Cyclists - Rules of the road

citytillidie

Seen a guy yesterday who was to busy looking behind him nearly caused an accident. Car was passing and cyclists who was looking behind him swerved out forcing the car to move out more and then swerve back in again right in front of the cyclist as he would have hit a traffic island

wexandproud

psinno wrote: »

35 drivers , 15 pedestrians , 11 passengers, 8 motorcyclists and 3 cyclists have died on the roads this year in Ireland. You would need to be psychic or very well informed to be able to assign responsibility to many of them.

why would you need to be a psychic , common sense will tell you the most common factor in these statistics is the motor car

cython

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware that the ROTR means feck all?? That is "best practice"..

The Road Traffic Acts are the law. You never hear of someone being in court for breaking the ROTR.

I witnessed a group of cyclists nearly getting wiped out today.

Unaware (or did not care) that if side of the road the are traveling on is obstructed by parked cars they must yield to oncoming traffic.. Kept charging down the hill and forced the car in front of me to hit the ditch.

And then proceeded to abuse us because we did not pull over to let them past.

A theory test for them would sort that..

To reiterate the oft-made point, if that was really true, we would see a lot less misuse of the roads and breaking of laws by drivers who have gone through a testing process to drive on the roads. In reality there are just as many arseholes in cars as on bikes, so the testing process seems to have had minimal effect there.

Not to mention that seeing as many cyclists are drivers, plenty have passed the same test already, so why should we undergo another one? I'm licensed to drive categories AM, B and W, so what would you put specifically into a cyclist theory test for me?

Andy From Sligo

hold on I just want to get this straight - the 'Motor Tax' or the money paid for the Tax Disc on the car does not go to upkeep of roads in Ireland - is that what people are saying?

Shep_Dog

citytillidie wrote: »

as he would have hit a traffic island

Sounds like the driver choose an inappropriate place to overtake? was there a separate overtaking lane or was he trying to use the same lane occupied by the cyclists?

steamengine

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

hold on I just want to get this straight - the 'Motor Tax' or the money paid for the Tax Disc on the car does not go to upkeep of roads in Ireland - is that what people are saying?

Yes, that's what some people are saying ok. It's like baking a fruit cake - you add in all the various ingredients including the mixed fruit, but when you go to eat it, you somehow don't eat any currants.

citytillidie

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Sounds like the driver choose an inappropriate place to overtake? was there a separate overtaking lane or was he trying to use the same lane occupied by the cyclists?

It was in donegal, the cyclists was at the side of the road at the yellow lines the car was going past the cyclist was looking behind him and started swerving right out onto the road

Shep_Dog

citytillidie wrote: »

It was in donegal, the cyclists was at the side of the road at the yellow lines the car was going past the cyclist was looking behind him and started swerving right out onto the road

OK, so no overtaking lane & traffic calming measures were in place.

Why was the cyclist looking behind? Was he, maybe, trying to move out to avoid an obstacle got cut off by the driver? Perhaps the driver was speeding and the cyclist was inexperienced and did not expect the driver to come up so quickly?

Mint Sauce

dubscottie wrote: »

You are aware that the ROTR means feck all?? That is "best practice"..

The Road Traffic Acts are the law. You never hear of someone being in court for breaking the ROTR.

I witnessed a group of cyclists nearly getting wiped out today.

Unaware (or did not care) that if side of the road the are traveling on is obstructed by parked cars they must yield to oncoming traffic.. Kept charging down the hill and forced the car in front of me to hit the ditch.

And then proceeded to abuse us because we did not pull over to let them past.

A theory test for them would sort that..

Doesn't mean people can go around breaking them, and putting lifes of other in danger though does it.

Did the cyclists have to cross the central line to pass the parked cars. If so, then they had to yeild.

They should though at least moved into single file so they did not cross onto your side.

Yes there are plently of them that give us a bad name, and during sportives or group rides, there are always a few that rules go out the window for them. Obviously did not listen to the organisers or directors before heading off. Were they in club colours? Maybe consider getting in touch with the organisers to have a word with them.

Bruthal

Jawgap wrote: »

It has zero connection to either - it goes into the central pot. The amount spent on roads is not coupled in any way to the amount raised from motor taxes.

Motorists pay tax for using their car on public roads.

Roads need upkeep, costs money. Motorists use roads. They are taxed for using them. Some fella in an office changes the name from road to motor to facilitate hammering motorists more in taxes. Some will align to that so mindlessly, that they have to keep pointing out that there is no road tax anytime its mentioned.
IMO a tax liable for using a road, is road tax. I don't call it road tax myself.

But I know exactly what it is when anyone says it, much as I know what they are talking about when mention a hoover, even though most don't seem to have one.

Jawgap

Bruthal wrote: »

Motorists pay tax for using their car on public roads.

Roads need upkeep, costs money. Motorists use roads. They are taxed for using them. Some fella in an office changes the name from road to motor to facilitate hammering motorists more in taxes. Some will align to that so mindlessly, that they have to keep pointing out that there is no road tax anytime its mentioned.
IMO a tax liable for using a road, is road tax. I don't call it road tax myself.

But I know exactly what it is when anyone says it, much as I know what they are talking about when mention a hoover, even though most don't seem to have one.

The tax goes into a central pot - along with the motor tax paid by cyclists who also own motor vehicles, and the VAT paid by everyone (including cyclists), and income taxes and the household charge.

The road budget comes from the general pot.

As such it is made up of money contributed by everyone and anyone who has ever paid tax in this country.

Meaning the payment of road tax or motor tax or whatever you want to call it does not, in and of itself, confer any greater right to use a public road.

Anyway, as suggested elsewhere I reckon it's only a matter of time before motorists start complaining about cyclists stopping at red lights and causing congestion at junctions - once the FCPNs take effect

Bruthal

Jawgap wrote: »

The tax goes into a central pot - along with the motor tax paid by cyclists who also own motor vehicles, and the VAT paid by everyone (including cyclists), and income taxes and the household charge.

Yea. But you still know what someone means when they mention road tax, I suspect.

The road budget comes from the general pot.

As such it is made up of money contributed by everyone and anyone who has ever paid tax in this country.

Neighbour breaks your window. Pays you 100 euro to repair. You spend that actual 100 he handed you, in a restaurant. You repair the window from money from savings. Did the neighbour pay for the window, or your dinner? Or did everyone who gave you money this year contribute to your window repair?

The reality is that motoring taxes likely more than cover road upkeep. Motorists use the roads, wear them, and they pay for it. People can keep on about it having to be the same actual notes the driver hands in to the tax office that be used to buy new tar, for him to have paid for road upkeep.

Meaning the payment of road tax or motor tax or whatever you want to call it does not, in and of itself, confer any greater right to use a public road.

I don't think I said it does really.

But anyway, overall my point is, everyone knows what is meant by road tax.

Tenzor07

Bruthal wrote: »

The reality is that motoring taxes likely more than cover road upkeep.

Wrong guess, try again!

Bruthal

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wrong guess, try again!

I'd be guessing the average motorist pays far more tax on driving than just the motor tax.

Tenzor07

Bruthal wrote: »

I'd be guessing the average motorist pays far more tax on driving than just the motor tax.

Of course, fuel, toll roads, maintenance and upkeep of the vehicle, NCT, VRT, Insurance levy...

PreparationH

cajonlardo wrote: »

I pay €360 for Motor insurance. I pay €25 for Cycling Insurance. Now, do you think the insurance company has researched the risks associated with each?

The only variable that can affect the outcome is the behaviour of both parties; car drivers and cyclists.

I now expect all cyclists on Dublin's roads to cycle their bikes in a completely insane fashion where rules of the road mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. I consider every cyclist is guaranteed to do something so crazy that you can only conclude they did that in a failed a suicide attempt. And that's multiple times every day with loads of cyclists pulling these stunts. Oh and if you try to correct them in any way, you will be showered with abuse, spat at and/or have your own vehicle damaged.

The fact of the matter is, cyclist behaviour is moulded by what society deems acceptable. The new rules of the road explicitly tackle some of the anti-social behaviour that was alarmingly common amongst cyclists and I'm looking forward to further laws being drawn up to combat the other problems we have with both cyclists and bikes.

PreparationH

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

whisky_galore

PreparationH wrote: »

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

LOL, good luck in getting every bike manufacturer to fall into line with (1):pac:

(3) People don't even bother their ar*ses chipping pets and horses, what makes you think they'll do the same with bicycles?

(2), (4) and (5) are going to make you really popular. I don't think I've seen a bike with mirrors unless it was piloted by a 5 year old and had stabilisers fitted.

Tenzor07

PreparationH wrote: »

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

LoL!

Although I like the idea of a GPS tracker/chip available for free from the Gardai so stolen bicycles can be tracked..

Reoil

Can we make "Cyclists" a swear word?
E.g. I don't ****ing want to hear about ******** on here every again.
Even though they are ****ing annoying.

desertcircus

PreparationH wrote: »

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

Do you have any other terrible ideas you'd like to add, or is that your quota done for the day?

desertcircus

citytillidie wrote: »

Seen a guy yesterday who was to busy looking behind him nearly caused an accident. Car was passing and cyclists who was looking behind him swerved out forcing the car to move out more and then swerve back in again right in front of the cyclist as he would have hit a traffic island

Why on earth was a driver trying to overtake a cyclist right before a traffic island? That's objectively idiotic.

PreparationH

whisky_galore wrote: »

LOL, good luck in getting every bike manufacturer to fall into line with (1):pac:

(3) People don't even bother their ar*ses chipping pets and horses, what makes you think they'll do the same with bicycles?

(2), (4) and (5) are going to make you really popular. I don't think I've seen a bike with mirrors unless it was piloted by a 5 year old and had stabilisers fitted.

In answer to your questions:
1 - Make it an EU wide law. LED's are tiny and High-Vis LED's take a fraction of the power the old lamps took.

3 - the registration chip is inserted into the frame at the time it's manufactured meaning that in order to remove it, the bike frame needs to be opened up.

2 - I do not understand why cyclists don't have rear view mirrors. Of all road users they are most susceptible to involuntary movements, especially when their center of gravity is shifted as they look behind (that is the tiny minority that actually does look behind). If the lack of these basic safety apparel is about looking kewl, then sorry, looking kewl means nothing

4+5 - Are about reshaping bad and dangerous behaviour married to a ridiculous sense of entitlement. They're designed to upset the very people who mistakenly believe their current behaviour is acceptable.

Tenzor07

PreparationH wrote: »

2 - I do not understand why cyclists don't have rear view mirrors. Of all road users they are most susceptible to involuntary movements, especially when their center of gravity is shifted as they look behind (that is the tiny minority that actually does look behind).

God gave us the moveable neck, great invention that!

whisky_galore

Tenzor07 wrote: »

LoL!

Although I like the idea of a GPS tracker/chip available for free from the Gardai so stolen bicycles can be tracked..

Someone has to pay for it and if it can be found and removed, forget it.

Besides bikes have serial numbers on the frame.

Tenzor07

whisky_galore wrote: »

Someone has to pay for it and if it can be found and removed, forget it..

The money could come from the Road tax fund

RainyDay

PreparationH wrote: »

3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.

What impact do you expect the new registration system to have on cycling, given that registered/taxed/insured/licensed/trained drivers routinely ignore traffic laws all the time;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

kylith

Double up cycling, I presume you mean cycling two abreast, is safer. It forces the car to overtake properly rather than to try to squeeze by on the left of the white line, too close to the cyclist.

desertcircus

PreparationH wrote: »

In answer to your questions:
1 - Make it an EU wide law. LED's are tiny and High-Vis LED's take a fraction of the power the old lamps took.

3 - the registration chip is inserted into the frame at the time it's manufactured meaning that in order to remove it, the bike frame needs to be opened up.

2 - I do not understand why cyclists don't have rear view mirrors. Of all road users they are most susceptible to involuntary movements, especially when their center of gravity is shifted as they look behind (that is the tiny minority that actually does look behind). If the lack of these basic safety apparel is about looking kewl, then sorry, looking kewl means nothing

4+5 - Are about reshaping bad and dangerous behaviour married to a ridiculous sense of entitlement. They're designed to upset the very people who mistakenly believe their current behaviour is acceptable.

1. If LEDs are built into the frame, then what do you do if the LED fails? You can't exactly carve open a 3,000 quid carbon fibre frame. Not to mention that the seat tube needs to be perfectly smooth on the inside to allow adjustment of the seatpost, so you can't put it there, and seatpost are easily changed, so you can't put it there.

2. Is there any evidence whatsoever that a registration chip would actually solve any problems we currently have, barring possibly the tracking of thefts? Even then, the serial on the bottom bracket does a decent job with that.

3. Rear view mirrors in cars make a lot of sense, because the driver's position is fixed and the design of the car makes it difficult to simply look behind. Rear view mirrors on bikes are pointless nonsense, because A - a rider can be in any one of half a dozen positions, rendering the rearview worthless in most cases, and B - the rider can turn their bloody head and take a look.

4 and 5 aren't about reshaping bad and dangerous behaviour, they're about asserting ownership of the road and wanting bikes to get off it. Riding two abreast enforces safe overtaking and reduces the overtaking distance when passing a group, and riders aren't required to use cycle lanes because Irish cycle lanes are frequently a worse option than the road beside them. Banning both behaviours has nothing to do with making roads safer, so you can drop the pretence.

rubadub

PreparationH wrote: »

2 - I do not understand why cyclists don't have rear view mirrors. Of all road users they are most susceptible to involuntary movements, especially when their center of gravity is shifted as they look behind (that is the tiny minority that actually does look behind). If the lack of these basic safety apparel is about looking kewl, then sorry, looking kewl means nothing.

Maybe try asking someone, surely some relation, colleague or friend has a bike. Maybe you even cycled once yourself before without mirrors or helmets, maybe if you actually bother to think for a minute you already know the answer.

Do you wear safety apparel when driving, or out walking or drinking? worried about looking kewl? does your car have high viz paint, worried it might not be kewl?

Tenzor07

desertcircus wrote: »

4 and 5 aren't about reshaping bad and dangerous behaviour, they're about asserting ownership of the road and wanting bikes to get off it. Riding two abreast enforces safe overtaking and reduces the overtaking distance when passing a group, and riders aren't required to use cycle lanes because Irish cycle lanes are frequently a worse option than the road beside them. Banning both behaviours has nothing to do with making roads safer, so you can drop the pretence.

Ah leave poor Mr. Hook alone, he only registered today, and is far too old to change his opinion on the bicyclist now!

furiousox

PreparationH wrote: »

If I had my way, I would have added the following to the new rules:
1. LED lights built into their frame that cannot be turned off, nor can they be removed from the bike.
2. All bikes must have two rear-view mirrors fitted. One at the end of each handle bar.
3. If we can chip dogs and cats, we can do it with bikes too. All bikes to be chipped with registration details.
4. Double up cycling to be made illegal with fines for both cyclists involved.
5. Cycling on the road when there is a cycle path provided to be added to finable offences. This especially goes out to the Lycra Louts.

You forgot the "Dear Daily Mail Editor" at the start.

Jawgap

Tenzor07 wrote: »

God gave us the moveable neck, great invention that!

......and ears.

You're in a car you're cut off from the world. On a bike you can hear stuff coming up from behind, be it the throaty roar from the flowerpot exhaust of some silly modified car, or the high frequency whine of a trucks turbo-diesel engine.....

......plus we can fit Batman-like sonar to the bike.......

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/07/garmins-varia-radar-lights.html

ThisRegard

PreparationH wrote: »

2 - I do not understand why cyclists don't have rear view mirrors.

Because they generally have necks.

edit: Balls, damn you Tenzor.

walkingshadow

I once saw a small boy cycling his bicycle in the air against the backdrop of a full moon, with a strange creature concealed in the bicycle's front basket. Complete disregard of cycling rules.

PreparationH

desertcircus wrote: »

1. If LEDs are built into the frame, then what do you do if the LED fails? You can't exactly carve open a 3,000 quid carbon fibre frame. Not to mention that the seat tube needs to be perfectly smooth on the inside to allow adjustment of the seatpost, so you can't put it there, and seatpost are easily changed, so you can't put it there.

2. Is there any evidence whatsoever that a registration chip would actually solve any problems we currently have, barring possibly the tracking of thefts? Even then, the serial on the bottom bracket does a decent job with that.

3. Rear view mirrors in cars make a lot of sense, because the driver's position is fixed and the design of the car makes it difficult to simply look behind. Rear view mirrors on bikes are pointless nonsense, because A - a rider can be in any one of half a dozen positions, rendering the rearview worthless in most cases, and B - the rider can turn their bloody head and take a look.

4 and 5 aren't about reshaping bad and dangerous behaviour, they're about asserting ownership of the road and wanting bikes to get off it. Riding two abreast enforces safe overtaking and reduces the overtaking distance when passing a group, and riders aren't required to use cycle lanes because Irish cycle lanes are frequently a worse option than the road beside them. Banning both behaviours has nothing to do with making roads safer, so you can drop the pretence.

1. - good point, I don't know, it would have to be developed.

2. - The reg chip would make it impossible to fake identity when challenged thus shaping road usage correctly. It's the same reason why we have reg's on all other road users. If a registration is not present, then the original offense fine should be doubled.

3. - And this answer is to all who came back on this. When you turn your head and body your center of gravity shifts and you wobble on your bike, invariably pointing your bike away from the pavement and into the line of oncoming traffic. Mirrors resolve this issue.

4-5. - Is about reshaping cyclist behaviour. I completely disagree that cycling two abreast is safer, it is unnecessary and rude behaviour on behalf of cyclists who wish to assert ownership of the road and deliberately block traffic. Take a trip over Bray head any weekend and you'll see this dangerous, entitled behaviour time and again, regardless of the fact that in order to overtake, motor vehicles have to cross double white lines in the middle of the road.

Not using the cycle lane when it is provided is stupidity personified. It is based on "wants" vs needs. We need safer roads for all road users, what cyclists want is irrelevant if it flys in the face of safety.

furiousox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

PreparationH

furiousox wrote: »

URL above

I disagree.

Tenzor07

PreparationH wrote: »

2. - The reg chip would make it impossible to fake identity when challenged thus shaping road usage correctly. It's the same reason why we have reg's on all other road users. If a registration is not present, then the original offense fine should be doubled.

3. - And this answer is to all who came back on this. When you turn your head and body your center of gravity shifts and you wobble on your bike, invariably pointing your bike away from the pavement and into the line of oncoming traffic. Mirrors resolve this issue.

4-5. - Is about reshaping cyclist behaviour. I completely disagree that cycling two abreast is safer, it is unnecessary and rude behaviour on behalf of cyclists who wish to assert ownership of the road and deliberately block traffic. Take a trip over Bray head any weekend and you'll see this dangerous, entitled behaviour time and again, regardless of the fact that in order to overtake, motor vehicles have to cross double white lines in the middle of the road.

Not using the cycle lane when it is provided is stupidity personified. It is based on "wants" vs needs. We need safer roads for all road users, what cyclists want is irrelevant if it flys in the face of safety.

2. Why not have the chip on everyone, from birth, would cut down on a range of issues, the government could track people, everywhere they go...

3. Most of us can cycle in a straight line, Circus act level of balance, not required!

4-5. Bray head eh? Can't say I have seen many kids or older people etc on skinny tyres bikes making the climb up that rocky steep mountain!?

Last point: Said no person ever...! (Who's ever used a cycle path)

RainyDay

PreparationH wrote: »

I disagree.

But it's Anne Doyle. You can't disagree with the Nine O'Clock News.

PreparationH

RainyDay wrote: »

But it's Anne Doyle. You can't disagree with the Nine O'Clock News.

kylith

PreparationH wrote: »

4-5. - I completely disagree that cycling two abreast is safer, it is unnecessary and rude behaviour on behalf of cyclists who wish to assert ownership of the road and deliberately block traffic.

Well, the RSA disagrees with you; they encourage cyclists to cycle abreast.

endacl

Sorry lads! Late to this thread...

What did I miss? OP read as informed and insightful. I trust it continued in this vein? All sorted now?

Tenzor07

endacl wrote: »

Sorry lads! Late to this thread...

What did I miss? OP read as informed and insightful. I trust it continued in this vein? All sorted now?

Of course, nothing that some Preparation H wouldn't fix!

PreparationH

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So...exactly the way they have to overtake everyone else?

The fact that some drivers think they can just skim by cyclists while staying in the same lane is exactly why cyclists are encouraged to cycle two abreast in the first place.

Everyone else isn't doing 15km (approx avg) while taking up half of the road with zero rear-view vision. If you were really concerned about safety, you'd decry having people anywhere near fast moving metal objects weighing tons. Yet even when we build a massive amount of cycle paths all over the country, costing a fortune, they're still not used by cyclists!

The start of that video stated the "cyclists have every right to the road as other users". It did not, however, go on to state that this should only be in the case of situations where their behaviour is seriously impeding the flow of traffic or by their own choice, refusing to use the provided cycle paths. Which, in my opinion, it should and that's where the problems lie. Cyclists should not have the right to ignore cycle paths and where they impede traffic they should pull in at regular intervals to allow the country to keep moving. That is what the roads are for after all.

Cycling two abreast just pisses people off, pissed off people do stupid things and stupid things lead to accidents. You can argue the principle all you like, but cyclists always come out worse in accidents and this will continue to happen until cycling lobbyists see sense and stop acting like a dog in the manger.

Good behaviour begats good behaviour, if we all act reasonably then we're more likely to receive a reasonable response. Otherwise it's just a race to be right, despite the facts, and as a cyclist myself I'd rather be wrong and alive, than dead and right.

kylith

What about tractors? They move slowly and block entire country roads much more than two cyclists would. And frankly if you're so short tempered that having to slow down until you can pass safely makes you so pissed off that you do something stupid and cause an accident you shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Tenzor07

And horses, dammnit, why can't they use the horse lanes, we spent €100's out of the road tax budget building those, and FPN's for soiling the roads while we're at it!

(raises fist in anger!)

RainyDay

PreparationH wrote: »

The start of that video stated the "cyclists have every right to the road as other users". It did not, however, go on to state that this should only be in the case of situations where their behaviour is seriously impeding the flow of traffic or by their own choice, refusing to use the provided cycle paths. Which, in my opinion, it should and that's where the problems lie.

I'm confused now - are you saying that the problem lies with your opinions?

PreparationH wrote: »

Cyclists should not have the right to ignore cycle paths and where they impede traffic they should pull in at regular intervals to allow the country to keep moving. That is what the roads are for after all.

Cyclists don't impede traffic. Cyclists ARE traffic.

I'm not sure how you worked out that the roads are 'for' one particular group of road users, but not others.

And just curious, when you're in heavy urban traffic and a cyclist comes up behind you, do you pull over the let them pass?

ThisRegard

PreparationH wrote: »

3. - And this answer is to all who came back on this. When you turn your head and body your center of gravity shifts and you wobble on your bike, invariably pointing your bike away from the pavement and into the line of oncoming traffic. Mirrors resolve this issue.

How crap a rider are you ?

cajonlardo

PreparationH wrote: »

4-5. - Is about reshaping cyclist behaviour. I completely disagree that cycling two abreast is safer, it is unnecessary and rude behaviour on behalf of cyclists who wish to assert ownership of the road and deliberately block traffic. Take a trip over Bray head any weekend and you'll see this dangerous, entitled behaviour time and again, regardless of the fact that in order to overtake, motor vehicles have to cross double white lines in the middle of the road.

Assuming you are in fact referring Windgates (Vevay rd bray to Greystones road)On most of that road it is illegal to overtake a SINGLE cyclist as it would require you to drive over the white line.

Scary how many drivers post on these threads and broadcast how dangerous they actually drive and with such ignorance of either the law or good practise