Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

amcalester

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But she was annoyed at being held up by cyclists cycling illegally. She wasn't annoyed with cyclists cycling in a legal manner. I'd be annoyed myself. Not at all cyclists just the ones breaking the law.

Cyclists are annoyed at parked cars in cycle lanes & they are right to be annoyed. A motorist is quite right to be annoyed at cycling 3 or 4 abreast

Does it really happen though or are people seeing cyclists in banks of 2 and thinking that they’re seeing cyclists 4 abreast?

Unknown Soldier

Three cyclists out on a spin is the worst configuration for group cycling. That's usually the only time I see cyclists three abreast, bar the sportives etc mentioned above.

Sleeper12

amcalester wrote:

Does it really happen though or are people seeing cyclists in banks of 2 and thinking that they’re seeing cyclists 4 abreast?

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot. But look if she only ever saw it once in her life she's right calling these particular people arrogant.

com1

ted1 wrote: »

I’m still trying to figure out how do differinate an arrogant cyclist from a humble one?

Thats easy, just run them over and if they apologise for denting your car then they are the humble one!

amcalester

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot. But look if she only ever saw it once in her life she's right calling these particular people arrogant.

Fair enough, but I do a fair bit of cycling/driving by in the Wicklow/Dublin mountains and have never noticed it being an issue.

If she’s only seen it once then she should have said that but the way Tubridy let it descend into anti-cyclist nonsense was disgraceful but then I wouldn’t expect anything less than pandering from Tubridy.

amcalester

com1 wrote: »

Thats easy, just run them over and if they apologise for denting your car then they are the humble one!

Someone on the Dublin Cycling FB post actually said it was dangerous to the car when cyclists are 2 abreast.

Miklos

Nevermind what your woman said how about the way Tubridy ran with it inciting the crowd into endorsing the binning of a cycling helmet? The symbolism is shocking, I can't even imagine how the families of the 15 people that were killed out there last year would have felt watching that.

amcalester

Miklos wrote: »

Nevermind what your woman said how about the way Tubridy ran with it inciting the crowd into endorsing the binning of a cycling helmet? The symbolism is shocking, I can't even imagine how the families of the 15 people that were killed out there last year would have felt watching that.

Exactly. Tubridy could have moderated a proper discussion but he’s more interested in joviality and being liked than presenting a discussion show. Once the audience started making noise he was getting on that bandwagon.

ford2600

"Entilted" and "arrogant" coming from two career RTE gimps with family ties to career Lenister House families a little bit rich even for RTE on Friday night

magicbastarder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot. But look if she only ever saw it once in her life she's right calling these particular people arrogant.

If she's only seen it once, she's right in making an issue of it on prime time national television?

Sleeper12

magicbastarder wrote:

If she's only seen it once, she's right in making an issue of it on prime time national television?

She didn't say she only saw it once. I've no idea how many times she has seen it.

I said if it was "only even once"
That she was right to call them arrogant as it is an arrogant thing to do.

radia

Except she probably didn't see it at all, although in fairness she may think she has.
I expect she'd say this was cyclists five or six abreast:
https://twitter.com/SafeCyclingEire/status/775814457423437825

mrcheez

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have been keeping an eye out for cyclists cycling three or more abreast for the last five years - while cycling and while driving - and i have seen it on one occasion.

They tend to frequent the Clontarf cycle lane, blocking the way for faster cyclists to overtake them

magicbastarder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

she was right to call them arrogant as it is an arrogant thing to do.

Putting the law to one side, what is worse about cyclists going three abreast anyway, from a motorists point of view? Assuming they're all in one lane?

recedite

recedite wrote: »

I think the main problem is an inability to count.
Some people see "more than one" abreast and in their mind it becomes 3, 3 and half or even 4.
Ask them how many cyclists are legally allowed abreast, and they have no idea about that either. They just carry on with the rant.

Yup, I've always confused all numbers greater than one. I wonder if the inability to count extends to the cyclists who are riding abreast of one another, or is it just a condition suffered by those counting cyclists?

The scary thing is that you appear to be serious.

radia

radia wrote: »

Except she probably didn't see it at all, although in fairness she may think she has.
I expect she'd say this was cyclists five or six abreast:
https://twitter.com/SafeCyclingEire/status/775814457423437825

Of course, it's a lot easier to see how many cyclists abreast there are when you're directly behind them, as opposed to a group of cyclists shot on an angle with a telephoto lens.

nilhg

As far as I could see RTE were a bit too liberal with the hospitality in the green room before the "expert" panel came on, sort of showed themselves up.

Best thing about having watched that ****e was that I caught the young lady who was interviewed last on the program, she was very impressive having come through some tough times, well done to her and those in the system who helped and encouraged her when things could have gone badly for her.

ted1

In 2011 Maura was charged in convicted of dangerous driving.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-251168891.html

Yet she is giving out about cyclists

Wishbone Ash

Basil3 wrote: »

Of course, it's a lot easier to see how many cyclists abreast there are when you're directly behind them...

No, that's where the problem is.

Lets say there are 10 cyclists cycling 2 abreast - i.e. 5 couples. If they are not directly aligned behind each other it looks like there are more than 2 abreast. The law doesn't state any required minimum/maximum distance between each cyclist. The first 2 may be 1 metre apart, the next 2, .5 metres apart and so on. When viewed directly from behind, it may appear that they are 3/4 abreast.

This is the problem most non-cycling motorists seem to suffer from. Apart from the start of major sportives, when the road is usually closed or there is an escort, I've never seen a group going 4 abreast. 3 abreast is legally permitted when 2 are overtaking a single cyclist or vice versa.

If viewed directly from overhead, it will show that they are 2 abreast.

BowSideChamp

recedite wrote: »

I think the main problem is an inability to count.
Some people see "more than one" abreast and in their mind it becomes 3, 3 and half or even 4.
Ask them how many cyclists are legally allowed abreast, and they have no idea about that either. They just carry on with the rant.

Sounds exactly like the Garda Superindendent who didn't know the road laws and just against cycling.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-garda-not-abreast-of-cycling-rules-xf0nwppmp

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

No, that's where the problem is.

Lets say there are 10 cyclists cycling 2 abreast - i.e. 5 couples. If they are not directly aligned behind each other it looks like there are more than 2 abreast. The law doesn't state any required minimum/maximum distance between each cyclist. The first 2 may be 1 metre apart, the next 2, .5 metres apart and so on. When viewed directly from behind, it may appear that they are 3/4 abreast.

This is the problem most non-cycling motorists seem to suffer from. Apart from the start of major sportives, when the road is usually closed or there is an escort, I've never seen a group going 4 abreast. 3 abreast is legally permitted when 2 are overtaking a single cyclist or vice versa.

If viewed directly from overhead, it will show that they are 2 abreast.

Ok, so I guess I didn't see 3 cyclists abreast last weekend. Is this the correct response?

Eamonnator

ted1 wrote: »

In 2011 Maura was charged in convicted of dangerous driving.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-251168891.html

Yet she is giving out about cyclists

Link didn't work for me

https://www.highbeam.com/doc//1G1-251168891.html

Larbre34

Eamonnator wrote: »

Link didn't work for me

https://www.highbeam.com/doc//1G1-251168891.html

Whats a 125 km/h zone?

andy69

Basil3 wrote: »

Ok, so I guess I didn't see 3 cyclists abreast last weekend. Is this the correct response?

Let's say if there were just three of them in your case above: Then possibly, you may have seen two riders side-by-side at the front, and a 3rd one behind them, but in the middle of the two in front so that his/her view of the road wasn't obscured by the rider in front.

Say you're driving on a motorway - busy auld day, lot of traffic. You're in lane 2 and there are cars in front of you and behind also.
Watch for the road positions...if ye want to see ahead of the car in front, you will move out toward the median strip to see up the right-hand-side of the car in front. Guy behind you wants to see in front of you now and he moves closer to the median strip to see past you. Guy behind that driver might not have any rom to move out further so might move left toward the line for lane-1. So you have 4 or five cars all in different lines - all to help with visibility ahead. Similar sort of setup in a group of riders where they may not be exactly in line so they have a view of the road ahead for potholes etc. They would be side-by-side, but may not look like that from our car windscreen view of the road.

andy69

Larbre34 wrote: »

Whats a 125 km/h zone?

...and I think I read that she argued she was 'only 25kmh over the limit' in some sort of attempt to make it sound like it wasn't a big deal :eek:


edit: in fact I did read it, it's in that link above! jeez!!!

amcalester

andy69 wrote: »

Let's say if there were just three of them in your case above: Then possibly, you may have seen two riders side-by-side at the front, and a 3rd one behind them, but in the middle of the two in front so that his/her view of the road wasn't obscured by the rider in front.

Say you're driving on a motorway - busy auld day, lot of traffic. You're in lane 2 and there are cars in front of you and behind also.
Watch for the road positions...if ye want to see ahead of the car in front, you will move out toward the median strip to see up the right-hand-side of the car in front. Guy behind you wants to see in front of you now and he moves closer to the median strip to see past you. Guy behind that driver might not have any rom to move out further so might move left toward the line for lane-1. So you have 4 or five cars all in different lines - all to help with visibility ahead. Similar sort of setup in a group of riders where they may not be exactly in line so they have a view of the road ahead for potholes etc. They would be side-by-side, but may not look like that from our car windscreen view of the road.

You might want to change that from Lane 1 & 2 to slow lane and fast lane, only way that poster will understand you.

Lemming

Basil3 wrote: »

Ok, so I guess I didn't see 3 cyclists abreast last weekend. Is this the correct response?

Three abreast is not - contrary to the "popular" belief of RTE fools and a whole lot more besides - "illegal" in of itself. Three abreast is legal where the outside rider is performing an overtaking maneuver and it is of course safe for them to proceed.

So there's another question to ask yourself in doubt.

Eamonnator

Larbre34 wrote: »

Whats a 125 km/h zone?

I'm guessing, that it was a 120km/h zone. She said she was 25km/h over the limit. and the article says she was doing 145km/h.
She was about 20% above the limit, which is quite considerable.

Sleeper12

andy69 wrote:

Let's say if there were just three of them in your case above: Then possibly, you may have seen two riders side-by-side at the front, and a 3rd one behind them, but in the middle of the two in front so that his/her view of the road wasn't obscured by the rider in front.

I call this 2 & a half abreast if the third one behind has their front wheel between the rear wheels of the two bikes ahead.

recedite

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I call this 2 & a half abreast if the third one behind has their front wheel between the rear wheels of the two bikes ahead.

OK but that is still actually only two abreast.
The only problem here is your inability to count them correctly.