Cyclists, insurance and road tax

MojoMaker

SeanW wrote: »

Then how come we don't build dual carriageways with median breaks anymore?

I've never had an issue with Garda checkpoints, within reason. And targeting genuinely dangerous drivers (drunk, no insurance, suspended license) is fine by me. With specific regard to Donegal, those additional checks should probably be on the border if that's where the lunatics are coming from.

Nope, the lunatics are clearly all here.

Biggest single collection of anti-cycling berks I've seen in almost 20 years on Boards with barely a cyclist's IQ among ye.

Atrocious spelling, poor self-expression, low emotional reasoning, zero debating skills, complete lack of legal awareness, inability to construct and deliver an argument....just half a dozen to get us started.

This thread is an embarrassment to motorists in Ireland and listening to the abilities of the cyclists here to make reasoned debate, provide statistics and research links, and to calmly assert truth and logic in the face of whimpering invective has given me new respect for the kind of person that chooses to cycle regularly.

maestroamado

km991148 wrote: »

Er no.. riding 3 abreast is illegal. If they were in the middle of swapping over who was at the front then it's a perfectly legal overtake. It's as simple as that...

That is riding 3 abreast, laws are not vague...

km991148

maestroamado wrote: »

That's a silly comment as 3 abreast was illegal unless the law was changed when mass cycling became fashionable...

I don't agree with anyone riding 3 abreast as often its dangerous, not just illegal (others may disagree on the danger).

However, because something is illegal, dangerous or both doesn't mean that you won't encounter people doing it and more importantly doesn't mean that you are therefore allowed to do what you want. I.e. the question still stands, if it were a perfectly legal two abreast formation would they overtake? In my mind the illegal 3 abreast has little to do with it (other than just one more time s road user does something illegal).

km991148

maestroamado wrote: »

That is riding 3 abreast, laws are not vague...

Changing over who is at the front is an overtake.

One person moves round the other and a person behind takes their place. Do we need some pictures to illustrate this?

Seth Brundle

maestroamado wrote: »

I nave no intention of deleting as i know riding 3 abreast against the law, one of the other posters is going to quote the law that says its is ]legal?
I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..

The law was posted here a few pages back by one of the anti-cycling posters in response to something I had written. It confirmed that three cyclists can be riding abreast while one is overtaking the other two.
Furthermore, some drivers see what looks like three abreast but if seen from above, would show that it is not three abreast.

statto25

maestroamado wrote: »

That is riding 3 abreast, laws are not vague...

What if I cross over into the opposite lane to perform the overtake, surely that cant be considered riding 3 abreast?

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

I don't agree with anyone riding 3 abreast as often its dangerous, not just illegal (others may disagree on the danger).

What, in your view, makes it dangerous?

km991148 wrote: »

the question still stands, if it were a perfectly legal two abreast formation would they overtake? In my mind the illegal 3 abreast has little to do with it (other than just one more time s road user does something illegal).

The two could be going much slower than the third

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What, in your view, makes it dangerous?

State of the roads mainly and the need for a swerve to avoid a pothole increases. Being a bit tighter together makes it riskier to the point that it makes me a bit uncomfortable, especially if tipping along.

Like I say, I don't care about others doing it, I understand others don't feel the same way and not interested in policing the nation!

statto25

Weepsie wrote: »

Don't blow their tiny little mind like that

What if myself and a cycling compatriot were out cycling and came across another pair moving slower than ourselves. We then proceed to overtake in the opposite lane. We would then be cycling 4 a breast and the universe would simply implode in on itself

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The two could be going much slower than the third

I meant would the car still overtake. It wasn't my question originally.

km991148

Where is this single lane road that's wide enough to even overtake a single rider anyway?

Most of these roads you can't safely overtake a solo rider, never mind two or even three abreast.

statto25

km991148 wrote: »

Where is this single lane road that's wide enough to even overtake a single rider anyway?

Most of these roads you can't safely overtake a solo rider, never mind two or even three abreast.

I overtook another cyclist yesterday on a single lane road. You can most certainly overtake safely on a single lane.

John_Rambo

km991148 wrote: »

Er no.. riding 3 abreast is illegal.

But not if one is overtaking two.

Now stop.

As a fellow motorist stop. You're just making a fool of yourself. You're a bad representative for motorists, the cyclists are proving to have a better knowledge of the ROTR and better training than you.

km991148

statto25 wrote: »

I overtook another cyclist yesterday on a single lane road. You can most certainly overtake safely on a single lane.

Sorry, meant a car overtaking and leaving anything more than a few centimetres

km991148

John_Rambo wrote: »

But not if one is overtaking two.

Now stop.

As a fellow motorist stop. You're just making a fool of yourself. You're a bad representative for motorists, the cyclists are proving to have a better knowledge of the ROTR and better training than you.

Are you deliberately misquoting me or something? I quite clearly go on to explain that overtaking is clearly allowed. The only reason I'm involved here is because I tried to give the op an out to revisit their story and point out that maybe what he saw wasn't riding 3 abreast (continuously) and actually fact cyclists overtaking/changing up who was on the front. Which is legal.

Stop yourself and read the last few pages. You can apologise after if you like. I'm sorry too as I must have caused confusion and not clearly explained my points well enough.

I'm not representing any motorist here... I'm a road user that cycles. A lot. I don't even have a car right now FFS but I'm pretty damn good at both. And my da is bigger than your da :pac:

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

I meant would the car still overtake. It wasn't my question originally.

Cars don't overtake, drivers do and some drivers will do it regardless any obvious risks ahead.

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cars don't overtake.

Seriously? That needs to be pointed out?

statto25

km991148 wrote: »

Sorry, meant a car overtaking and leaving anything more than a few centimetres

Apologies, not that's not possible unless youre inside the 1.5m required

lawrencesummers

Out of interest if a cyclist is smoking a cigarette that was bought in Ireland where the Duty and Tax was paid would that make it ok to cycle on the road?

osarusan

maestroamado wrote: »

Show me where the law states there can be 3 abreast on single carriage road.
You check it out as i know what i am talking about.

maestroamado wrote: »

Show me where it states people can do this if you can...
You can enlighten us all with your knowledge...

maestroamado wrote: »

That is riding 3 abreast, laws are not vague...

Already posted in the thread:

Witcher wrote: »

Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians

3 abreast while overtaking other cyclists = legal.


Otherwise illegal.

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

Seriously? That needs to be pointed out?

Have you not read the thread. Many of the posts would indeed confirm that it does need to be pointed out!

km991148

statto25 wrote: »

Apologies, not that's not possible unless youre inside the 1.5m required

That was my point.. we have someone on here banging on about riding 3 abreast or even two abreast in country single lanes.

I can't think of any that are narrower than 2.5 or so meters meaning that you couldn't pass a solo cyclists.

John_Rambo

km991148 wrote: »

Are you deliberately misquoting me or something? I quite clearly go on to explain that overtaking is clearly allowed. The only reason I'm involved here is because I tried to give the op an out to revisit their story and point out that maybe what he saw wasn't riding 3 abreast (continuously) and actually fact cyclists overtaking/changing up who was on the front. Which is legal.

Stop yourself and read the last few pages. You can apologise after if you like. I'm sorry too as I must have caused confusion and not clearly explained my points well enough.

I'm not representing any motorist here... I'm a road user that cycles. A lot. I don't even have a car right now FFS but I'm pretty damn good at both. And my da is bigger than your da :pac:

Stop.

Please.

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

I can't think of any that are narrower than 2.5 or so meters meaning that you couldn't pass a solo cyclists.

...and yet some drivers will still try :rolleyes:

Hurrache

maestroamado wrote: »

I nave no intention of deleting as i know riding 3 abreast against the law, one of the other posters is going to quote the law that says its is ]legal?
I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..

24 hours later, and people's comprehension deficits still on display for the amusement of everyone.

km991148

John_Rambo wrote: »

Stop.

Please.

I guess that's apology accepted then :pac:

I don't know who you think I am or what you think my points are but I am almost certain you are wrong about it (not the points you are making regarding overtaking, we are in complete agreement and seem to have been)! You seem to have confused me with another poster - no need to reply here, just read the thread and maybe edit your post to not misquote me if you don't mind as I don't appreciate having my words taken out of context.

namloc1980

This is the most hysterical thread on boards at the moment, which is saying something given the hysteria over on the Covid threads! :pac:

Fighting Tao

km991148 wrote: »

Changing over who is at the front is an overtake.

One person moves round the other and a person behind takes their place. Do we need some pictures to illustrate this?

Or it could be one cyclist not with the other 2 at all, and just overtaking them.

Traumadoc

MojoMaker wrote: »

Nope, the lunatics are clearly all here.

Biggest single collection of anti-cycling berks I've seen in almost 20 years on Boards with barely a cyclist's IQ among ye.

Atrocious spelling, poor self-expression, low emotional reasoning, zero debating skills, complete lack of legal awareness, inability to construct and deliver an argument....just half a dozen to get us started.

This thread is an embarrassment to motorists in Ireland and listening to the abilities of the cyclists here to make reasoned debate, provide statistics and research links, and to calmly assert truth and logic in the face of whimpering invective has given me new respect for the kind of person that chooses to cycle regularly.

Unfortunately you are perpetuating the elitist cyclist image- sure a lot of anti-cycling motorists are knackers and not the smartest, but there is no point in ad hominem attack in this debate.

Fighting Tao

So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.