're putting me in serious danger. I was coming down a hill on Saturday evening and doing about 50km/h when a doddery old geezer in a jeep pulls out some six feet in front of me. I went around and overtook him and when he caught up with me he was screaming and shouting at the window at me.

I really don't understand where this agression comes from. I always try to facilitiate any bike be it motor or pedal when I am driving because at the end of the day, they're a lot more vunerable than me.

magicbastarder

louis CK on driving (audio is NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g

tunney

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

I like the cyclist who ride 2 abreast but when a car comes go to single file to let car through and then go back to 2 abreast.,wish all would do this.

How long to over take 30 metres? How long to overtake 15 meters?

If its not safe to overtake two cyclists its not safe to overtake one.

Turnstyle

tunney wrote: »

How long to over take 30 metres? How long to overtake 15 meters?

If its not safe to overtake two cyclists its not safe to overtake one.

Incorrect in certain cases, I have often being left stuck behind groups of cyclists on country roads who are cycling two or three abreast for long periods... in order to pass them on a long enough straight would mean I would have to drive up up on top of the opposite ditch.. if they moved to single file I could pass safely with the required 1.5 mtrs clearance

magicbastarder

you're talking about single track roads, or roads where the cyclists are over the white line?

Jawgap

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm sure it has been discussed to death, it has to be a contentious issue.

I can follow your line of argument but I find it a hard one to chew on.

Two abreast on roads where you're effectively holding up traffic thats 3, 4 or 5 times faster than you is not going to be a very safe thing to do in any case.

Traffic is not being held up.

Traffic is defined as vehicles moving on a public highway.

The road traffic legislation defines a bike as a vehicle.

Therefore if you are on the road in a mechanically propelled vehicle (feel free to use the Garda pronunciation:)) and there are bikes in front of you, then you are IN traffic not being held up.

Boskowski wrote: »

Every time I bump into a group of cyclists however its seldom two abreast, its often more like 3 or more and changing and weaving and whatnot and I just can't help but feel annoyed by them.
Now I wouldn't ever dream of doing anything unsafe or threaten someone by my driving or stuff like that, but I will admit they annoy me. And I'm far from being someone with a temper and I'm very much aware of how dangerous a weapon my 2 ton propelled vehicle really is. But thats me. I imagine some of the more short fused motorists out there will be very much tempted to 'teach you'. I think cycling on such roads is basically suicidal.

If you choose to be annoyed don't blame anyone except yourself.

Boskowski wrote: »

I understand cyclists have to cycle somewhere if they so choose that thats their thing, but Irish country roads are probably the most unsuitable place for this.
Its the one reason why I wouldn't ever dream of cycling into work. I feel it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
Doing this for 'recreational' purposes? No way.

ah well, there goes Failte Ireland's cycling strategy......

TonyStark

Armelodie wrote: »

Average speed of a bikes may be 25-30kph. But you have to accept that the average speed of a car is NOT 25-30kph.

Just pull in to single file, it'll only take you 32 seconds of your life and the important chat can go proceed. What's the big deal?

If there were 2 people on the road walking their 2 dogs having a chat (at 3-5kph) and they walked on ignoring you for a few KM not letting you pass would you still take the same view?

Doubt it..

Equally the driver should show some patience. I mean it's not like they will be delayed to the tune of 5 minutes for every cyclist they encounter.

I think the issue cyclists have is being in single file invites the car behind to overtake into oncoming traffic. The car will avoid a head on collision at any cost. So really the cyclist, being the lowest common denominator in this is the mostly likely party in this that will be put into mortal danger.

The issue is not that cyclists "taking up the lane" but more the absent skill on the motorists part to safely overtake slower moving traffic.

I mean if you look at the "average" motorist... one could argue they can barely control their vehicles. I would bet you the old "biting point" balance is a reason a lot of them fail to yield at roundabouts and run stop signs. At least when a cyclist runs a red light you know its a conscious thing, if a car does it I immediately think they just couldn't stop.

Don't get me started on spatial awareness.

Pinch Flat

Most drivers who don't cycle fail to see the reasons for cycling 2 abreast, so we hear words like suicidal and dangerous to describe cycling - a leisure pursuit enjoyed by millions. If the roads are perceived as dangerous (ironically in a lot of circumstances it is fast and irresponsible motorists who are the primary cause this danger), then you have to ask yourself why. Yes some cyclists put them selves in danger, but cars need to slow down and overtake a group if what it is - fellow humans out enjoying the roads. Yes you'll come across the odd ass hat, but this is not unique to cyclists.

So a group of 20 lads heads out on a Sunday spin. Ive cycled in such groups for a while now. As ever, it is common courtesy that is normally offered and reciprocated. So if we're on a narrow road, we may elect to single up - however this can cause situations that are dangerous, as the motorists now have to pass twice the length of the group. Some will hold fire until a safe opportunity arises, some don't and will pass a group on double white lines, blind corners and going over blind bridges / dips on the road.

Drivers can be impatient - as well as seeing a group as an inconvenience on the road, the odd one will overtake the group them turn left - causing the entire group to brake. Or misjudge the speed and length of the group, pulling in sharply as a car comes the other way. Or sometimes try to hook left around a car turning right - potentially causing a squeeze points for cyclists. Not a nice situation to be on on a bike.

All that aside I've rarely seen open aggression and abide on the roads - it's is in my experience rare and cyclists and motorists generally act civil.

Padkir

magicbastarder wrote: »

what roads are you using?
the lanes on the M50 are 3m (10 foot wide), which is why it's 100km/h - you need 3.5m lanes to be able to allow 120km/h - and that's 11.5 foot wide; your 15 foot wide lanes are not the sort of lanes people generally have trouble with.

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

Plenty of national roads around the country have wider lanes than the average motorway lane. Maybe in the cities my point is invalid as there generally wouldn't be wider than normal lanes but it is commonplace on national routes.

Padkir

No Pants wrote: »

I think you'll find that the people most opposed to this are the oncoming traffic.

Why can no-one accept the point that it's possible to safely overtake a single cyclist without affecting oncoming traffic? I'm not talking about going halfway into the other lane to pass them out or in any way affecting the oncoming traffic. I'm talking about having your outside wheel on the white line as you are passing the cyclist.

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

Therefore, safe to pass 1 cyclist but can't pass 2 cycling abreast. I don't see what's so difficult to understand this. Yet, cyclists on this thread seem to think it would be unsafe for a car to pass them on this type of road and so advocate cycling 2 abreast to stop this. That is infuriating and makes drivers more pissed off when they get stuck behind them.

ThisRegard

Padkir wrote: »

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

I have, 3 times.

Pinch Flat

Yeah, seen it a few times. Guy heading southbound on last Sunday afternoon. Just at the N81 junction. Madness in the extreme.

Padkir

ThisRegard wrote: »

I have, 3 times.

I have seen 1 or 2 in my time also, but at least they have the cop on to be in the hard shoulder as far as possible.

Off point though, the point I wanted to make is that using M50 or motorway lane widths in a discussion about overtaking cyclists is irrelevant as they shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

07Lapierre

Padkir wrote: »

Why can no-one accept the point that it's possible to safely overtake a single cyclist without affecting oncoming traffic? I'm not talking about going halfway into the other lane to pass them out or in any way affecting the oncoming traffic. I'm talking about having your outside wheel on the white line as you are passing the cyclist.

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

Therefore, safe to pass 1 cyclist but can't pass 2 cycling abreast. I don't see what's so difficult to understand this. Yet, cyclists on this thread seem to think it would be unsafe for a car to pass them on this type of road and so advocate cycling 2 abreast to stop this. That is infuriating and makes drivers more pissed off when they get stuck behind them.

As a cyclist I agree with you. I think its called "Common Sense"..I really wish more "Road Users" regardless of their mode of transport would use it. It would make the roads safer for everyone.

Jawgap

Padkir wrote: »

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

.....

That would be illegal and I think that's the type of incident the Guards would be quick enough to respond to, if it's reported.

Turnstyle

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're talking about single track roads, or roads where the cyclists are over the white line?

rural roads where there normally would not be a white dividing line

ford2600

[QUOTE=Padkir;My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider..[/QUOTE]

Just checked a few roads I have measured over the years.

Lane width on a sample of 5 different country roads, varied between 10-14ft.

Allowing bike to ride 3ft from gutter, 2ft for bike/rider and 5ft clearance leaving it impossible on any of those roads to overtake without going onto wrong side of road on a typical 5'6" wide car.

Requiring cyclist to ride closer to ditch than 3ft leaves him no room for manouvre in event of an obstacle/road hazard/driver emerging on left etc.

5ft clearance is standard in many European countries

mossym

Padkir wrote: »

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

.

most n routes that you know of have enough room for two of your car to drive side by side on in the lane, with a foot gap between them? i'm trying to think of a single N road that is that wide around here, and coming up with 2 single stretches of road between Limerick and pallasgreen, and limerick and croom, neither one overly long. everything else doesn't even come close.

and you;re not supposed to have your wheel on the white line. if it has the body of your car has crossed the line, and you've broken the law.

i don't stand over cyclists rights to cycle two abreast. i do however have serious issues with advocating cars trying to squeeze past cyclists in the same lane, making it the norm. Given the crazily close passes you get from cars now while it's not seems utterly foolish to me

xxyyzz

Kashkai wrote: »

When did this car v cyclist thing kick off?

Humans have had tribal tendencies since the dawn of man. It's just the labeling that changes. Muslims vs Christians, Mountainbikers vs hillwalkers, drivers vs cyclists.

magicbastarder

Padkir wrote: »

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

generally speaking though, these aren't the roads motorists or cyclists have an issue with in the above debate - the roads you mention are wider and straighter than the more twisty country roads people seem to be discussing.

pac_man

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Cycle lanes are no longer mandatory after a change by Varadkar.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

Darkglasses

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Cycling two abreast is legal on Irish roads, regardless of whether your mate was in the cycle lane or not.

07Lapierre

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Legal yes. Not sure what the problem was, considering the fact that the motorist did pass you.

mrcheez

Many people would be under the impression that a cycle-lane is the limited space that a bike is allowed to use on the road.

If you are cycling 2-abreast so that your friend is in the cycle-lane and you are outside it, I would imagine that these people assume your friend is correct and that you are blocking traffic, and should be behind your friend.

I guess their justification is that you don't normally see 2 mopeds side-by-side on the road.

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

cdaly_

Raam wrote: »

If cars drove on stilts then we could cycle under them and they could literally overtake us. That would be handy.

I had that opportunity drafting a high clearance tractor on the hols. Was tempted to ride up the middle, wave at the driver and then drop back to drafting again. Wasn't the best tractor drafting but was about as good as being in the bunch instead of solo...

Tenzor07

mrcheez wrote: »

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

If they can hear each other through full face helmets, wind noise and engine noise then they have better hearing than most.. so yes!

buffalo

mrcheez wrote: »

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

Many people aren't aware that cyclists can use whatever lane they like, even if a bike lane is available.

Boskowski

CramCycle wrote: »

But why be annoyed? The two abreast is for safety, yours and theirs. If you have over twice the distance to make the overtake then you are more likely to meet on coming traffic mid manoeuvre, leaving you with the choice of hammering it, hope for best, pull in and hope for the best or hope the oncoming traffic can slow enough. None are ideal solutions. Cycling abreast clears up any confusion some drivers may have about safe overtakes as they cannot see the potential to take a stupid risk. The overtake is over quicker, means a slightly reduced line of sight is needed.

Believe it or not with this being the internet and all but I think I'm after coming around to your point of view. I shall not be annoyed in the future (so much ).

Kashkai

hollypink wrote: »

I'm a bit confused though by one aspect of this post - if it was a narrow country road with blind bends and it wasn't safe to pass, how would you have overtaken the cyclists if they had moved into single file? Wouldn't you still have had to cross over the white line to overtake anyway, which you couldn't do if there were continuous blind bends? Maybe I'm missing something?

Yes I can understand what you're saying but it's difficult to describe this road. While it's twisting, narrow etc, it has a broken whit line down the middle for overtaking and the speed limit is 80kph (daft but that's what it is).

As for overtaking, if the cyclists were in single file, it might have been possible to get out and around them pdq but when they are taking up a full cars width, it would mean going completely to the far side of the road, take another second or two and possibly put everyone in danger, cars and cyclists. While my mate and I do cycle abreast, we move into single file to allow cars to overtake on narrow roads. Wish the two lads on the bikes had do e the same yesterday.

The roads belong to us all but when people are a little considerate, it goes a long way to easing the tensions out there. Pretty obvious from this thread that there is a lot of "them versus us" mentality between cyclists and motorists. The funny thing is. I'd say the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists so why can't they just make allowances when driving/cycling?

buffalo

Kashkai wrote: »

As for overtaking, if the cyclists were in single file, it might have been possible to get out and around them pdq but when they are taking up a full cars width, it would mean going completely to the far side of the road, take another second or two and possibly put everyone in danger, cars and cyclists. While my mate and I do cycle abreast, we move into single file to allow cars to overtake on narrow roads. Wish the two lads on the bikes had do e the same yesterday.

But now you have two cyclists in a row, and you'll have to take another second or two to get past them. But you don't seem to realise this by your post, and therefore you may well try to overtake them when you don't have enough time.

Which is part of the reason cyclists sometimes should and do go two abreast.

Unknown Soldier

mrcheez wrote: »

Many people would be under the impression that a cycle-lane is the limited space that a bike is allowed to use on the road.

If you are cycling 2-abreast so that your friend is in the cycle-lane and you are outside it, I would imagine that these people assume your friend is correct and that you are blocking traffic, and should be behind your friend.

I guess their justification is that you don't normally see 2 mopeds side-by-side on the road.

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

Making eye contact with car drivers is imperative IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXXwtP0MWKo

No Pants

mrcheez wrote: »

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

These guys had no problem.

punisher5112

No Pants wrote: »

These guys had no problem.

Of course they didn't they would just shoot you if it were a real life cop show.

Lumen

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Making eye contact with car drivers is imperative IMO.

I'm not sure about that. There's an interesting technique for walking through an oncoming crowd where if you look above people's heads they subconsciously move out of your way.

Red Nissan

I believe in the share the road concept to be honest.

Where is all this segregation coming from?

If we all follow the rules we will need laneways the size of motorways and duel carriageways three time their current width.

Kashkai

I'm really, really sorry I started this thread now. Should have known better as I've been on boards long enough. Ah well, guess I never learn.

Safe cycling and driving to all.

evolving_doors

What's all this chattin about anyway? It's not like 1930's Ireland with the donkey drawing the milk churns being the fashtest car around . Today's roads are about getting you from a to b the quickest way possible (hence the building of motorways...

What's so important that you have to have a long chat about over a cycle on today's roads. If yer cycling then yer cycling ... if yer chattin then do this..



Otherwise just pull in---- single file ----for a couple of seconds and resist the urge to become the arbiter of 'road safety' by blocking or slowing down the flow of traffic.

Roads aint made for chattin on

No Pants

Armelodie wrote: »

Roads aint made for chattin on

Has it not been made clear already? Cyclists do not cycle side by side for a chat. There are other reasons.

NS77

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So if we're on a narrow road, we may elect to single up - however this can cause situations that are dangerous, as the motorists now have to pass twice the length of the group. Some will hold fire until a safe opportunity arises, some don't and will pass a group on double white lines, blind corners and going over blind bridges / dips on the road.

Yep - and the longer the line, the greater the risk of a driver pulling in on top of it when they realise there's no room to complete their ill-timed manoeuvre. Two-abreast = shorter line = safer for all.

evolving_doors

No Pants wrote: »

Has it not been made clear already? Cyclists do not cycle side by side for a chat. There are other reasons.

No it has not been clarified at all. What I am reading is some vague wafflery about "forcing cars to overtake properly". If an accident did occur and a judge asked as to why the cyclists were going 2 abreast I can bet you wouldn't be using the phrase ' forcing cars to do x,y,z'

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

Kashkai

Kashkai wrote: »

Hi all,

Just getting back into some serious cycling after a ten year lay off. During that time as a motorist, I saw some pretty stupid things done by cyclists running through red lights especially but I was never the type to go all "road rage" on them, not even beeping the car horn. "It's your ass" was usually my reaction.

However during my recent reconversion to cycling, I've been pretty shocked by the behaviour of a lot (and I mean a lot) of drivers. My mate and I cycle two abreast but keep into the left of the road allowing plenty of room for cars to overtake. However I've lost count of the number of cars that drive up your ass, beep their horns and then finally overtake, while beeping again. A few morons have even cut in close and hit their brakes after they get in front forcing us to do likewise. Have to say that my mate has gotten pretty aggrieved himself at this and I thought there was going to be a confrontation the other night when some eejit in a corolla overtook us, cut in and slammed on his brakes bringing us all to a halt (with me nearly hitting the back of his car). My mate was off his bike in a flash but the car drove off.

When did this car v cyclist thing kick off? Like I said, I've been on 4 wheels for years but never got aggressive with any cyclist, gave them plenty of room when overtaking etc. And I sure as hell never tried to cut them off or force them off the road. It'd make me think twice before encouraging my kids to come out cycling with me.

I don't want to start a car v cyclist thing here but I'm just curious if the behaviour I've seen from motorists the past month or so when I'm Cycling is "normal" behaviour, or should I just cycle elsewhere

Do you think cycling 2 abreast is taking other roads users into considertaion? I do think that is a bit much, however reacting that way by the driver is too much aswell... Think we all need to be a bit more considerate, I dont think bikes should be 2 abreast, way too dangerous...

Jawgap

Armelodie wrote: »

No it has not been clarified at all. What I am reading is some vague wafflery about "forcing cars to overtake properly". If an accident did occur and a judge asked as to why the cyclists were going 2 abreast I can bet you wouldn't be using the phrase ' forcing cars to do x,y,z'

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

Have a look at the RSA videos - surely if they thought single file was the way to go they'd promote it in their videos.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Have a look at the RSA videos - surely if they thought single file was the way to go they'd promote it in their videos.

It would be more out of common coutesy for other road users, cycling 2 abreast is just so you can have a natter while cycling?

Obviously motorists want to get places, thats why they drive.. so can you understand it would be quite annoying to be stuck behind a cyclist for a while because they are 2 abreast!

And the same would go for motorsists, to give cyclist some respect aswell..

It works both ways.. Its more about common sense and respect than anything else.

Its like a car going 80 in a 100 kph main road, they could easily move in to hard shoulder to let others overtake (common courtesy) but a lot just stay there with no respect for other users... its so annoying..

Dermot Illogical

Armelodie wrote: »

Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow.

Since they decided that their safety trumps your right to plough on ahead regardless of what's in your way? Have a look around you next time you're out driving. What standard of driving do you see?
Now bear in mind that a cyclist on the road has no way of determining just how incompetent the drivers around them are, so it makes sense to not allow them just enough of a gap to try squeeze through. There's only one loser if and when it all goes wrong.

It's legal, and as long as it doesn't cross over into taking the piss (on wider roads for example) you should probably try get over it.

Stepping Stone

Driving around the ring of Kerry, I have seen some seriously questionable behaviour from both motorists and cyclists. Driving into Fossa one evening, I saw three men cycling abreast. That meant that the genius on the outside was actually cycling on the median (white line). If he wobbled, fell, etc it would be right into the path of an oncoming car. What was going through his mind, I don't know. It is a pretty popular cycling and driving route, so I have seen every standard imaginable. Some drivers will take any risk at any speed and some cyclists will do exactly the same.

As for cycling two abreast at all times, being from a very rural area I know that if you have an accident, especially a serious one, a lot of the time the advice is to get into your car and drive to the hospital (be driven obviously) and maybe meet an ambulance/ doctor on the way if there is one available. The hospital is over an hour and a half away and we have two ambulances available, which are regularly in use at both times. People are often in a hurry for a good reason. You might not meet a Garda escort for miles until the next town because they may be miles and miles away. I do feel that in cases where it is safe, it wouldn't kill people to move over and allow overtaking (this includes slow drivers who refuse to be overtaken) because you never know why that driver is in such a panic.

While it is easy to rule out the above in an urban area, in a rural area you cannot rely on the emergency services and being a prick for the sake of it is just not on.

mossym

Armelodie wrote: »

Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

around the same time as it did for motorists. the rules of the road state two cyclists can cycle side by side. it's no different than a tractor motoring along at 30km/hr, save that many cyclists would be going faster than that.

i lived in the states for 6 years, road laws where i lived said if you had 5 or more cars queued behind you you had to pull over. i'm a strong believer that rule should be brought into play here. and apply to everyone, bikes, cars, tractors, trucks.

by your own argument, cyclists can pull over for a few seconds and let you pass. in much the same vein motorists can wait the few seconds until an overtake is safe, in which case single or double cyclists doesn't matter. what do you do when you meet a tractor? stay behind it indefinitely because it takes up the whole of one lane?

and the norm for our group is to move into single file if we're on a narrow stretch of road and cars are behind. if it's wide enough, stay in twos.

arguments from motorists(and i'm one of them too) arguing that cyclists aren't the law makers on the road are laughable when they're made on the assumption that motorists are.

TonyStark

Armelodie wrote: »

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

Cyclists are traffic.

Once you learn to accept what they are doing is for personal safety rather than conversational purposes you might just find that your reaction to them changes ever so slightly. Mine certainly did.