Journalism and cycling

minikin

Tenzor07 wrote: »

That means nothing, could be sitting in the shed rusting for all we know!

1. Cycling two abreast is legal,
2. it's good safety practice and should be no issue to any responsible motorist.

3. It also means the motorist intending to overtake the cyclists would slow down, move out to give at least 1.5m overtaking distance, and not pass the cyclists at speed and as close as if they were a traffic cone, which is standard practice in Ireland..

"That means nothing, could be sitting in the shed rusting for all we know!"
How do I prove otherwise??? This is nuts and a very combative attitude... road safety for all requires co-operation from all road users - not a 'us v them' approach.

1. I know

2. Debatable

3. Are you trying to argue with the reality of physics here?
My contention from the start on here is that on a road with lanes that are 2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast... as it would not allow motorists to leave a 1.5m gap... that's all.
Here's why... total width of the road = 5m. Giving each cyclist a width of 1m... two abreast would be 2m... leaving 3m space to overtake... the average car is just over 2m wide... leaving less than 1m lateral space between an overtaking car and the outside cyclist. (My point is cars can't make themselves narrower but cyclists can cycle single file)

rubadub

minikin wrote: »

My contention from the start on here is that on a road with lanes that are 2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast.

Are there many roads that narrow which actually permit passing?

This road is the narrowest sort of "main road" I can think of near me, and has a continuous white line when it gets to the narrow sections. I suppose many country roads/lanes would be very narrow

https://goo.gl/maps/eTjhuvRn24C2

The proposed law is 1m if less than 50km/h

Tenzor07

minikin wrote: »

2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast... as it would not allow motorists to leave a 1.5m gap... that's all.

Yes they should, if the approaching motorist does not have enough room to make a safe overtake then wait until there is enough space.

Under 50kph then 1m distance is the minimum.

All cyclists should cycle at least 0.75m from the kerb/side of the road.

If you cycled you would know that the closer the cyclist is to the side of the road when in single file, the closer the passing motor vehicle will pass you, sometimes close enough that you get the draft off there wing mirror past your ear.

What would you do if there was a horse and rider, which would be require more room for a safe overtake? Do you suggest the horse should go on a diet in order to give the 1.5m space?

Annie get your Run

rubadub wrote: »

Are there many roads that narrow which actually permit passing?

This road is the narrowest sort of "main road" I can think of near me, and has a continuous white line when it gets to the narrow sections. I suppose many country roads/lanes would be very narrow

https://goo.gl/maps/eTjhuvRn24C2

The proposed law is 1m if less than 50km/h

Unfortunately many motorists don't understand that a continuous white line means no overtaking :rolleyes:. When I'm driving, and I stay behind a person on a bike where there's a continuous white line, I get blasted out of if by cars behind to overtake and have on occasion been overtaken (along with the cyclist!).

Another ridiculous discussion about why VRU should get out of the way of the important people with their powerful engines. :mad:

Macy0161

minikin wrote: »

Here's why... total width of the road = 5m. Giving each cyclist a width of 1m... two abreast would be 2m... leaving 3m space to overtake... the average car is just over 2m wide... leaving less than 1m lateral space between an overtaking car and the outside cyclist. (My point is cars can't make themselves narrower but cyclists can cycle single file)

You're over estimating width of a cyclist, and underestimating how much a group would tighten up on such circumstances imo. My experience of group riding would be tighter than that anyway, before the "tighten up" call tbh.

More likely 0.3m from kerb* + 0.45m cyclist width** + 0.5m gap (I'd expect to be tighter) + 0.45m cyclist = 1.7m. That'd give the average car the 1.5m to overtake*** on the 5m. More than enough that they're not going to be reported should mpdl come into play anyway.

* In such circumstances
** width not girth - handlebars generally around 40cm, matching shoulder width.
*** those that can judge the width of their car.

minikin

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yes they should, if the approaching motorist does not have enough room to make a safe overtake then wait until there is enough space.

Under 50kph then 1m distance is the minimum.

All cyclists should cycle at least 0.75m from the kerb/side of the road.

If you cycled you would know that the closer the cyclist is to the side of the road when in single file, the closer the passing motor vehicle will pass you, sometimes close enough that you get the draft off there wing mirror past your ear.

What would you do if there was a horse and rider, which would be require more room for a safe overtake? Do you suggest the horse should go on a diet in order to give the 1.5m space?

<snip > MOD WARNING: Attack the post not the poster.


My commute includes a 5km stretch of narrow country road to a village that is an extremely popular route for cyclists, horse riders (several stables in the area) but is also an extremely busy road for motorists (some of whom believe it to be mondello) and large trucks (quarry nearby).

I walk this road, cycle this road but more regularly drive on this road.

People behave stupidly - mostly other motorists.
BUT some cyclists are not behaving in their own best interests given that they know there are loons driving about the place. Cycling two abreast in shaded country lanes where the surface isn't the best, requiring evasive manoeuvres to avoid potholes (heavy trucks wrecking the road).

But then again, what would I know... I'm only someone with an alternative point of view.

Chips Lovell

FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

<snip > MOD WARNING: Attack the post not the poster.


My commute includes a 5km stretch of narrow country road to a village that is an extremely popular route for cyclists, horse riders (several stables in the area) but is also an extremely busy road for motorists (some of whom believe it to be mondello) and large trucks (quarry nearby).

I walk this road, cycle this road but more regularly drive on this road.

People behave stupidly - mostly other motorists.
BUT some cyclists are not behaving in their own best interests given that they know there are loons driving about the place. Cycling two abreast in shaded country lanes where the surface isn't the best, requiring evasive manoeuvres to avoid potholes (heavy trucks wrecking the road).

But then again, what would I know... I'm only someone with an alternative point of view.

I see nothing wrong in that photo?

Kav0777

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

Yeah, but you have to ask was there trees along the side of the road where they are riding two abreast in that diagram, and was the sun out?

minikin

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

I agree, where the road is wide enough to accommodate.
In rural areas, some roads aren't wide enough to accommodate.
Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility - cyclists must (in their own interests) also behave responsibly and adapt their formation to suit road width / conditions. Is that unreasonable?

ford2600

07Lapierre wrote: »

I see nothing wrong in that photo?

I do, that's not a country lane!

Chips Lovell

It's not unreasonable at all. That's why groups of cyclists cycle two abreast. They're taking responsibility for their own safety.

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

I agree, where the road is wide enough to accommodate.
In rural areas, some roads aren't wide enough to accommodate.
Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility - cyclists must (in their own interests) also behave responsibly and adapt their formation to suit road width / conditions. Is that unreasonable?

Motorists are being asked to take “some” responsibility. Roads are there for all, not just cars.

minikin

07Lapierre wrote: »

I see nothing wrong in that photo?

None so blind as those who will not see...

Can you clearly see two cyclists?
Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

None so blind as those who will not see...

Can you clearly see two cyclists?
Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)

Yes I see them and yes I would see them when I’m driving. I’d then slow down and when it’s safe, id overtake them.

robyntmorton

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's not unreasonable at all. That's why groups of cyclists cycle two abreast. They're taking responsibility for their own safety.

This. In the first photo posted, I see no problem with cycling two abreast, as it is taking control of the situation, and preventing an overtake in a position where it would be unsafe to do so. Singling out (if required) in a position where it is then safe to overtake is not holding others up, but cyclists being responsible for their own safety on the road by controlling the lane where required.

To be honest even when cycling solo on some of those kinds of roads, I would do the same thing.

minikin

07Lapierre wrote: »

Motorists are being asked to take “some” responsibility. Roads are there for all, not just cars.

Where have I said otherwise? That image shows the difference between sensible cyclists and those who may be less so. You can clearly see those in hi-vis, even though they're much further away than those in black.

As for the behaviour of the motorist entering my lane rather than waiting to overtake the cyclists... nuts.

Chips Lovell

minikin wrote: »

None so blind as those who will not see...

Can you clearly see two cyclists?
Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)

Are you claiming that an inattentive driver would be more likely to see them if they were cycling in single file? How?

minikin

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Are you claiming that an inattentive driver would be more likely to see them if they were cycling in single file? How?

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.
If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.

Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.

07Lapierre

minikin wrote: »

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.

Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.

There’s resistance to the notion that RTA’s involving cyclists is due to the cyclists not being visible. There are many other factors.... speed and inattentive drivers at the top of the list.

eeeee

minikin wrote: »

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.
If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.

Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.

People are not being defensive, they're disagreeing with you based on their experience and knowledge. That's how discussion forums operate.

Any further discussion of high viz can go into the High Viz thread here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88491882

I would advise you do a search on the forum, the topics you are bringing up have been covered extensively, and some have their own megathreads.

Check out the charter here, which includes a list of mega threads you con contribute to if you so wish:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056113049

Tenzor07

Journo again, http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-guide-dogs-shared-space-traffic-3812268-Jan2018/

Ban the cyclists!

Grassey

minikin wrote:

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing. If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.

I've always found (while driving) that those yellowish high vis tops on cyclists camouflage extremely well to gaps in hedgerows on sunny days. Orange ones blend into urban lighting.

I might ask RSA to just hand out pink vests for everyone.

magicbastarder

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Journo again, http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-guide-dogs-shared-space-traffic-3812268-Jan2018/

Ban the cyclists!

there's a 99pi podcast about shared spaces, and again the issues for people with sight problems and other disabilities is mentioned as the main achilles heel.

edit: i misremembered, it was a youtube video made for vox by 99pi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8

monument

minikin wrote: »

Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility

The person overtaking is responsible, regardless of what they are overtaking.

buffalo

minikin wrote: »

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.

So cyclists are allowed go two abreast if they wear hi-viz?

Fighting Tao

monument wrote: »

The person overtaking is responsible, regardless of what they are overtaking.

Sometimes pointing out the obvious is still ignored. This is due to choice rather than accident.

Fighting Tao

minikin wrote: »

No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.

You provided an image in daylight earlier with 2 cyclists wearing what may or may not be reflective clothing and I could see them clearly. I can't fathom how reflective clothing helps in daylight. Remind me how reflective clothing works in your mind please and then remind me how it scientifically is proven to work (note it may involve darkness and reflecting light back at the source it came from).

tomasrojo

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Remind me how reflective clothing works in your mind please and then remind me how it scientifically is proven to work (note it may involve darkness and reflecting light back at the source it came from).

Reminds me of the time I was run off the road in daylight by Helios in his sun chariot. My own fault; my lack of hi-viz meant I wasn't reflecting the light back at the source it came from.

TheChizler

tomasrojo wrote: »

Reminds me of the time I was run off the road in daylight by Helios in his sun chariot. My own fault; my lack of hi-viz meant I wasn't reflecting the light back at the source it came from.

It's amazing how drivers manage to avoid all the ninja ditches, trees, and kerbs.