Two cyclists injured – Indo comments section

terrydel

That 'paper' is a complete rag, nothing more than tabloid clickbait for simpletons.
99% of the 'journalists' are not worthy of the name.
Its just a vehicle for right-wing, neo liberal arseholes. The comments section is just made up of celtic tiger, d4 middle class nob jockies.
And the fact it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Denis OBrien is enough reason to never even look at it.

Chips Lovell

Lemming wrote: »

If you're on a road with two lanes I'd agree with you. But in most cases, that is not the case in urban areas; which means that the cyclist is in the same lane as the driver.

This is true. Was more thinking of a bus lane, with the cyclist moving out into the general traffic lane to overtake a bus.

What are the points of this thread ? If you don't like the comments don't read them. Don't bring them to attention. Maybe then nobody reads them and it stops being a way for making money for the website.

lennymc

from the ROTR (My emphasis & bolding)

"How to overtake safely
Make sure the road ahead is clear so you have enough distance to overtake and
get back to your own side of the road without forcing any other road user to
move to avoid you.
Never directly follow another overtaking vehicle.
Give way to faster traffic already overtaking from behind.
Before overtaking check that the way is clear, check in your mirror and
check your blind spots to ensure another vehicle is not approaching from
behind. Give your signal in good time, move out when it is safe to do so,
accelerate and overtake with the minimum of delay.
When you are well past, check the mirror, signal and gradually move in
again making sure not to cut across the vehicle you have passed.
Take extra care when overtaking a vehicle displaying a ‘LONG VEHICLE’
sign. This means that the vehicle is at least 13 metres long and you will
need extra road length to pass it and safely return to the left-hand side of
the road.
You must not break the speed limit, even when overtaking."

Reading some posts here would suggest that maybe there is truth to the claims about some cyclists lack an awareness and understanding of ROTR and good roadcraft.

ThisRegard

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Actually, the person in the lane has right of way. It's up to the person moving into to only proceed if the way is clear.

The person on a bike is in the lane, the poster never said anything about pulling out of a cycle path etc. But either way, common sense tells you that the cyclist will want to go around the bus so expect it and give them the courtesy of the space to do so.

edit: I see your acknowledgement above.

lennymc

ThisRegard wrote: »

common sense

assuming any road user has common sense is, imho, a dangerous assumption. Everyone is out to kill you on the road. It's up to you to make sure they don't.

Chuchote

Deleted User wrote: »

What are the points of this thread ? If you don't like the comments don't read them. Don't bring them to attention. Maybe then nobody reads them and it stops being a way for making money for the website.

The point is that ordinary people – perhaps not too bright, but easily influenced by the media – now think it's ok to blame the person who was knocked down, if he happens to have been riding a bicycle. Influential radio hosts and print journalists have been allowed to foment hatred against a specific group of road users. This has to stop.

Blindfolding yourself to hatred doesn't make it less dangerous to you.

ThisRegard

lennymc wrote: »

assuming any road user has common sense is, imho, a dangerous assumption. Everyone is out to kill you on the road. It's up to you to make sure they don't.

I agree, but it's a bit odd a driver complaining about a cyclist moving around a bus, what does the driver think is going to happen, they're going to stop and start all the way to the destination with the bus, or perform a manoeuvre or super Sagan proportions and bunny hop and ride along the top?

Taxuser1

ThisRegard wrote: »

I agree, but it's a bit odd a driver complaining about a cyclist moving around a bus, what does the driver think is going to happen, they're going to stop and start all the way to the destination with the bus, or perform a manoeuvre or super Sagan proportions and bunny hop and ride along the top?

a cyclist first and foremost !!

07Lapierre

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You always, always need to look before changing your line. You can't rely on your ears.

Agree..Always look (I wear headhones )

Taxuser1

ThisRegard wrote: »

I agree, but it's a bit odd a driver complaining about a cyclist moving around a bus, what does the driver think is going to happen, they're going to stop and start all the way to the destination with the bus, or perform a manoeuvre or super Sagan proportions and bunny hop and ride along the top?

i think you missed the point I was making. It's not that I was complaining about the cyclist's right to move first around the bus. It's that the movement is often done without consideration for their own safety and those around them. Sticking out an arm just isn't enough.

lennymc

throwing this on it's head - i have overtaken cars behind buses when the bus was stopped when on my bicycle. Should I stop mid overtake in case the car pulls out?

Chuchote

The best driver I ever drove with – an RTE cameraman, who told me they were given special training in defensive driving – told me that he had been trained to drive with his eyes switching from the point ahead where complications were due to arise (eg 10m in traffic, 100m on country roads, 200m on motorways) back to what was happening immediately in front of, to the sides of and behind his van.

While I was with him, various drivers did dangerous things – exiting side roads in his path on the Stillorgan Dual Carriageway (as it then was) without signalling or any warning; switching lanes suddenly, etc. He didn't become emotional; he remained utterly calm, and utterly safe, for us and for other road users.

If you're driving and cycling like this, you don't get a horrid fright when a bus stops and the cyclist coming behind it moves out to pass. You'll have calculated as you watched the bus and the cyclist that this is going to be the outcome when the bus pulls in to the upcoming stop.

I'd prefer cyclists to signal more, myself, but people also have a responsibility to be aware of another road user's likely behaviour.

PaulieC

terrydel wrote: »

And the fact it is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Denis OBrien is enough reason to never even look at it.

Yet you looked long enough to form this very rounded opinion of its commenters:

terrydel wrote: »

The comments section is just made up of celtic tiger, d4 middle class nob jockies.

terrydel

PaulieC wrote: »

Yet you looked long enough to form this very rounded opinion of its commenters:

I have yeah, then learned the error of my ways and stopped.

mr spuckler

Chuchote wrote: »

I'd prefer cyclists to signal more, myself, but people also have a responsibility to be aware of another road user's likely behaviour.

fully agree once we include cyclists in that

if every road user is aware of and considerate towards the likely actions of other road users then we won't have any problems!

lennymc

Chuchote wrote: »

The best driver I ever drove with – an RTE cameraman, who told me they were given special training in defensive driving – told me that he had been trained to drive with his eyes switching from the point ahead where complications were due to arise (eg 10m in traffic, 100m on country roads, 200m on motorways) back to what was happening immediately in front of, to the sides of and behind his van.

While I was with him, various drivers did dangerous things – exiting side roads in his path on the Stillorgan Dual Carriageway (as it then was) without signalling or any warning; switching lanes suddenly, etc. He didn't become emotional; he remained utterly calm, and utterly safe, for us and for other road users.

If you're driving and cycling like this, you don't get a horrid fright when a bus stops and the cyclist coming behind it moves out to pass. You'll have calculated as you watched the bus and the cyclist that this is going to be the outcome when the bus pulls in to the upcoming stop.

I'd prefer cyclists to signal more, myself, but people also have a responsibility to be aware of another road user's likely behaviour.

That's all very well and good for an advanced driver, but, not everyone on the road has done advanced training, and as such, every road user must cater for the lowest common denominator.

It's also a good example of where this guy was making sure that other road users didn't kill him. He used his anticipation to avoid incidents that technically would not have been his fault (cars pulling into his lane etc) but would have been a less desirable outcome. Scanning (fore, middle and distance) is a great technique for giving an overall picture of what is going on ahead of you, but you also need to know (imho) as a road user, what is going on to your left, your right and behind you.

I have done a number of motorcycle advanced training courses andwas always told to keep the bike in gear, ready to go at lights and always keep an eye on your mirror. One day, on the Howth road at supervalue, I was stopped at a pedestrian light. I was watching my mirror and noticed that a car wasn't going to stop. I was able to accelerate away and avoid being rear ended because I was aware of what was going on behind me. A lot of cyclists simply aren't aware of what is going on.

tigerboon

Chuchote wrote: »

he had been trained to drive with his eyes switching from the point ahead where complications were due to arise (eg 10m in traffic,

Depends on what you mean by "in traffic" but assuming 50kph, that's a speed of 14m/second. Anyone know off hand how quick the human brain reacts to a situation? Even when stopped that's only to the front of the car in front of you

Jawgap

Chuchote wrote: »

The best driver I ever drove with – an RTE cameraman, who told me they were given special training in defensive driving – told me that he had been trained to drive with his eyes switching from the point ahead where complications were due to arise (eg 10m in traffic, 100m on country roads, 200m on motorways) back to what was happening immediately in front of, to the sides of and behind his van.

While I was with him, various drivers did dangerous things – exiting side roads in his path on the Stillorgan Dual Carriageway (as it then was) without signalling or any warning; switching lanes suddenly, etc. He didn't become emotional; he remained utterly calm, and utterly safe, for us and for other road users.

If you're driving and cycling like this, you don't get a horrid fright when a bus stops and the cyclist coming behind it moves out to pass. You'll have calculated as you watched the bus and the cyclist that this is going to be the outcome when the bus pulls in to the upcoming stop.

I'd prefer cyclists to signal more, myself, but people also have a responsibility to be aware of another road user's likely behaviour.

I did the IAM course when I worked in the UK - doing it and passing it was a requirement for the crowd I worked for - probably one of the best and most useful courses I've ever done - it really made me 'appreciate' Irish driving standards when I came home

2RockMountain

Chuchote wrote: »

The point is that ordinary people – perhaps not too bright, but easily influenced by the media – now think it's ok to blame the person who was knocked down, if he happens to have been riding a bicycle. Influential radio hosts and print journalists have been allowed to foment hatred against a specific group of road users. This has to stop.

Very true, if this kind of hatred was directed against a religious group or an ethnic group or a sexual orientation group, it would be illegal. But it's still socially acceptable to hate cyclists, because they use a different mode of transport to others.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

Very true, if this kind of hatred was directed against a religious group or an ethnic group or a sexual orientation group, it would be illegal. But it's still socially acceptable to hate cyclists, because they use a different mode of transport to others.

It's acceptable because it's fomented by radio and print journalists.

It's one of the reasons I'm so pushed about getting protected cycle lanes to every school: if people's kids were cycling they'd be less hasty to target cyclists.

Chips Lovell

2RockMountain wrote: »

Very true, if this kind of hatred was directed against a religious group or an ethnic group or a sexual orientation group, it would be illegal. But it's still socially acceptable to hate cyclists, because they use a different mode of transport to others.

You're equating people with a bee in their bonnets about cycling with racism?

Bit of perspective needed

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You're equating people with a bee in their bonnets about cycling with racism?

Bit of perspective needed

Not really; the same modus operandi no matter what kind of group it is you're espousing hatred of. The idea is "He doesn't have rights because he is an X"; "He behaves contemptibly because all Group X members behave contemptibly"; "What I do to him doesn't matter because he's an X".

Chuchote

bazermc wrote: »

The ironic thing is, this thread is tuning into what the comment section of the indo is like

No it isn't.

wotswattage

For balance, you have the likes of these comments appearing in the comments of the article too:

Time to ban cars from the city and the suburbs there are far too many of them going nowhere and polluting the air.

2RockMountain

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

You're equating people with a bee in their bonnets about cycling with racism?

Bit of perspective needed

Do you include daily death threats and wishes of harm as 'bee in their bonnet'? Do you include daily biased attribution of illegal activities as 'bee in their bonnet'?

Chips Lovell

Death threats?

2RockMountain

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Death threats?

https://twitter.com/BoogieMonster3/status/758780584764252160

https://twitter.com/b_watson81/status/754480161039450112

https://twitter.com/velospence/status/750050226241736704


https://twitter.com/SabrinaSegura01/status/765531235548618752

https://twitter.com/mikkeymausclub/status/764552194972610560

https://twitter.com/TheSwerveDoctor/status/764881119602966528


https://twitter.com/Darkduck64/status/763726742502645760

THis kind of stuff happens all the time.

Chips Lovell

LOL. And you're equating this with racism?

You've led a very sheltered life if you think gobs***es on Twitter mean you're an oppressed minority.

HivemindXX

Idle threats for the most part no doubt. I guess it depends on your definition but, for example, in the aftermath of the London tube bombings when Clarkson said in a national newspaper that he planned to drive as normal and if any cyclists were in front of his car whatever happened would be their own problem, I considered that a threat to murder any cyclist committing the offence of being in his way.

No doubt that was just rabble rousing and he personally would never murder a cyclist, not without a better excuse anyway. Probably the various notable incidents where people have deliberately hit cyclists with their cars would have happened without that sort of rabble rousing. Of course normalising the acceptance of violence against cyclists can't help.