Cyclists and lorries on rural roads...

paleoperson

Isambard wrote: »

I'd like to see that Law. Have you a link?

Seriously? Keeping as close to your side of the road as possible (ie., generally the left) is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of safe driving. Obviously, if it needs to be said (and on boards.ie things like this usually do...), you don't go over the yellow line or to bad portions of the road when keeping to the left.

This is clearly stated in the Rules of the Road and in any theory test, as well as being common sense. The Rules of the Road are binding and if you don't follow them you are guilty of negligent or dangerous driving. I have complete faith in your ability to find an Irish law against negligent/dangerous driving.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Lorry is a term associated with old 'diesel in the veins' type British truckers who cut their teeth on Fodens, Seddon Atkinsons and ERF's.

Everywhere else in the world they are referred to as trucks - hence my surprise at the use in this thread.

I don't know what you're talking about. I always hear "lorry driver". Besides, Ireland tends to use the vast majority of language the UK does, vastly more than they would use a US term. The only reason people use "trucks" now is because they watch American tv and go online where they see Americans talk about "trucks" all the time. To an Irish person it's (or should be) "lorry". And yeah, I'm guilty of it myself. It's actually quite sad how globalized we're all becoming and how the differences and variety is being eroded.

Isambard

the truck should be on his own side of the line of course, but sometimes it isn't the best option for a truck to drive right up to the verge unless he has too.

This guy really shouldn't have been taking advantage of the first cyclists courtesy of riding well in to the left, the cyclists (all road users) are entitled to use all of their lane if they so wish and the trucker isn't entitled to encroach on their space.

paleoperson

Isambard wrote: »

the truck should be on his own side of the line of course, but sometimes it isn't the best option for a truck to drive right up to the verge unless he has too.

This guy really shouldn't have been taking advantage of the first cyclists courtesy of riding well in to the left, the cyclists (all road users) are entitled to use all of their lane if they so wish and the trucker isn't entitled to encroach on their space.

As has been explained they're not "entitled" to that at all. They're expected to keep as close to the side of the road as reasonably possible and away from oncoming traffic. Often they are expected to pull over completely to allow others to pass. Sides of the road/lines on the road aren't the same as and shouldn't be thought of as "territory" that the road user may occupy as they wish. Yes of course going over the line can be extremely dangerous and should only be done when there is no alternative.

elperello

When you use the road you don't get to marshal other users.
You have no right to "put manners on" or "teach a lesson to" other road users.
That kind of thing leads to trouble and can result in road rage incidents.

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

As has been explained they're not "entitled" to that at all. They're expected to keep as close to the side of the road as reasonably possible and away from oncoming traffic. Often they are expected to pull over completely to allow others to pass. Sides of the road/lines on the road aren't the same as and shouldn't be thought of as "territory" that the road user may occupy as they wish. Yes of course going over the line can be extremely dangerous and should only be done when there is no alternative.

A quote from the RSA ...

"..
Cyclists are entitled to road space as much as cars, vans, goods vehicles or any other vehicle on the road. Motorists must keep a safe distance when over taking cyclists. ..."

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cyclists/

Isambard

paleoperson wrote: »

As has been explained they're not "entitled" to that at all. They're expected to keep as close to the side of the road as reasonably possible and away from oncoming traffic. Often they are expected to pull over completely to allow others to pass. Sides of the road/lines on the road aren't the same as and shouldn't be thought of as "territory" that the road user may occupy as they wish. Yes of course going over the line can be extremely dangerous and should only be done when there is no alternative.

yeah you said that before and I asked for a link to the Law and you didn't respond. That's pure bollox, all road users are entitled to use their entire lane and there is no requirement other than they are to use the leftmost available lane.

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

Seriously? Keeping as close to your side of the road as possible (ie., generally the left) is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of safe driving. ....

Only where it's safe to do so. Its not always.

Taking the lane or taking the primary position is accepted practice in specific situations. It's one of the reasons the law that forced cyclists to stay in a cycle lane where one existed was reversed. Turning right is a simple example.

paleoperson

beauf wrote: »

A quote from the RSA ...

"..
Cyclists are entitled to road space as much as cars, vans, goods vehicles or any other vehicle on the road. Motorists must keep a safe distance when over taking cyclists. ..."

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Cyclists/

Yes they are entitled to road space as much as other vehicles, they are not entitled to go to the outside of their lane as they please.

That has nothing to do with what I said about how they are required to keep in. How is that supposed to be similar to "they are entitled to take up the whole lane out of spite or for any other reason"?

Isambard wrote: »

yeah you said that before and I asked for a link to the Law and you didn't respond. That's pure bollox, all road users are entitled to use their entire lane and there is no requirement other than they are to use the leftmost available lane.

Go away and don't be codding me.

They are required to stick to the leftern most part of the left lane, that is in the rules of the road. Not the leftern most lane, are you joking. They are legally required to keep in as much as possible. Pure and utter bollocks yourself.

I'd have a mind to report you to the authorities if you're driving and are not aware of that basic rule and deny it even after I pointed you to it as that is a very dangerous thing to think. Not only is it a danger when facing oncoming traffic who might for some reason or another come over to your side but cyclists/motorbikes often come in between cars and the cars in the lanes aren't "entitled" to block them, that would be extremely dangerous. As stated cyclists are also expected to keep to the side and allow others to overtake if possible. They're not "entitled" to stay in the middle of the lane out of spite.

beauf wrote: »

Only where it's safe to do so. Its not always.

Taking the lane or taking the primary position is accepted practice in specific situations. It's one of the reasons the law that forced cyclists to stay in a cycle lane where one existed was reversed. Turning right is a simple example.

Of course, that goes without saying.

Isambard

making up your own rules sis part of the problem. Show me where it says they must ride on the "leftern" most part of the road.

Spook_ie

Isambard wrote: »

making up your own rules sis part of the problem. Show me where it says they must ride on the "leftern" most part of the road.

Unless it's changed since 1997 then SI 182/1997 reads

Drive on Left

9. Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, approaching traffic to pass on the right and overtaking traffic to overtake on the right.

It is possible that there is an unseen hazard to the rear of the cyclist that the driver is intending to avoid, and not wanting to get into the visibility of cyclists but was the drivers attention on the 2 cyclists on his far right and just didn't spot the cyclist weaving around near the centre line.

Anyways whatever the cause no permanent damage done (except to the cyclist's shorts which may have needed a good soak in Milton or similar) and the drivers relief at not having to scrape said cyclist off his grille (assuming he ever saw him)

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

...
They are required to stick to the leftern most part of the left lane, that is in the rules of the road. Not the leftern most lane, are you joking. They are legally required to keep in as much as possible. ...

I read it as drive on the left. To allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right Not drive (or cycle) as far left in your lane as you can.

Maybe someone can quote this if it exists.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

..., and not wanting to get into the visibility of cyclists but was the drivers attention on the 2 cyclists on his far right and just didn't spot the cyclist weaving around near the centre line.. .

Looking at what's straight in front is kinda required....

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes they are entitled to road space as much as other vehicles, they are not entitled to go to the outside of their lane as they please.

That has nothing to do with what I said about how they are required to keep in. How is that supposed to be similar to "they are entitled to take up the whole lane out of spite or for any other reason"?
...

Any chance you can find an official definition of "outside of a lane" while remaining inside of it...lol

donvito99

beauf wrote: »

Any chance you can find an official definition of "outside of a lane" while remaining inside of it...lol

The only road user outside of its lane was the lorry.

micar

Horrendous experience.......lorry driver going round a slight bend to the left driving too fast crossing into the other lane.

Don't believe it was done on purpose.

Cyclist was cycling two abreast cycling a bit too far right of centre. When he sees the lorry coming to move left into the centre. He was never on the centre line.

In relation the the section outside the house.....very difficult to see what the surface is like to the left of the broken yellow line .......but it not a hard shoulder. You cannot expect them to move off the road for that short distance.

Isambard

beauf wrote: »

I read it as drive on the left. To allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right Not drive (or cycle) as far left in your lane as you can.

Maybe someone can quote this if it exists.

yes that simply means "keep left" It doesn't say cyclists have to ride practically in the ditch. Doesn't mention cyclists at all for the reason that this Law applies equally to all road users

It clearly means traffic should use the left side of the road leaving the other half for oncoming traffic and overtaking traffic.

beauf

donvito99 wrote: »

The only road user outside of its lane was the lorry.

Crazy as it seems we are debating if the left or outside of a lane (while inside a lane) is a "thing".

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

Looking at what's straight in front is kinda required....

Yeah but sometimes what might seem obvious, well it kind of isn't, especially if your attention has been drawn away by something else, anyway it's doubtful we will ever know.

So the internet will be split into factions such as, deliberately drove at cyclist, not paying attention, on phone, tuning radio etc. taking avoiding action at something behind the cyclists or whatever, but yeah lorry was over white line, nearly creamed cyclist but didn't.

paleoperson

beauf wrote: »

I read it as drive on the left. To allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right Not drive (or cycle) as far left in your lane as you can.

Maybe someone can quote this if it exists.

Is this Back to the Future or something beauf? I made my post before Spook_ie made that one, so how could I have been referring to that? I was clearly talking about the posts I was quoting.

I agree that they are referring to the left hand side of the road there.

However even by that statement it is still necessary to pull in to the left hand side, as they clearly refer to the right hand lane as something you must avoid.

Here's what they say on positioning from the RSA Rules of the Road:

Make sure you drive your vehicle far enough to the left to allow traffic to safely pass or overtake on the right, but not so far to the left that you are driving on a cycle lane or blocking or endangering cyclists or pedestrians.

I will admit I would have thought it would be a bit stronger. Certainly if you're doing the theory test you would have to put the car as left as possible. And if you have any instructor they will always tell you you must keep left as much as you can, and will be marked down in the test if you don't hug the curb to a reasonable extent. It's common knowledge and common sense.

In particular stating you're "entitled" to go at any part within your lane is a farce. Two wing mirror widths put together are longer than the width of the white line so they would hit each other if two opposing vehicles were doing that.

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

...It's common knowledge and common sense.

In particular stating you're "entitled" to go at any part within your lane is a farce. T....

Its a commonly held opinion thats incorrect.

Stay left isn't always safest place to be.

Its as simple as that.

beauf

paleoperson wrote: »

Is this Back to the Future or something beauf? I made my post before Spook_ie made that one, so how could I have been referring to that? I was clearly talking about the posts I was quoting....

The rules and laws are really the only criteria people should refer to.

Allinall

beauf wrote: »

The rules and laws are really the only criteria people should refer to.

I would disagree.

Common sense should be the default, assuming it doesn’t break any laws.

beauf

Allinall wrote: »

I would disagree.

Common sense should be the default, assuming it doesn’t break any laws.

Common sense can be a cover for popular opinion. has been wrong as much as often as its correct. Keep left dogma is a good example. The earth is flat is another.

amcalester

Allinall wrote: »

I would disagree.

Common sense should be the default, assuming it doesn’t break any laws.

That would make the law the default.

beauf

The law always has a get out clause also.

road_high

I remember in primary school early 90s learning the rules of the road- it was drummed into me to never cycle two or more abreast- that morsel of common sense seems to have gone out of the window

John_Rambo

road_high wrote: »

I remember in primary school early 90s learning the rules of the road- it was drummed into me to never cycle two or more abreast- that morsel of common sense seems to have gone out of the window

There's a truck driver on this thread remembering in truck driving school - it was drummed in to him to NEVER drive on the wrong side of the road. That morsel of common sense seems to have gone out the window.

The only difference according to the rules of the road is that the truck drover school was right and your primary school was wrong!

Back to school for you! (a good school this time)

markpb

road_high wrote: »

I remember in primary school early 90s learning the rules of the road- it was drummed into me to never cycle two or more abreast- that morsel of common sense seems to have gone out of the window

Your common sense, like your teacher, is wrong in this case. There are plenty of reasons why people could and should lawfully cycle two abreast for their safety. Your teacher is in for a surprise when they find out that three abreast is also legal when overtaking.

donvito99

donvito99 wrote: »

Something gives me the impression that the type of poster on here who says that a cyclist doing no wrong on the correct side of the road has a "death wish" is the same type of individual who probably things its grand to interfere with women because they're wearing a short skirt...

Queue some more "snowflake" and "triggered" whataboutery

Sorry Mate, but after you posted this, your credibility rating is reading zero.

Allinall

amcalester wrote: »

That would make the law the default.

No.

In this example the law says the cyclist wasn’t doing anything wrong. Legally.

Common sense would say otherwise.

He was nearly killed.

amcalester

Allinall wrote: »

No.

In this example the law says the cyclist wasn’t doing anything wrong. Legally.

Common sense would say otherwise.

He was nearly killed.

The second part of your statement contradicted the first part.

road_high

markpb wrote: »

Your common sense, like your teacher, is wrong in this case. There are plenty of reasons why people could and should lawfully cycle two abreast for their safety. Your teacher is in for a surprise when they find out that three abreast is also legal when overtaking.

Why is it safer to cycle two or three abreast? I don’t cycle much but there’s no way I’d be interested in putting myself directly in the path of much faster moving and larger vehicles just because I could. Principles don’t mean very much if you’re lying dead across a ditch.

road_high

markpb wrote: »

Your common sense, like your teacher, is wrong in this case. There are plenty of reasons why people could and should lawfully cycle two abreast for their safety. Your teacher is in for a surprise when they find out that three abreast is also legal when overtaking.

I don’t think it was a teacher teaching this specifically- it was the Road Safety council or whatever it was called then. Vaguely remember posters and flyers

beauf

road_high wrote: »

Why is it safer to cycle two or three abreast? I don’t cycle much but there’s no way I’d be interested in putting myself directly in the path of much faster moving and larger vehicles just because I could. Principles don’t mean very much if you’re lying dead across a ditch.

The truck could as easily cross over and kill pedestrians on the pavement, or a car in their correct lane. Hope do you prevent that.

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.com/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html?m=1

Allinall

Allinall wrote: »

He was nearly killed.

I was walking on the footpath the other day and a truck drove by within a half meter of me! I was NEARLY KILLED!!

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was walking on the footpath the other day and a truck drove by within a half meter of me! I was NEARLY KILLED!!

Were you on the left or the right of the pavement.
Makes all the difference.

markpb

road_high wrote: »

Why is it safer to cycle two or three abreast? I don’t cycle much but there’s no way I’d be interested in putting myself directly in the path of much faster moving and larger vehicles just because I could. Principles don’t mean very much if you’re lying dead across a ditch.

The main reason is that people trying to keep left can leave themselves with no room to manoeuvre if they come across an obstacle like a pothole or collapsed edge. Broken glass and general road debris trends to gather at the edge so it's not a great place to be.

The main reason for cycling two abreast is to prevent people from trying to squeeze past where there isn't space or visibility to overtake safely. People will try to overtake single file cyclists on solid white lines, approaching bends or hills. They underestimate how much space they need and, if they meet another vehicle unexpectedly, they'll serve away from it and towards the cyclist.

The last one is courtesy. If you're cycling as part of a larger group, cycling two or three abreast means that the group takes up less roadspace so it's easier for someone to overtake you.

Cabaal

gctest50 wrote: »

This is another good thing that could be adapted n adopted :

I wasn't aware a cycle helmet stops a 40tonne truck from crushing you.

Perhaps you can show research to backup this?

Isambard

markpb wrote: »

The main reason is that people trying to keep left can leave themselves with no room to manoeuvre if they come across an obstacle like a pothole or collapsed edge. Broken glass and general road debris trends to gather at the edge so it's not a great place to be.

The main reason for cycling two abreast is to prevent people from trying to squeeze past where there isn't space or visibility to overtake safely. People will try to overtake single file cyclists on solid white lines, approaching bends or hills. They underestimate how much space they need and, if they meet another vehicle unexpectedly, they'll serve away from it and towards the cyclist.

The last one is courtesy. If you're cycling as part of a larger group, cycling two or three abreast means that the group takes up less roadspace so it's easier for someone to overtake you.

It's the squeezing past that is dangerous, and cyclists are partly to blame for this by being courteous and staying well to the left. It opens a door for drivers which shouldn't be open.

reniwren

Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic

These are from the RSA rules of the road book page 191, so surely the amount of traffic dictates how much riding two abreast is allowed

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj4w5at7bPjAhUfRxUIHZijDqgQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw0PilNsTmCH48kRL04XjQjh

ED E

ROTR are makey up bollox. RSA say lots of things but have very little evidence to go behind it. Remember they're paid for by the motor industry not DTTAS.

If singling will encourage an unsafe overtake don't do it, simple as.

markpb

reniwren wrote: »

Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic

These are from the RSA rules of the road book page 191, so surely the amount of traffic dictates how much riding two abreast is allowed

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj4w5at7bPjAhUfRxUIHZijDqgQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw0PilNsTmCH48kRL04XjQjh

The RSA were literally making it up as they went along when they were writing their 'rules' of the road. Look at the primary legislation and see if you can find anything to back up what they're saying.

1933
http://www.legislation.ie/eli/1933/act/11/section/134/enacted/en/html

1961
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/enacted/en/html

2016
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/21/enacted/en/html

donvito99

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry Mate, but after you posted this, your credibility rating is reading zero.

Why though? Are you offended?

minikin

There’s been a massive campaign to raise awareness among drivers of the 1.5m gap required when overtaking cyclists, this was understandable given the vulnerability of cyclists. Perhaps cyclists could reciprocate by staying 1.5m from oncoming traffic... cut out this two abreast behaviour??? To hell with the law as it stands... sometimes it’s a lycra covered ass... it’s basic physics - stay as far away from lumps of moving metal as possible.

micar

It mad the number of people who don't cycle telling people who cycle on a regular basis how to cycle.

It's fu(king nuts.

At lorry driver was driving too fast on a road where the width of lorry is the same width of the road.

At the point of passing, the cyclist was in the middle of the road.

It was the cyclist who adjusted his road position.

I seriously hope the driver learned something about this.....i.e. slow the fu(k down

V8 Interceptor

Duckjob wrote: »

The fact that a driver driving a 40 tonne vehicle invaded the other side of the road at high speed to drive inches past an unprotected road user doesn't even raise an eyebrow, no?

That's my point. Suicide mission.

V8 Interceptor

kenmc wrote: »

And? Cyclists are *always* allowed cycle two abreast, and 3 if overtaking another. Sometimes, when it's safe to do so (for them) they single out to allow *other* traffic (cyclists being traffic themselves, of course) which may have built behind, to pass by. Like an observant farmer in a tractor, or perhaps a campervan or caravan may likewise do - when it's safe to do so. There is no obligation on anyone to pull over to facilitate passing, certainly not when it is dangerous.

Ah bless. Aren't they so considerate :rolleyes:

Allinall

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was walking on the footpath the other day and a truck drove by within a half meter of me! I was NEARLY KILLED!!

So what?

markpb

minikin wrote: »

Perhaps cyclists could reciprocate by staying 1.5m from oncoming traffic... cut out this two abreast behaviour??? To hell with the law as it stands... sometimes it’s a lycra covered ass... it’s basic physics - stay as far away from lumps of moving metal as possible.

What about the lumps of moving metal coming from behind?

minikin

micar wrote: »

It mad the number of people who don't cycle telling people who cycle on a regular basis how to cycle.

It's fu(king nuts.

Only mountaineers should have an opinion on people attempting to summit Mount Everest?
If people choose to increase the risk to their lives ‘because it’s not illegal’ they shouldn’t take offence at more sensible people offering their ‘amateur’ opinions... same goes for any extreme activity that is completely optional.