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

Jawgap

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

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?

As has been pointed out, cycling two abreast is done for more reasons than just to have a natter - and wouldn't it be common courtesy to wait until it is safe to complete an overtaking maneuver?

It seems a bit arrogant to assume that you, from the isolation of a car, can divine the reason why a group or a pair of cyclists ride two abreast - maybe experience has taught them that cycling that way is the safest way?

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

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 cyclists, runners, pedestrians don't???

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

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..

Really? 100km/hr on a hard shoulder is safe??? Is that what you are saying?

Green&Red

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.

Thats probably the most dangerous thing you can do. A cyclist should act as traffic (because he/she is) and cars should have to overtake them in the same manner they would with other traffic. By going single file you're inviting the motorist to squeeze by while traffic is coming from the opposite direction.

As a tractor driver I've long ago become used to ignorant f**kers that think anything that moves slower than them should not be on their road

07Lapierre

Green&Red wrote: »

Thats probably the most dangerous thing you can do. A cyclist should act as traffic (because he/she is) and cars should have to overtake them in the same manner they would with other traffic. By going single file you're inviting the motorist to squeeze by while traffic is coming from the opposite direction.

As a tractor driver I've long ago become used to ignorant f**kers that think anything that moves slower than them should not be on their road

The trick is to move into single file at a time and a location that is SAFE for the motorist to overtake..i.e. at a wide section of road with no oncoming traffic.

mossym

07Lapierre wrote: »

The trick is to move into single file at a time and a location that is SAFE for the motorist to overtake..i.e. at a wide section of road with no oncoming traffic.

this, in defemse of motorists, many would take you moving over as a sign it was okay to overtake.

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

The trick is to move into single file at a time and a location that is SAFE for the motorist to overtake..i.e. at a wide section of road with no oncoming traffic.

but surely there's no need to go into single file at this point, as it's safe for the motorist to overtake cyclists two abreast?

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

but surely there's no need to go into single file at this point, as it's safe for the motorist to overtake cyclists two abreast?

Its called being considerate to your fellow road users.

Green&Red

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

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..

Those uncourteous law abiding mofos

(P.S. its illegal for a car to drive in the hard shoulder, what they could do is come to a complete stop in the hard shoulder to abide by the law)

07Lapierre

mossym wrote: »

this, in defense of motorists, many would take you moving over as a sign it was okay to overtake.

Exactly! that's the point..

TonyStark

Green&Red wrote: »

Those uncourteous law abiding mofos

(P.S. its illegal for a car to drive in the hard shoulder, what they could do is come to a complete stop in the hard shoulder to abide by the law)

The rules of the road state:

"If a driver wants to allow a vehicle behind them to overtake, they may pull in to the hard shoulder briefly as long as no pedestrians or cyclists are already using it and no junctions or entrances are nearby. Different rules exist for hard shoulders on motorways."

Jawgap

TonyStark wrote: »

The rules of the road state:

"If a driver wants to allow a vehicle behind them to overtake, they may pull in to the hard shoulder briefly as long as no pedestrians or cyclists are already using it and no junctions or entrances are nearby. Different rules exist for hard shoulders on motorways."

......because in Ireland there are looooooong stretches of non-motorway road that meet that requirement......


........aren't there?

TonyStark

Jawgap wrote: »

......because in Ireland there are looooooong stretches of non-motorway road that meet that requirement......


........aren't there?

I think you should take that up with the RSA & National Roads authority, it's their document that states that.

Jawgap

TonyStark wrote: »

I think you should take that up with the RSA & National Roads authority, it's their document that states that.

Yes, I know - and it's pretty sound and pragmatic - I was just pointing out that the opportunities for applying it on non-motorway roads in the way prescribed are limited.

mal1

Armelodie wrote: »

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

Since always, in the same way cars do, it's part of learning to drive. My instructor thought me to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance. So experienced drivers will do this in the same way experienced cyclists will not be afraid to sit with a distance from the verge in order to influence the distance that a car keeps from them when passing, not controlling the flow of traffic like you mentioned above.

Seriously, do you have a full drivers license?

T-Maxx

mal1 wrote: »

Since always, in the same way cars do, it's part of learning to drive. My instructor thought me to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance. So experienced drivers will do this in the same way experienced cyclists will not be afraid to sit with a distance from the verge in order to influence the distance that a car keeps from them when passing, not controlling the flow of traffic like you mentioned above.

Seriously, do you have a full drivers license?

:eek:

Seriously, do you have a full drivers license?

buffalo

Jawgap wrote: »

......because in Ireland there are looooooong stretches of non-motorway road that meet that requirement......


........aren't there?

A lot of the national roads would.

Jawgap

buffalo wrote: »

A lot of the national roads would.

Maybe with junctions that are few and far between but 'entrances' including fields, houses, farm tracks etc?

bobbyss

Read in today's Indo, Ivana Bacik likes to cycle a lot.
She thinks her kids are too young to cycle on the road so they cycle on the pavement. Does she mean the path?

mal1

T-Maxx wrote: »

:eek:

Seriously, do you have a full drivers license?

Yes, Why?

Jawgap

bobbyss wrote: »

Read in today's Indo, Ivana Bacik likes to cycle a lot.
She thinks her kids are too young to cycle on the road so they cycle on the pavement. Does she mean the path?

I think she said the kids go on scooters on the path? Rather than on bikes on the path, but I only skimmed the article so I may be wrong.

Jawgap

mal1 wrote: »

Yes, Why?

I think because what your instructor taught you.....

"......to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance."

....is bordering on a brake test.....it's dangerous. If the guy / gal behind you is not expecting it and overreacts it can cause a collision further back or someone to swerve off the road in an attempt to evade what they think is going to be a collision.

mal1

Jawgap wrote: »

I think because what your instructor taught you.....

"......to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance."

....is bordering on a brake test.....it's dangerous. If the guy / gal behind you is not expecting it and overreacts it can cause a collision further back or someone to swerve off the road in an attempt to evade what they think is going to be a collision.

How is it dangerous? Actually using your brakes has the same effect as above. I'm not talking about tapping the brakes erratically. Your brake lights are a signal and can be used as such. In traffic, when a car gets too close, having your foot on brake (but not activating the actual brakes), releasing the clutch and moving forward can create room for yourself. Drivers have an automatic tendency to drive when they see brake lights turn off. This can stop this tendency.

The above was also thought in the IAM course that i did a couple of years back as something to do to stop tail gating.

whiteandlight

mal1 wrote: »

How is it dangerous? Actually using your brakes has the same effect as above. I'm not talking about tapping the brakes erratically. Your brake lights are a signal and can be used as such. In traffic, when a car gets too close, having your foot on brake (but not activating the actual brakes), releasing the clutch and moving forward can create room for yourself. Drivers have an automatic tendency to drive when they see brake lights turn off. This can stop this tendency.

The above was also thought in the IAM course that i did a couple of years back as something to do to stop tail gating.

Using your brakes like this in traffic creates horrible traffic jams

TonyStark

Jawgap wrote: »

I think because what your instructor taught you.....

"......to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance."

....is bordering on a brake test.....it's dangerous. If the guy / gal behind you is not expecting it and overreacts it can cause a collision further back or someone to swerve off the road in an attempt to evade what they think is going to be a collision.

For once I agree with you, it's a nasty little habit and it boils down to driving without due care and consideration.

If someone tailgates me I just pull in and let them go. Life is too short and they look so unimpressed when I call time on their game. :-)

Pawn

Brian? wrote: »

Risk and inconvenience to whom?

Risk to the cyclist and potential inconvenience to the driver, who will have to explain to court why the cyclist is dead/on a wheelchair/etc...

Remember, graveyards are full of people who were right and followed the letter of law. The most important though is to be seen, be safe and do not cause obstruction on the road. You may think you are cycling fast but in fact you are not. To a moving vehicle an average cyclist is almost like a person standing still in a middle of the road.


On a completely another note, I've pulled out my old bike and started cycling to work two days ago. I mounted my GoPro last night and I'm going to make a few videos from the cyclist's point of view. I give myself 3 days to gather enough material

Jawgap

mal1 wrote: »

How is it dangerous? Actually using your brakes has the same effect as above. I'm not talking about tapping the brakes erratically. Your brake lights are a signal and can be used as such. In traffic, when a car gets too close, having your foot on brake (but not activating the actual brakes), releasing the clutch and moving forward can create room for yourself. Drivers have an automatic tendency to drive when they see brake lights turn off. This can stop this tendency.

The above was also thought in the IAM course that i did a couple of years back as something to do to stop tail gating.

How about you post a description of what you do in Motors and see what they make of it......

Brake testers/tailgaters thread (from 2012)

cython

Jawgap wrote: »

I think because what your instructor taught you.....

"......to tap my brakes, activating the lights but not the brake pads, this influences the speed of cars behind me and to make sure they stay at a safe distance."

....is bordering on a brake test.....it's dangerous. If the guy / gal behind you is not expecting it and overreacts it can cause a collision further back or someone to swerve off the road in an attempt to evade what they think is going to be a collision.

Rightly or wrongly, this is actually something I've heard on an advanced driving course as well. However the way that it was pitched to me was not as a means to stop tailgating, but rather that if you are lifting off the accelerator completely, to press the brake pedal just enough to activate the brake lights, but not actually apply the brakes. This way the driver behind has some notice of you slowing which they might not otherwise realise until the gap may have closed a bit too much.

I wouldn't advocate this as a means to deal with tailgaters, or as a warning/brake test, but I can see the merits as a signalling technique - brake lights don't necessarily mean slamming on, after all.

Jawgap

cython wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, this is actually something I've heard on an advanced driving course as well. However the way that it was pitched to me was not as a means to stop tailgating, but rather that if you are lifting off the accelerator completely, to press the brake pedal just enough to activate the brake lights, but not actually apply the brakes. This way the driver behind has some notice of you slowing which they might not otherwise realise until the gap may have closed a bit too much.

I wouldn't advocate this as a means to deal with tailgaters, or as a warning/brake test, but I can see the merits as a signalling technique - brake lights don't necessarily mean slamming on, after all.

I did the IAM (admittedly it was about 20 years ago) but I don't remember being taught that technique - at best I reckon you cause flow breakdown in a stream of traffic, at worst you cause a collision. Intuitively it doesn't sound like a great idea.

cython

Jawgap wrote: »

I did the IAM (admittedly it was about 20 years ago) but I don't remember being taught that technique - at best I reckon you cause flow breakdown in a stream of traffic, at worst you cause a collision. Intuitively it doesn't sound like a great idea.

Well it's about 10 years since I did this course, and it was actually the (then) Hibernian Ignition course, but run by the IAM as well, and this was cited as something that is taught as part of their main course. Ultimately I think it comes down to driving defensively, and being as clear as possible about your manoeuvres, but (and this is not a deflection, as I am not advocating either approach, simply recounting instruction I received - I don't generally do it myself) I think we're so far off topic with this that we probably can't even see where we started at this point!

The only further thing I'll say is that I can see certain parallels with previously discussed techniques for cycling defensively though, similar to how cycling 2 abreast and "taking the lane" are recommended by some quarters, and viewed as heresy by others, while none of them (done in the manners I outlined, at least) are illegal!

Jawgap

cython wrote: »

Well it's about 10 years since I did this course, and it was actually the (then) Hibernian Ignition course, but run by the IAM as well, and this was cited as something that is taught as part of their main course. Ultimately I think it comes down to driving defensively, and being as clear as possible about your manoeuvres, but (and this is not a deflection, as I am not advocating either approach, simply recounting instruction I received - I don't generally do it myself) I think we're so far off topic with this that we probably can't even see where we started at this point!

The only further thing I'll say is that I can see certain parallels with previously discussed techniques for cycling defensively though, similar to how cycling 2 abreast and "taking the lane" are recommended by some quarters, and viewed as heresy by others, while none of them (done in the manners I outlined, at least) are illegal!

I think we might have done separate and different courses - I did the IAM in the UK and had to pass the Advanced Test before I got my first company supplied car.

mal1

I started the brake light discussion as an example of a method to control traffic around you. I think the idea is to use it prudently. Most people get back-ended in dense city traffic, using the brake light is a way to create space and avoid it while being tail gated in urban areas. I agree that it shouldn't be used in fast traffic (even though it's hardly right to say it can cause an accident, the person behind causes the accident by not giving enough space to decelerate). To say it's dangerous, well i think that's taking an extreme view of what I'm saying. It's not like I'm advocating slamming the brakes, which i think others are suggesting. To say it causes traffic jams, well i don't see how, not as if it's going to create a gulf between cars, just a few feet.

I did the IAM UK version BTW.

Jawgap

Peter Rodger, head of driving standards at the Institute of Advanced Motorists.....

Passive tailgaters
Dealing with passive tailgaters requires a bit more thought.

“Always leave plenty of space in front,” says Rodger.

As much as it may be tempting to try and put some space between you and the car behind, you don’t want to create the same situation for the car in front.

If the car in front were then to suddenly brake you’ll end up the unwitting filling in a sandwich.

Rodger adds: “Avoid braking sharply. Flashing your brake lights isn’t going to help. It’s better to just ease off your accelerator.”

This is because if you repeatedly brake, the flashing of your brake lights will start to lose impact.

How to deal with tailgaters

mal1

Jawgap wrote: »

Peter Rodger, head of driving standards at the Institute of Advanced Motorists.....



How to deal with tailgaters

Good stuff. The mention of flashing your brake lights is in relation to braking sharply isn't what I'm advocating. Just to clarify, I'm talking about activating the brake lights without activating the brakes. The brake light will always come on before the brake calipers activate. This can only really be done in slow traffic when about to move off from a stationary position or slow traffic.

Red Nissan

Whilst it is illegal, I've found that putting on rear fog lamps tends to draw attention from tailgaters, that and my wife sticking a camera in their face.

I don't go with the brake light trick at all.

Lusk_Doyle

The level of intelligence on display here is something else.

Pinch Flat

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.

In the rules of the road as well. However the rules also state to use single file if it would obstruct or inconvenience other users.

whiteandlight

mal1 wrote: »

Good stuff. The mention of flashing your brake lights is in relation to braking sharply isn't what I'm advocating. Just to clarify, I'm talking about activating the brake lights without activating the brakes. The brake light will always come on before the brake calipers activate. This can only really be done in slow traffic when about to move off from a stationary position or slow traffic.

If you flash the brake lights the guy behind is going to think you are braking suddenly so he will brakes, then the person behind etc etc. how can you not see that this is what causes tailbacks in traffic?

johnty56

lots of comment here about the 'fact' that cyclists are vehicles under the law and constitute traffic and should act as such.

Are there not laws which determine that v slow moving vehicles are in effect guilty of dangerous driving? I have been stuck behind cyclists, who were admittedly single file who were travelling so slowly as to be barely able to stay upright on the bike. I do stay behind them until it is completely safe to pass on the other side of the road, but that often means shifting down into first gear in a van and moving at maybe 10km/h...

Thoughts on this? I am curious as to the opinions of the serious cyclists

Lumen

johnty56 wrote: »

lots of comment here about the 'fact' that cyclists are vehicles under the law and constitute traffic and should act as such.

Are there not laws which determine that v slow moving vehicles are in effect guilty of dangerous driving? I have been stuck behind cyclists, who were admittedly single file who were travelling so slowly as to be barely able to stay upright on the bike. I do stay behind them until it is completely safe to pass on the other side of the road, but that often means shifting down into first gear in a van and moving at maybe 10km/h...

Thoughts on this? I am curious as to the opinions of the serious cyclists

Overtaking a slow cyclist is safer than overtaking a fast one, since you spend less distance overtaking.

Consider the limit case where the cyclist is entirely stopped and lying down in the road like a dead badger you don't want to run over. That's hardly a difficult overtaking challenge, is it?

mal1

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

The level of intelligence on display here is something else.

whiteandlight wrote: »

If you flash the brake lights the guy behind is going to think you are braking suddenly so he will brakes, then the person behind etc etc. how can you not see that this is what causes tailbacks in traffic?

I don't think it would be a major problem. I described it before, the person behind is stationary. Keeping the brake light on so as to move forward and create room, creating the illusion to the driver behind that you are still stationary since all he/she sees is a brake light. He/she is stationary and will stay so. You are just creating the room as it should be. It's not something you are thought to use all the time, just when you want to drive defensively. We will have to agree to disagree since i think we are annoying Luskdoyle, we should get back to real 'first world problems'.

Tenzor07

johnty56 wrote: »

lots of comment here about the 'fact' that cyclists are vehicles under the law and constitute traffic and should act as such.
Are there not laws which determine that v slow moving vehicles are in effect guilty of dangerous driving? I have been stuck behind cyclists, who were admittedly single file who were travelling so slowly as to be barely able to stay upright on the bike. I do stay behind them until it is completely safe to pass on the other side of the road, but that often means shifting down into first gear in a van and moving at maybe 10km/h...
Thoughts on this? I am curious as to the opinions of the serious cyclists

The law about pulling over applies when you have 6 or more vehicles stuck behind the slow moving vehicle.
Failure to do so would be considered driving "without due care and consideration"...
I'm no legal expert but I believe the above to be true...

So.. how do you apply the points to a bicyclist?

Dermot Illogical

johnty56 wrote: »

Are there not laws which determine that v slow moving vehicles are in effect guilty of dangerous driving?

No. Funerals would be a riot if there were.

Lumen

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So.. how do you apply the points to a bicyclist?

Whoever ends up with the most gets a green jersey?

Jawgap

johnty56 wrote: »

lots of comment here about the 'fact' that cyclists are vehicles under the law and constitute traffic and should act as such.

Are there not laws which determine that v slow moving vehicles are in effect guilty of dangerous driving? I have been stuck behind cyclists, who were admittedly single file who were travelling so slowly as to be barely able to stay upright on the bike. I do stay behind them until it is completely safe to pass on the other side of the road, but that often means shifting down into first gear in a van and moving at maybe 10km/h...

Thoughts on this? I am curious as to the opinions of the serious cyclists

Slow movement is not the issue, it's failure to make progress.

Lusk_Doyle

mal1 wrote: »

I don't think it would be a major problem. I described it before, the person behind is stationary. Keeping the brake light on so as to move forward and create room, creating the illusion to the driver behind that you are still stationary since all he/she sees is a brake light. He/she is stationary and will stay so. You are just creating the room as it should be. It's not something you are thought to use all the time, just when you want to drive defensively. We will have to agree to disagree since i think we are annoying Luskdoyle, we should get back to real 'first world problems'.

It's not annoying me. It rather amazes me.

Panrich

Lumen wrote: »

Overtaking a slow cyclist is safer than overtaking a fast one, since you spend less distance overtaking.

Consider the limit case where the cyclist is entirely stopped and lying down in the road like a dead badger you don't want to run over. That's hardly a difficult overtaking challenge, is it?

Not really the case. A car can accelerate from 40 to 80kph quicker than from 10 to 50kph due to inertia and in less space consequently

Lusk_Doyle

Panrich wrote: »

Not really the case. A car can accelerate from 40 to 80kph quicker than from 10 to 50kph due to inertia and in less space consequently

Marginally. Hardly noticeable though is it?

Panrich

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Marginally. Hardly noticeable though is it?

I might do some maths on this if I get a chance later and we'll see.

Jawgap

Panrich wrote: »

I might do some maths on this if I get a chance later and we'll see.

It's a simple calculation......

......a cyclist is travelling at 15 km/hr on an Irish country road.....

.....a car 10 metres behind the cyclist is travelling also at 15 km/hr maintaining the same gap....

....the bike is 2 metres long and the car is 3 metres long

....at this constant speed how long will it take before the driver forms the opinion that the cyclist is
(a) inconsiderate
(b) a twat
(c) "now he's just acting the b0ll1x"......:mad:

No Pants

Armelodie wrote: »

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 most certainly would. As I mentioned earlier, I spend 95% of my time cycling alone and for the other 5%, I don't have the breath to waste on chatting. Normally I wouldn't be side-by-side either. If you see me beside another cyclist, I'm overtaking or being overtaken most likely.

fits

Passed twice at speed on a windy country road with less than a foot of space last night. I am raging.