Cyclists and lorries on rural roads...

minikin

markpb wrote: »

What about the lumps of moving metal coming from behind?

That was my point... a massively expensive campaign... to encourage road users to stay the feck away from each other - cuts both ways!

amcalester

minikin wrote: »

That was my point... a massively expensive campaign... to encourage road users to stay the feck away from each other - cuts both ways!

I would guess that very few cyclist fatalities or injuries are the result of a collision with a vehicle traveling the opposite direction.

Much more common is the cyclist being hit from behind by an inattentive motorist traveling the same direction.

minikin

amcalester wrote: »

I would guess that very few cyclist fatalities or injuries are the result of a collision with a vehicle traveling the opposite direction.

Much more common is the cyclist being hit from behind by an inattentive motorist traveling the same direction.

I would choose physical distance over statistics to mitigate risk if I were you.
That’s why we have lines to stand behind on train platforms.

amcalester

minikin wrote: »

I would choose physical distance over statistics to mitigate risk if I were you.
That’s why we have lines to stand behind on train platforms.

But you’re not mitigating risk, it’s a nonissue and your suggestion is just an attempt at petty point scoring.

micar

minikin wrote: »

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.

Some motorits are not heeding this 1.5m gap. They haven't a clue what constitutes 1.5m from their wing mirror.

On this road, do you think cars pass each other with 1.5m gap.

donvito99

Question - replace car with cyclist in this instance where the lorry crosses the white line? There would be no debate. There is no distinction between a cyclist and a car in the eyes of the law in this situation. Drive on the left. Lorry did not.

minikin

Ah here, sounds like you’re more interested in being right (by forcing everyone else to modify their behaviour) than in being safe, healthy and alive (by making a tiny adjustment to your own behaviour).

Good luck with that.

When I’m on a country road, as a pedestrian / cyclist or driver I do as much as possible to reduce risk because some other road users are spas, some are dangerous and some are down right suicidal in their behaviour. All I can do is be as visible as possible and as far away from them as possible.

donvito99

minikin wrote: »

Ah here, sounds like you’re more interested in being right (by forcing everyone else to modify their behaviour) than in being safe, healthy and alive (by making a tiny adjustment to your own behaviour).

Good luck with that.

Who has introduced the danger here, the cyclist in the middle of the lane, or the massive lorry crossing the white line and having about a third of his vehicle on the wrong side of the road?

Seth Brundle

There are a number of points raised in this thread which should make people think twice about their behaviour on the road.
* Cycling two abreast is completely legal. A third cyclist may overtake those two if safe to do so.
* Everyone using the roads must exercise caution towards other road users.
* Road users must be able to stop for potential hazards.
* Cycling on roads is safer if one takes the lane and forces traffic behind to overtake as if they were passing a car. Cycling over in the far left encourages dangerous overtaking (even if the overtake believes that they are doing so in a safe manner). The RSA have changed tack (from their traditional cycle on the left nonsense) and will be telling this to the public later this year in a forthcoming campaign.

The reality that there a lot of bad road users out there. Yes some of these are cyclists (I dont believe the ones in the video were!) but don't forget that cyclists don't kill 3 or 4 people each week!
I'd question the abilities of some of the road users posting in this thread given the lack of knowldge in terms of road safety laws. Simple stuff about exercising caution near vulnerable road users rather than the obvious anger should be basic to all. Would people take the same view if it was a teenager on the bike here coming from school?

The truck here is completely at fault. The suggestion that the cyclist is partly or fully responsible for the truckers behaviour are completely in the wrong and people who believe that the cyclist is somehow at fault should seriously re-evaluate their driving abilities.

I would suggest those that dispute my points above cycle 30k and see for themselves.

beauf

minikin wrote: »

I would choose physical distance over statistics to mitigate risk if I were you.
That’s why we have lines to stand behind on train platforms.

Ironically you are choosing theory based on no knowledge or experience (which you'll think is common sense) over long experience backed up by statistics.

donvito99

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There are a number of points raised in this thread which should make people think twice about their behaviour on the road.
* Cycling two abreast is completely legal. A third cyclist may overtake those two if safe to do so.
* Everyone using the roads must exercise caution towards other road users.
* Road users must be able to stop for potential hazards.
* Cycling on roads is safer if one takes the lane and forces traffic behind to overtake as if they were passing a car. Cycling over in the far left encourages dangerous overtaking (even if the overtake believes that they are doing so in a safe manner). The RSA have changed tack (from their traditional cycle on the left nonsense) and will be telling this to the public later this year in a forthcoming campaign.

The reality that there a lot of bad road users out there. Yes some of these are cyclists (I dont believe the ones in the video were!) but don't forget that cyclists don't kill 3 or 4 people each week!
I'd question the abilities of some of the road users posting in this thread given the lack of knowldge in terms of road safety laws. Simple stuff about exercising caution near vulnerable road users rather than the obvious anger should be basic to all. Would people take the same view if it was a teenager on the bike here coming from school?

The truck here is completely at fault. The suggestion that the cyclist is partly or fully responsible for the truckers behaviour are completely in the wrong and people who believe that the cyclist is somehow at fault should seriously re-evaluate their driving abilities.

I would suggest those that dispute my points above cycle 30k and see for themselves.

We're 14 pages into a thread where a truck drive the wrong way down a road into oncoming traffic and it is still up for dispute as to who is in the wrong.

No wonder Irish drivers are useless.

minikin

donvito99 wrote: »

Who has introduced the danger here, the cyclist in the middle of the lane, or the massive lorry crossing the white line and having about a third of his vehicle on the wrong side of the road?

You are missing the point.

Nobody is saying the truck driver was in the right here!

The cyclist put themselves closer to potential danger in relation to oncoming traffic than they needed to - contributing factor... You seem blinded to logic by your own rights here...

minikin

beauf wrote: »

Ironically you are choosing theory based on no knowledge or experience (which you'll think is common sense) over long experience backed up by statistics.

What’s your basis for saying I have no knowledge or experience???
Arrogant much?

What good are statistics to a dead road user???
Statistically you are unlikely to get crushed by a falling piano, would you walk under a piano being hoisted over a pavement?

donvito99

minikin wrote: »

You are missing the point.

Nobody is saying the truck driver was in the right here!

The cyclist put themselves closer to potential danger in relation to oncoming traffic than they needed to - contributing factor... You seem blinded to logic by your own rights here...

If you are on the roads, you are under no obligation to mitigate your loss. He was in the middle of the lane, had the truck passed on his side of the road, no issue, no complaints, move on.

But the truck comes straight for him, and the answer is, sure you could have been further to the left of the lane...? The logic that I am blinded by is the not unreasonable expectation that Irish motorists can drive... maybe that's where my logic falls down..

Seth Brundle

minikin wrote: »

You are missing the point.

Nobody is saying the truck driver was in the right here!

The cyclist put themselves closer to potential danger in relation to oncoming traffic than they needed to - contributing factor... You seem blinded to logic by your own rights here...

How exactly did the cyclist contribute to the near fatal incident and what should they have done differently?

donvito99

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How exactly did the cyclist contribute to the near fatal incident and what should they have done differently?

Apparently, the cyclist is obliged to get right over to the gutter on the left at all times because he should expect vehicular traffic from the opposite direction to be using both sides of the road...

minikin

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How exactly did the cyclist contribute to the near fatal incident and what should they have done differently?

Stayed on the left hand side of their own lane or even if it came to it - get into the massive fecking hard shoulder on the left hand side???

Seth Brundle

donvito99 wrote: »

Apparently, the cyclist is obliged to get right over to the gutter on the left at all times because he should expect vehicular traffic from the opposite direction to be using both sides of the road...

It couldn't be because if minikin understands road safety then they wouldn't come out with such a stupid comment!

Seth Brundle

minikin wrote: »

Stayed on the left hand side of their own lane or even if it came to it - get into the massive fecking hard shoulder on the left hand side???

Ok so you did come out with such a stupid comment.
Jesus Christ, stop driving as you're a danger to vulnerable road users!

minikin

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Ok so you did come out with such a stupid comment.
Jesus Christ, stop driving as you're a danger to vulnerable road users!

Your point, much like your cycling is erratic and unwise.
Perhaps your helmet is on too tight as you have no grasp of physics or personal consequences to impact with a superior force.

donvito99

minikin wrote: »

Your point, much like your cycling is erratic and unwise.

I wasn't aware that being on the correct right side of the road was to use the road erratically, so unpredictable.

He should get himself into a car and drive against traffic, that wouldn't be erratic at all.

minikin

donvito99 wrote: »

I wasn't aware that being on the correct right side of the road was to use the road erratically, so unpredictable.

He should get himself into a car and drive against traffic, that wouldn't be erratic at all.

Again... how many times does this need to be pointed out... it’s not about right or wrong... it’s about self preservation.

That’s why when out walking on a country road I will stop and stand in off the road if I see a vehicle coming towards me - just in case it meets a car in the opposite direction at the point where it passes me.... I mean I would be entirely within my rights to remain in the road as a pedestrian but I value my life so don’t mind subjugating my rights for a moment.

When driving on country roads I keep to the left of the lane when the lane is empty to minimise the risk of collision with oncoming traffic because sometimes the other driver might veer over into your lane because nobody and no machine is perfect.... doing as much as I can to protect myself and my passengers.

Seth Brundle

minikin wrote: »

Your point, much like your cycling is erratic and unwise.
Perhaps your helmet is on too tight as you have no grasp of physics or personal consequences to impact with a superior force.

Good rebuttal which appears to reflect your maturity level :rolleyes:

minikin wrote: »

Again... how many times does this need to be pointed out... it’s not about right or wrong... it’s about self preservation.

That’s why when out walking on a country road I will stop and stand in off the road if I see a vehicle coming towards me - just in case it meets a car in the opposite direction at the point where it passes me.... I mean I would be entirely within my rights to remain in the road as a pedestrian but I value my life so don’t mind subjugating my rights for a moment.

When driving on country roads I keep to the left of the lane when the lane is empty to minimise the risk of collision with oncoming traffic because sometimes the other driver might veer over into your lane because nobody and no machine is perfect.... doing as much as I can to protect myself and my passengers.

Research has proven my points to be safer for cyclists which you omit from your post and which is what we're discussing here.

Also should all vulnerable road users keep off the roads because of the potential dangers or should we not remove those specific dangers?

beauf

minikin wrote: »

Again... how many times does this need to be pointed out... it’s not about right or wrong... it’s about self preservation.

That’s why when out walking on a country road I will stop and stand in off the road if I see a vehicle coming towards me - just in case it meets a car in the opposite direction at the point where it passes me.... I mean I would be entirely within my rights to remain in the road as a pedestrian but I value my life so don’t mind subjugating my rights for a moment.

When driving on country roads I keep to the left of the lane when the lane is empty to minimise the risk of collision with oncoming traffic because sometimes the other driver might veer over into your lane because nobody and no machine is perfect.... doing as much as I can to protect myself and my passengers.

None of that will help if a truck decides to cross into the opposite side to hit you. I guess then you'd blame the pedestrian for walking on the pavement.

Taken to it's logical conclusion people shouldn't drive in cars either as they'll be obliterated when a truck hits them on the wrong side of the road. We should drive as if every truck will do this....and it will be the cars fault...

minikin

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Good rebuttal which appears to reflect your maturity level :rolleyes:


Research has proven my points to be safer for cyclists which you omit from your post and which is what we're discussing here.

Also should all vulnerable road users keep off the roads because of the potential dangers or should we not remove those specific dangers?

Just responding in kind to your own childish personalised remarks Seth...

You love your straw men... I haven’t posited any such argument for cyclists or pedestrians no longer using the roads. Just that ALL road users behave in such a way to help each other protect each other. It’s in everybody’s interests to stay as far away laterally from each other as possible... that’s my point.

If your rebuttal to physics is ‘statistics’ ‘research’ ‘you’re not one of us’ then there’s little more I can do to help you.

swarlb

donvito99 wrote: »

We're 14 pages into a thread where a truck drive the wrong way down a road into oncoming traffic and it is still up for dispute as to who is in the wrong.

No wonder Irish drivers are useless.

Almost 15 pages into it now.... and it was a LORRY driver.... that obviously makes a difference.

donvito99

minikin wrote: »

Just that ALL road users behave in such a way to help each other protect each other.

Bank tellers should wear bullet proof vests because it helps armed robbers conduct their business more safely.

minikin

donvito99 wrote: »

Bank tellers should wear bullet proof vests because it helps armed robbers conduct their business more safely.

And there it is... reaching maximum levels of dumbpidity here.

Seth Brundle

minikin wrote: »

Just responding in kind to your own childish personalised remarks Seth...

Your comment was stupid!
Mine wasn't. You also assume to know how I cycle and then come out with stupidity about a helmet.

minikin wrote: »

You love your straw men... I haven’t posited any such argument for cyclists or pedestrians no longer using the roads. Just that ALL road users behave in such a way to help each other protect each other. It’s in everybody’s interests to stay as far away laterally from each other as possible... that’s my point.

If your rebuttal to physics is ‘statistics’ ‘research’ ‘you’re not one of us’ then there’s little more I can do to help you.

Plenty of research shows that cyclists keeping left encourages dangerous overtaking where the overtaking vehicle barely or doesn't move from their lane which leaves the cyclist with no room to take evasive action. It is advisable to cycle around the centre of the lane to force drivers to take more caution when overtaking. None of that is relevant go when an oncoming truck decides to aim almost directly for you.
I stand by my belief that you are just another selfish driver, with limited knowledge or concern for other road users, who believes that the roads are for your use only and feck everyone else!

corks finest

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Why was the cyclist cycling in the middle of the road ?, on one or two occasions almost crossing the white line himself.

Some bloody cyclists are morons( I cycle) mindset is my space ie middle of the road I can understand it but it's a bloody gamble especially on rural roads

beauf

minikin wrote: »

Just responding in kind to your own childish personalised remarks Seth...

You love your straw men... I haven’t posited any such argument for cyclists or pedestrians no longer using the roads. Just that ALL road users behave in such a way to help each other protect each other. It’s in everybody’s interests to stay as far away laterally from each other as possible... that’s my point.

If your rebuttal to physics is ‘statistics’ ‘research’ ‘you’re not one of us’ then there’s little more I can do to help you.

How far left then makes a difference if driving a car and truck crosses the road.

minikin

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Your comment was stupid!
Mine wasn't. You also assume to know how I cycle and then come out with stupidity about a helmet.


Plenty of research shows that cyclists keeping left encourages dangerous overtaking where the overtaking vehicle barely or doesn't move from their lane which leaves the cyclist with no room to take evasive action. It is advisable to cycle around the centre of the lane to force drivers to take more caution when overtaking. None of that is relevant go when an oncoming truck decides to aim almost directly for you.
I stand by my belief that you are just another selfish driver, with limited knowledge or concern for other road users, who believes that the roads are for your use only and feck everyone else!

And that’s all it is... a belief, based on a few lines typed on a discussion forum.
You only see the error in that mode of belief when it’s mirrored back at you as a cyclist... what is clear as day is your inability to see both sides of a discussion... you are right, everyone with an opposing view is stupid.... great basis for learning and evolving there.

minikin

beauf wrote: »

How far left then makes a difference if driving a car and truck crosses the road.

As far as possible because I’d rather lose a wing mirror than my life.
Just as I’d rather lose road position and pride than my life.

Putting aside the law for a second, it is stupid to speed, use a phone, be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, not wear a seatbelt, drive an unsafe vehicle.... a sensible driver will not do these things because any or all of them increase the risk of harm to themselves or others.
A sensible road user (of whatever mode) will do likewise... regardless of their standing in law.

It’s not illegal to cycle without a helmet but it would be unwise to do so.
It’s not illegal to cycle wearing the same colour as the roads and ditches around you but it would be unwise to do so.

We need to stop seeing this as a them and us situation, I drive defensively and protectively of other road users as I am exactly that at other times... sometimes a pedestrian, sometimes a cyclist, sometimes a driver.

beauf

corks finest wrote: »

Some bloody cyclists are morons( I cycle) mindset is my space ie middle of the road I can understand it but it's a bloody gamble especially on rural roads

On dangerous fast road with fast traffic you should stay far left. That would be fine. But we've moved into you should always stay far left in all situations because statistics and experience is completed trumped by someone with a measuring tape.

beauf

minikin wrote: »

As far as possible because I’d rather lose a wing mirror than my life.
Just as I’d rather lose road position and pride than my life.

That's in the lay by then. Thats as far as is possible.

Ave Sodalis

The cyclist was not even a little bit at fault here, and it's scary to think we share the road with some posters who think anyone except the lorry driver is to blame.



I'm not a cyclist, for the record.

minikin

beauf wrote: »

That's in the lay by then. Thats as far as is possible.

If you were the cyclist that captured the footage of this crazy driving in the original post would you have been in less danger, in this instance, if on the left of the lane or even in the hard shoulder? Simple question.

Seth Brundle

minikin wrote: »

If you were the cyclist that captured the footage of this crazy driving in the original post would you have been in less danger, in this instance, if on the left of the lane or even in the hard shoulder? Simple question.

Classic victim blaming!
:rolleyes:

Edit: are you really not able to take a step back and see the shíte that you're posting?

amcalester

I knew it was the cyclist’s fault. Even when it wasn’t, it was still the cyclist’s fault.

beauf

In this instance anticipating the truck would drive at him. He should have hidden behind the house.

The truck would still go though the house. But you'd have the illusion of safety.

minikin

amcalester wrote: »

I knew it was the cyclist’s fault. Even when it wasn’t, it was still the cyclist’s fault.

Sorry that that went 1.5m above your head... try looking at the post and ACTUALLY READING what’s there rather than what you think to be there.
Have another go at it and actually try answering the question rather than accusing me of ascribing any blame whatsoever on the cyclist. I don’t see this in terms of blame or fault (the driver is driving dangerously and illegally). I’m asking if the cyclist has done everything they can to not increase risk of such an incident to themselves. But sure no doubt you’ll ignore this point too.

I don’t walk along cliff edges taking comfort that the council should ensure it is safe to do so, I protect myself with the reasonable assumption that the further back I stand from the edge the less likely it is I will fall off if something happens.

Distance from danger = greater safety.
Isn’t this the whole point of the 1.5m campaign???

beauf

minikin wrote: »

... I’m asking if the cyclist has done everything they can to not increase risk of such an incident to themselves. But sure no doubt you’ll ignore this point too.

Not being on the road at all?

What you are saying is you should plan for that 1% of risk not the 50% more likely one.

minikin

beauf wrote: »

Not being on the road at all?

What you are saying is you should plan for that 1% of risk not the 50% more likely one.

Rather than ‘so what you are saying is...’ to my point how about actually answering the simple question I asked?

beauf

minikin wrote: »

...
Distance from danger = greater safety.
Isn’t this the whole point of the 1.5m campaign???

No. It's danger from traffic in the same lane same direction passing too close. That's the whole point.

beauf

minikin wrote: »

Rather than ‘so what you are saying is...’ to my point how about actually answering the simple question I asked?

I did I agreed with you cyclist should have gone behind the house and into the field increasing the distance from the truck and the road. Safety = Distance.

I guess that's why your suggesting driving in the hard shoulder would also be safer. Maybe you can get a campaign going for that also.

minikin

beauf wrote: »

No. It's danger from traffic in the same lane same direction passing too close. That's the whole point.

The impact speed of a head on collision is far in excess of that from behind
Head on: 30km/hr + 80km/hr = 110km/hr
From behind: 80km/hr - 30km/hr = 50km/hr

The latter impact is catastrophic, but you’re choosing not to lessen the risk of the former because the law says you are allowed cycle two abreast... not very clever.

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.

Steady now lads, we can all see who the rapists are.

On a more serious note, how is the cyclist now? Is he out of hospital? Any gofundme page to donate to?

paleoperson

markpb wrote: »

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.

So to prevent people from overtaking you and as courtesy to allow overtaking you easier.

Does it not strike you as being at all odd that the two reasons you give for riding two abreast are the exact opposite of each other?

beauf

minikin wrote: »

The impact speed of a head on collision is far in excess of that from behind
Head on: 30km/hr + 80km/hr = 110km/hr
From behind: 80km/hr - 30km/hr = 50km/hr

The latter impact is catastrophic, but you’re choosing not to lessen the risk of the former because the law says you are allowed cycle two abreast... not very clever.

So you reckon the priority is to lessen the risk of the least common accidents rather than the highest common accidents.

gctest50

beauf wrote: »

So you reckon the priority is to lessen the risk of the least common accidents rather than the highest common accidents.

Need to lessen the risk of all accidents

That's why bicycle helmets should be compulsory