Good etiquette cycling with another or in a group

Danjamin1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Sometimes wrong is wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter how you view it. I am pretty sure this was one of those instances.

Your original post sounded quite well reasoned, however your follow up posts make it sound like you've made your mind up that the cyclist was in the wrong no matter what is said here.

C3PO

OP I can't help wondering whether something has got lost "in the telling" here? On the one hand you say that you understand why people often don't use cycle lanes but on the other hand you seem to be complaining that a particular cyclist chose not to use one?
I personally rarely use cycle lanes preferring to take my chances with irate bus and taxi drivers in the bus lanes or on the road if there is no bus lane. Assuming that the cyclist was well lit I can't see the relevance of whether it was night or day!
As I say .... maybe I'm missing something in your original post?

Kaisr Sose

desertcircus wrote: »

Rolling down a window and attempting to lecture other road users while piloting a ton and a half of metal down a road that's not even safe to overtake a car on is utterly insane.

Actually, don't speculate on what you don't know. Vehicle was not 1.5ton, it was 2.2 ton, but it could easily have been under 1ton. There was also nothing unsafe about what I did. I set a high standard. I do not endanger my own or any one else's safety whilst driving or cycling.

I had my eyes on the road and was in control the whole time. I did not lectue , just said it was dangerous. was not necessary and to think about staying in a bit.

FYI. It was the cyclists that tried to lecture me. Sure they could never be wrong!

Kaisr Sose

niceonetom wrote: »

Frankly I don't know how you can make any journey by road with such high standards for others and an apparent hair-trigger for intervention.

Nonsense. You don't know me. I am very considerate and courteous.

Danjamin1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Actually, don't speculate on what you don't know. Vehicle was not 1.5ton, it was 2.2 ton, but it could easily have been under 1ton. There was also nothing unsafe about what I did. I set a high standard. I do not endanger my own or any one else's safety whilst driving or cycling.

I had my eyes on the road and was in control the whole time. I did not lectue , just said it was dangerous. was not necessary and to think about staying in a bit.

FYI. It was the cyclists that tried to lecture me. Sure they could never be wrong!

But you instigated the conversation unnecessarily while overtaking. Generally pulling alongside another roaduser and maintaining the position on the wrong side of the road would be considered unsafe.

Kaisr Sose

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Any time I drive to work, I frequently roll down the window to deliver lectures to other road users I feel aren't employing good etiquette. It helps pass the time.

I assume you have good reason each time. I guess it beats using the horn and is more social and interactive.

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I detect a somewhat blinkered view here. Please read my post. If you find no problem with that (in daylight or particularly at night) I will no doubt see your name added to the long list of Darwin Award winners who think doing stupid things is cool.

Rolling down the window, and complaining, while driving, then mentions darwin awards.

Id say you`re one of those shocking drivers who finds all sorts of obstacles that are not really there.

Kaisr Sose

CramCycle wrote: »

I wasn't saying he was entitled, in my statement, I was suggesting that it sounded like the 5th person was in the safest position considering it was nighttime, they were well lit up, there were a group of cyclists on what seemed to me to be described as an off road cycle path (which can be treacherous enough at daytime when you can see the many dangers on them easier).

Same here, there are few cycle paths designed for two abreast AFAIK

I thought that it was seperated, possibly up on a path, it wasn't clear to me.

EDIT: Re reading the OP, I presume the semi rural comment means it was on the road. But by the description it sounds like the 5th rider wasn't in the group, so dead right not to stay to close. Maybe he didn't feel it was safe to pull in and give the OP the idea that it was safe to pass when he felt it wasn't. Maybe he had just caught up with them and did not want to annoy the OP by performing an overtake when the OP had already signalled his intention too. Maybe he was holding the primary position and the other group were irrelevant to his road position at the time. Like I said without clarity, its hard to say, but the one thing I can say is that it seems like a non issue that was made into one. I do know the OP said it wasn't safe to pass without crossing a continuous white line, this indicates that the road was probably not safe to pass on regardless as my simple understanding of road craft is that you have to cross the broken line to make a safe overtake of any other vehicle, regardless of size.

Either way, non issue, blown out of proportion, made more dangerous by making this group the width of two cars on a road with a continuous white line when that would indicate that the overtake was in progress, lucky a Garda didn't see you failing to complete the overtake once you had started TBH.

What is all this about? It certainly confirms you did not read my post carefully before your first post. And maybe not since either or my other posts.

He was with the group and there was no reason why he could not have been in the cycle lane. It was good for his mates.

But I have noted your belief that its fine to do stupid things so long as you have lights so people can see you being stupid. Personal responsibility or abiding by well proven road safety guidelines for cycling at night is rendered irrelevant

Kaisr Sose

buffalo wrote: »

This morning I met three lads cycling three abreast on the wrong side of the Clontarf cycle track, who refused to single out as we approached a head on collision. That's bad cycling etiquette.

What's described in the OP is quite possibly four people out for a spin, and another one gradually overtaking them. Who the hell knows?

He was with them. 100% sure of that.

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

He was with them. 100% sure of that.

A non event blown out of all reality. When a real event comes along, you are doomed.

Kaisr Sose

yop wrote: »

Seems like a nothing complaint, as Buffalo says did he know if the other cyclist was on their own and passing the group

If you've done the 10s of thousands of bike miles you mentioned then I would think you would have a different view on this.

Definitely with the group.

A lot of negative criticism of me here. I would not have posted if it was a nothing thing. (Lot don't seem to credit that) I have seen many things and been involved in many too, but this was up there with one of thw most dangerous. Based on my knowledge of this road from cycling, you would use the cycle lane and lots of groups do every sat and Sunday, two abreast all the way. I fail to understand why, this 5th guy would not also do so. Let's not speculate on unknown things, the situation has been described in all the detail I know. He was in my eye, not cycling safely.

Kaisr Sose

mathie wrote: »

Pure gold.

Don't get why picking at one snippet out of context makes dangerous cycling acceptable.
Cycling way out in a road away from the group (not overtaking it) is safe? At night? On a poorly lit road?

Since when has that been as you put it 'pure gold'

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Definitely with the group.

A lot of negative criticism of me here. I would not have posted if it was a nothing thing. (Lot don't seem to credit that) I have seen many things and been involved in many too, but this was up there with one of thw most dangerous. Based on my knowledge of this road from cycling, you would use the cycle lane and lots of groups do every sat and Sunday, two abreast all the way. I fail to understand why, this 5th guy would not also do so. Let's not speculate on unknown things, the situation has been described in all the detail I know. He was in my eye, not cycling safely.

And yet you found the time to slow for a "chat" while actually overtaking.

Many drivers inept on the roads in certain circumstances, will not see anything wrong with their incompetence, the unnecessary things they do, they will not see as any way avoidable.

Here we have someone driving, comes across cyclists, they may or may not be cycling safely. But just deal with it, like the many other events you will encounter.

Kaisr Sose

zerks wrote: »

You do know that you can pass slow moving vehicles on a solid white line if it's needed.This topic was discussed last week on The Last Word.The cyclist would have been deemed slow moving traffic.

I did not know that. Is that a recent chnage? Seems strange that the RTA says you cannot cross a continuous white line under any circumstances and then introduces situations where you can. It being Ireland will only lead to ' confusion '

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I did not know that. Is that a recent chnage? Seems strange that the RTA says you cannot cross a continuous white line under any circumstances and then introduces situations where you can. It being Ireland will only lead to ' confusion '

Under any circumstances? That will be fun if you come across a blocked road on your side, or a broken down car etc. You are going to wait for it to be towed, is that it? Use common sense.

If I came across cyclists, and can see a good distance ahead, id cross the line no problem.

Kaisr Sose

Danjamin1 wrote: »

OP, as others have said here it just sounds like the 5th cyclist was taking primary position on the road, most likely to try and prevent the risk of a potentially dangerous overtake on a poorly lit rural road. Nice one for waiting back until it was safe to overtake the group, but the words of advice, while possibly well intended, will most likely not have been received that way. It's akin to someone rolling down their window as they overtake you in another car and telling you you're taking up the lane and driving slower than they'd like to.

Thats a fair appraisal. My comments were well intended as the behaviour was shocking. Taking up a safe position is all well and good but being stupid for no reason is pointless. He would have been safer in the very adequate cycle lane but many seem to over look this and say he did it because he could or what ever. In the daytime, no problem for me, no post here. But at night people are less visible...the behaviour should reflect this.

Kaisr Sose

Rohan Repulsive Ginger wrote: »

My code of ethics? I complain when road users break the rules of the road, especially when it puts my life in danger. I don't single out groups of road users and it has nothing to do with my code of ethics



I don't use my car horn as a method of expressing my disapproval. There is nothing wrong with taking up a good road position. You're just pissed off that it impeded your progress on the road.

That is not so. I willingly waited (if you had read my OP) and was not delayed. The post is about cycling safely for the current conditions. Cycling way out on the road while everyone else is in is not safe positioning on a dark road at night time. Surely thats obvious?

Kaisr Sose

shergar22 wrote: »

I think that's the problem right there. Because you have done 10s of thousands of bike miles you only have one view on it. As many posters have mentioned here, it is a shared road, and therefore all must attempt to use it in a manner which ensures as much safety to all. This may, on a number of occasions see cyclists have to give way/move in from cars/tractors/mopeds/scooters/Wanderly Wagons. And it also means that on occasions motorists will have to wait behind bikes, before being able to overtake them. To take the hardline view the other way, as many posters here appear to be doing, is not just daft, it don't help anybody.

But I did wait...my point is was the cyclist riding in a responsible/safe manner by being so far out at night time? Forget about me, the big bad motorist for a sec.

Say It was a pedestrian that posted what I saw. Would people still think that a cyclist can or should cycle wherever they want on a dark road? Peoples attitudes to cycling and driving at night should be different for daytime v darkness. Doing one thing in the day time that is safe does not mean its also safe in the dark. This is one of these situations.

Kaisr Sose

CramCycle wrote: »

Not really a hardline view though, the OP was able to overtake, in fact:



The OP was able to overtake slowly which gives the impression that after waiting for a safe space to overtake (the right thing to do), the OP obviously had a long, clear, sight line (despite it being late in the day) as he was able too slow mid overtake to have a chat with the cyclists (not the right thing to do).

Personally, if I overtake someone or something, I don't hang around, it's not safe and it certainly isn't what I was taught was good practice. Once I get a clear sight line that covers both the distance it would take me to overtake plus the distance a car coming the other direction could expect to cover if it suddenly popped into my sight line, plus a bit extra to be cautious.

You are of course right. I normally pass and be gone. While many may not believe me, what I seen was quite dangerous. I was shocked and thus the rest ensued. Its not something I ever did before and hope I never have to. Which is the greater wrong, my chat or the event that led to it? Should I just ignore?
There are lots of very inexperienced cyclists on the roads these days. Many are clueless as to how to really ride a bik . Passing on information that may help them is not in itself a bad thing. Better than hearing a priest/minister give you the last rights!

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You are of course right. I normally pass and be gone. While many may not believe me, what I seen was quite dangerous. I was shocked and thus the rest ensued. Its not something I ever did before and hope I never have to. Which is the greater wrong, my chat or the event that led to it? Should I just ignore?
There are lots of very inexperienced cyclists on the roads these days. Many are clueless as to how to really ride a bik . Passing on information that may help them is not in itself a bad thing. Better than hearing a priest/minister give you the last rights!

Well you can ignore posts you dont like. No problem there.

But the above post is complete nonsense.

You are now claiming you were trying to teach other road users how to use the road? Best learn yourself first.

Kaisr Sose

Danjamin1 wrote: »

You're dismissing the reasoned argument people are putting forward quite offhand, especially since you asked for it!

Taking the centre of the lane can often be the safest position to take on the road as it will deter any potentially dangerous overtaking maneuvers.

As you said there was an unbroken white line restricting you from crossing the lane to overtake safely, if the cyclist had been further in to the left would you have been able to safely overtake all five cyclists without squeezing past them at a close distance?

My interpretation of your OP is that this may be what the 5th cyclist could have been trying to prevent.

I am all for reasoned argument and feedback. Many have just posted negatively without first thinking about everything I wrote.

This part of the roadway is wide enough for a car to pass 2 cyclists abreast within the cycle lane, without breaking the central line. There is no need to have a rear guard defender. Cars generally don't need to be over that far left.

I can see and understand why it makes sense to ride out from the ditch on narrow roads, make ones self bigger so as to put off senseless overtaking and would employ this myself. At night this assumes one is well lit. But its not without risk of being hit by oncoming traffic either (those cars that cut corners)

laraghrider

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Which is the greater wrong, my chat or the event that led to it? Should I just ignor?

Answer this if you could OP

How did you know you had pulled up along side the cyclist and that he could hear you? Did you look at him to make sure after you rolled down your window?

Bruthal

laraghrider wrote: »

Answer this if you could OP

How did you know you had pulled up along side the cyclist and that he could hear you? Did you look at him to make sure after you rolled down your window?

They exchanged numbers, and later he called the cyclist to help him out.

Kaisr Sose

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Your original post sounded quite well reasoned, however your follow up posts make it sound like you've made your mind up that the cyclist was in the wrong no matter what is said here.

Trying to reason with some quite onesided posts from many. Thats all

For the record, my view is he was wrong. I know dangerous when I see it.

To all.

Cycle lane on the road, not those up on the path. We are talking about the Enniskerry Rd. Decent surface, lots of broken street lights. No reason not to use the lane. Its one of the better examples if you exclude the sharp bend near Lambs Cross.

But as I said, it should not matter where it is. Cycling way out in the road in the dark, when you don't have to, and others with you are not is plain silly.

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Cycling way out in the road in the dark, when you don't have to, and others with you are not is plain silly.

Delaying during overtaking, to have an exchange with cyclists, while driving, is even more silly.

You can not deny that, no matter what else you say, right or wrong.

Danjamin1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am all for reasoned argument and feedback. Many have just posted negatively without first thinking about everything I wrote.

Ok fair enough, some of the comments have just been negative in your direction, but you do come across as having already made up your mind that the cyclists were idiots and were 100% in the wrong. I agree that if there was enough room and there was no need for the cyclist to be riding defensively (though he may dispute that) then it was discourteous for him not to have moved in, however I don't agree that it was dangerous. Possibly frustrating for you, but their presence on the road and in that position was not directly dangerous, it would take someone else doing something incredibly stupid to turn it in to a dangerous situation. Granted you were driving a car, but if your worried about someone cutting the corner and taking out the cyclist, shouldn't you also worry about the same person cutting the corner and taking out you in your car as you would be occupying the same space? In my opinion (without knowing all of the facts) you were courteous but impatient and felt the need to tell the cyclists so. While not badly intended it doesn't come across well from the cyclist POV.

Tenzor07

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Cycle lane on the road, not those up on the path. We are talking about the Enniskerry Rd. Decent surface, lots of broken street lights. No reason not to use the lane. Its one of the better examples if you exclude the sharp bend near Lambs Cross.
But as I said, it should not matter where it is. Cycling way out in the road in the dark, when you don't have to, and others with you are not is plain silly.

Very patchy "cycle-lanes" on that road, which is pretty cr@p as it's probably one of the most used roads by cyclists other than commuters...

Probably this section of the road?

Lusk_Doyle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Actually, don't speculate on what you don't know. Vehicle was not 1.5ton, it was 2.2 ton, but it could easily have been under 1ton. There was also nothing unsafe about what I did. I set a high standard. I do not endanger my own or any one else's safety whilst driving or cycling.

I had my eyes on the road and was in control the whole time. I did not lectue , just said it was dangerous. was not necessary and to think about staying in a bit.

FYI. It was the cyclists that tried to lecture me. Sure they could never be wrong!

How is this thread still open after a post like this. This is ridiculous. Not you OP but rather your continued doggedness of sticking to your point of view as being the be all and end all despite what is clearly an overwhelming response to the contrary from posters here. Most of whom are both cyclists and motorists alike.

There is only so far that you can or should flog a dead horse. I think that you are there now and further discussion on the topic is pointless.

Wishbone Ash

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Very patchy "cycle-lanes" on that road, which is pretty cr@p as it's probably one of the most used roads by cyclists other than commuters...

Probably this section of the road?..

I wouldn't use a cycle track at night if I was not familiar with it. The road is more likely to be clear of debris and other dangers such as low hanging branches which can be difficult to spot at night (learned that the hard way - not pleasant).

If is is that section and the cyclists were 2 abreast, then the 2 of them must have been going the in wrong direction.

Kaisr Sose

Bruthal wrote: »

Delaying during overtaking, to have an exchange with cyclists, while driving, is even more silly.

You can not deny that, no matter what else you say, right or wrong.

You sound like the representatives of a certain minority group with comments like that. Deflect away from the issue to make some small point that occurred because of the former point.

I took no pleasure in my chat. I delayed none or impeded no one else. I did it because it was safe to so. If it was not safe, I would not have done so.

Forget about me and cycle lanes. Say there was no cycle lane. Since when has it become acceptable and safe for any cyclist to cycle 2m or so from the left, or the equivalent of three abreast for another description, at night, and not at least go single file to allow traffic to pass safely?

When I raced, when out training in groups or pairs for that matter that was the norm. Day and night. Not only was it safe, it showed courtesy to the other road users we share the space with.

Raam

When I saw the thread title I thought it was gonna be about half-wheeling or making sure your bidons match or something.

Lusk_Doyle

Just saw this here regarding a certain person's view regarding bad driving of a motorist towards cyclists. It's not ironic, is it? No. Hypocritical, maybe? Funny, defo.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93344023&postcount=85

theboy1

OP unfortunately most cyclists wont ever admit to blame. A scourge.

Raam

theboy1 wrote: »

OP unfortunately most cyclists wont ever admit to blame. A scourge.

Ah yeah. They cause so much anarchy. Always on the news.

theboy1

Raam wrote: »

Ah yeah. They cause so much anarchy. Always on the news.

The heroin epidemic rarely makes headlines so your point is void.

Raam

theboy1 wrote: »

The heroin epidemic rarely makes headlines so your point is void.

I'm with you, man. Cyclists, heroin... the damage they both cause don't get enough coverage.

Bruthal

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You sound like the representatives of a certain minority group with comments like that. Deflect away from the issue to make some small point that occurred because of the former.

Deflecting from nothing. Slowing to chat to other road users while actually driving, is shocking. You cant see that. Fair enough.

I took no pleasure in my chat. I delayed none or impeded no one else. I did it because it was safe to so. If it was not safe, I would not have done so.

If it was safe to slow and chat, then it was even safer to simply overtake. As said earlier, a non issue turned into a huge event.

Do you make a habit of slowing, to give safety advice, while actually driving?

Forget about me and cycle lanes. Say there was no cycle lane. Since when has it become acceptable and safe for any cyclist to cycle 2m or so from the left, or the equivalent of three abreast for another description, at night, and not at least go single file to allow traffic to pass safely?

When has it become acceptable to "chat" to cyclists while overtaking them?

When I raced, when out training in groups or pairs for that matter that was thr norm. Day and night. Not only was it safe, it showed courtesy to the other road users we share thr spacsme with.

If one road user does something unsafe, my solution would not be to do something just as bad, or worse.

I seriously doubt you were slowing to give advice, and far more likely to be venting anger.


As a matter of interest, im not saying you were wrong that the cyclists were unsafe. Just how you handled it. IMO.

theboy1

Raam wrote: »

I'm with you, man. Cyclists, heroin... the damage they both cause don't get enough coverage.

Joke all you like but cyclists think they rule the road.

happytramp

theboy1 wrote: »

The heroin epidemic rarely makes headlines so your point is void.

Your analogy is as ridiculous as your point. (and I agree with the OP)

Lumen

theboy1 wrote: »

Joke all you like but cyclists think they rule the road.

That's because they are full of heroin.

Raam

theboy1 wrote: »

Joke all you like but cyclists think they rule the road.

Jesus! I wouldn't have joked if I had known of this. Was this a collective strategic decision or do you know how it came about?

theboy1

Lumen wrote: »

That's because they are full of heroin.

Nah most of them appear to be overweight middle aged men squeezed into Lycra.

theboy1

Raam wrote: »

Jesus! I wouldn't have joked if I had known of this. Was this a collective strategic decision or do you know how it came about?

Ah yes, the typical cyclist herd mentality.

Lusk_Doyle

theboy1 wrote: »

Joke all you like but cyclists think they rule the road.

Here we were thinking that it was you who was having a laugh. You were serious?

Raam

theboy1 wrote: »

Ah yes, the typical cyclist herd mentality.

A 'herd' of cyclists is called a peloton.

theboy1

Raam wrote: »

A 'herd' of cyclists is called a peloton.

Irish amateur cyclists would be better described as a herd.

Raam

theboy1 wrote: »

Irish amateur cyclists would be better described as a herd.

Hey, you're the cycling expert so I'll defer to you here.

Kaisr Sose

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Just saw this here regarding a certain person's view regarding bad driving of a motorist towards cyclists. It's not ironic, is it? No. Hypocritical, maybe? Funny, defo.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93344023&postcount=85

You speculate that I drove unsafely (with no knowledge of me or the way I drove) and take a former post out of context to insinuate I am hypocritical?

What's your point or agenda? Cyclist are never wrong? Cyclists are always in the right? I believe no group, or person, me included are perfect or infallible. No doubt will argue the toss on that too!

My point started out as a cyclist safety issue but many seem to believe what I did was worse and want to ignore the cycle safety issue. We ( I include me in that) have to share the road with others and that means give and take on all matters. From a lot of posts here, I see only the desire to take, with no requirement to contribute to road safety. Yes there are loads of bad disrespectful drivers. I meet them too, but there are cyclists who are just as bad and show non respect to other road users.

Lusk_Doyle

theboy1 wrote: »

Irish amateur cyclists would be better described as a herd.

My, my, you are having a grand time trolling all the forums this evening, aren't you?

Lusk_Doyle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You speculate that I drove unsafely (with no knowledge of me or the way I drove) and take a former post out of context to insinuate I am hypocritical?

What's your point or agenda? Cyclist are never wrong? Cyclists are always in the right? I believe no group, or person, me included are perfect or infallible. No doubt will argue the toss on that too!

My point started out as a cyclist safety issue but many seem to believe what I did was worse and want to ignore the cycle safety issue. We ( I include me in that) have to share the road with others and that means give and take on all matters. From a lot of posts here, I see only the desire to take, with no requirement to contribute to road safety. Yes there are loads of bad disrespectful drivers. I meet them too, but there are cyclists who are just as bad and show non respect to other road users.

You asked the question "Am I being too picky?". It is clear that we all think that you are. You chose to ignore this. What was the point of this exercise?