Skipping at traffic lights

Alek · 31-10-2014 3:48pm

If I am travelling at 40Kmph I should match the speed of the slower cyclist ahead of me?

Yes, until (or unless) it is safe to overtake. For both of you. Same as with other moving objects on the road.

This is what buffalo meant I assume.

Rory28 · 31-10-2014 4:03pm

I was hit crossing the road in front of the Q bar last time I was in the Dublin. Fúcker ran a red plowed into me and then sped off without so much as a woopsidaiyies. Spilled my coffee the smelly poo poo head.

Alf Veedersane · 31-10-2014 4:16pm

I'm not sure it's skipping.

It seems a bit more like flouncing.

kenmc · 31-10-2014 5:38pm

Rory28 wrote: »

I was hit crossing the road in front of the Q bar last time I was in the Dublin. Fúcker ran a red plowed into me and then sped off without so much as a woopsidaiyies. Spilled my coffee the smelly poo poo head.

you'll want the "don't stop at red" thread, not the "shoal at red" thread.
that one is on the second friday of the month.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 31-10-2014 6:17pm

Alek wrote: »

Yes, until (or unless) it is safe to overtake. For both of you. Same as with other moving objects on the road.

This is what buffalo meant I assume.

Why would you (or buffaly) insinuate that I was overtaking dangerously. Overtaking is dangerous regardless of how safe you are.

You may have a lot of room, check over your shoulder, move out and VROOM!!! A Vehicle travelling at 80-100Kmph just misses you.

I find overtaking, no matter how careful you are, is always risky and should be treated as such.

ROK ON · 31-10-2014 10:07pm

I was accused by a cyclist the other day of breaking lights when I did not.
She had the lights and turned onto the road where I was waiting at a red light - while the usual load of cyclists pushed by me and barred through the red light.
Lights go green for me and intake off and pass this person up ahead of me. As I pass between her and a car stationary in traffic she goes a bit Bolshy and accuses me of breaking lights and giving cyclists a bad name.
I was furious given that I waited at the lights for a good while as the just turned red when I arrived at them.
Bit shocked - only thing I could say to her was relax.
Still a bit bugged by it. You simply can't win.
I think some people cannot accept that other peoples commuting pace is faster than them - so they take an overtake as an insult. I'm not fast. Just faster than about half the commuters with I'd say about half again faster than me.
I dress in Lycra commuting for comfort and utility. But I don't race while commuting - ever.
Find it nuts that I can't overtake some daft bird without getting a dose of verbals.

galwaycyclist · 31-10-2014 10:25pm

ROK ON wrote: »

I was accused by a cyclist the other day of breaking lights when I did not.
She had the lights and turned onto the road where I was waiting at a red light - while the usual load of cyclists pushed by me and barred through the red light.
Lights go green for me and intake off and pass this person up ahead of me. As I pass between her and a car stationary in traffic she goes a bit Bolshy and accuses me of breaking lights and giving cyclists a bad name.
I was furious given that I waited at the lights for a good while as the just turned red when I arrived at them.
Bit shocked - only thing I could say to her was relax.
Still a bit bugged by it. You simply can't win.
I think some people cannot accept that other peoples commuting pace is faster than them - so they take an overtake as an insult. I'm not fast. Just faster than about half the commuters with I'd say about half again faster than me.
I dress in Lycra commuting for comfort and utility. But I don't race while commuting - ever.
Find it nuts that I can't overtake some daft bird without getting a dose of verbals.

If you are so fit and fast then why aren't you out overtaking the cars on the right?

I would personally think it bad form to interfere by imposing your own overtaking manoeuvre on top of someone who was in possession of the road before you and is also in the middle of an overtaking manoeuvre themselves.

If she was on the road first then she has priority over you.

ROK ON · 31-10-2014 10:39pm

I am neither fit or fast. This lady wasn't overtaking anyone. She was cycling on the road. The car to my right was stuck in traffic and not moving. There was ample space for me to pass by the lady with space.
There was no one trying to cram into space that wasn't there. She simply got antsy because I passed her. She wasn't holding me up because the space existed to pass. If she was holding me up I would simply have waited until I could pass.

Do you feel that when space exists to safely overtake that somehow i should cycle behind someone for some reason?

eeeee · 31-10-2014 10:58pm

Try being a woman on an old racer. I'm like a target for them :rolleyes: 99% of other cyclists shoal by me at lights. I pass 90% when the lights go green and it's safe to go by. You rarely see them again. Guys On old mountain bikes with tracksuit bottoms on cycling with knees out are the worst offenders. Fcukwits!

rollingscone · 31-10-2014 11:17pm

gadetra wrote: »

Try being a woman on an old racer. I'm like a target for them :rolleyes: 99% of other cyclists shoal by me at lights. I pass 90% when the lights go green and it's safe to go by. You rarely see them again. Guys On old mountain bikes with tracksuit bottoms on cycling with knees out are the worst offenders. Fcukwits!

Can I try a. Being on an old racer or b. Being a woman without simultaneously experiencing the other or is it a package deal/magical bicycle scenario?

Shoaling annoys me but the endless reckless to downright overtaking by not very fast cyclists of each other never ceases to amaze me.

meisce · 31-10-2014 11:21pm

The one I really hate is the guy with the battery pack strapped to his bike who skips through every set of lights only to then meander along blocking up the cycle lane

galwaycyclist · 31-10-2014 11:53pm

ROK ON wrote: »

I am neither fit or fast. This lady wasn't overtaking anyone. She was cycling on the road. The car to my right was stuck in traffic and not moving. There was ample space for me to pass by the lady with space.
There was no one trying to cram into space that wasn't there. She simply got antsy because I passed her. She wasn't holding me up because the space existed to pass. If she was holding me up I would simply have waited until I could pass.

Do you feel that when space exists to safely overtake that somehow i should cycle behind someone for some reason?

To point out the glaringly obvious she was clearly overtaking the car. The fact that its stopped doesn't mean the manoeuvre is any different to other overtaking situations. Indeed the fact that the overtaking is happening on the non-standard side means more caution is needed.

I don't know why she got angry but based on your description of your own behaviour, it sounds as if you were behaving in an inconsiderate manner (at best).

Yes I think it is inconsiderate and obnoxious behaviour to push between two drivers when one is overtaking the other.

The fact that you thought you had enough space to get away with it does not appear to me to change the essential facts.

Plastik · 01-11-2014 12:12am

Sorry, but that's utterly bewildering logic. If you were to adhere to what you are suggesting there would be gridlock in rush hour of vehicles in the lanes and cyclists waiting for the lane to become free so they could overtake someone bolt upright in flapping high-vis because they are at the head of the space between the lane and vehicles. If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

Zyzz · 01-11-2014 12:46am

gadetra wrote: »

Try being a woman on an old racer. I'm like a target for them :rolleyes: 99% of other cyclists shoal by me at lights. I pass 90% when the lights go green and it's safe to go by. You rarely see them again. Guys On old mountain bikes with tracksuit bottoms on cycling with knees out are the worst offenders. Fcukwits!

This is all spoken in past tense* :P

ROK ON · 01-11-2014 1:33am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To point out the glaringly obvious she was clearly overtaking the car. The fact that its stopped doesn't mean the manoeuvre is any different to other overtaking situations. Indeed the fact that the overtaking is happening on the non-standard side means more caution is needed.

I don't know why she got angry but based on your description of your own behaviour, it sounds as if you were behaving in an inconsiderate manner (at best).

Yes I think it is inconsiderate and obnoxious behaviour to push between two drivers when one is overtaking the other.

The fact that you thought you had enough space to get away with it does not appear to me to change the essential facts.

We have very different views of how to commute.
I believe that one can safely overtake another cyclist when in traffic. Your view of my judgement appears different. I won't ever agree.

Baron Kurtz · 01-11-2014 3:47am

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

I have said it to people before, but they get very defensive. Some parts of my commute are dangerous and to overtake a cyclist again puts me in more risk. I think it's pure ignorant.

Sometimes I position myself in an awkward position. If there is traffic, my bike is slanted so these eejits can't pass. Other parts of the road I just take up the centre road at the front (no traffic).

Yeah, briefly tried the slanting, but serves little opposition to the trenchant light dismissing tard.

On a similar note I was called plenty of choice names by an eager light breaking cyclist, who I was apparently impeding, for stopping up between curb and car at a red light. I legitimately wait here for a green to show (bottle-necking those behind who have already cycled gleefully through the last 4 sets of lights).

So by their assessment I'm the **** for stalling their progress through the next red. I said "pick another route through the traffic because I won't go until it's green and you won't fit through here". That's their prerogative to go another route through traffic but essentially rude, disingenuous and crass to attempt to bump me out of the way for abiding by the rules.

This proceeded with multiple tyre tapping and "come on, let me through!". Unreal. Where were they going at the red light? Subsequently I was cursed at profusely, for keeping to the rules. Sad state when this is supposedly normal behaviour and worse still that they actually thought my adhering to the rules was abnormal.

I'm generally relaxed about cycling as I've no hang up about making every light and rushing around but it's the unnecessary abuse I was subjected (especially as I wasn't doing anything wrong) to that grates, particularly on this occasion.

It's the casual expletives that get me and probably little did that person know (not being the hard man etc) that I might just follow you up, get off the bike and take you to task physically. It just seems so easy for people to do it on a bike in motion. The same people wouldn't do it as pedestrians I'd imagine.

eeeee · 01-11-2014 7:00am

Zyzz wrote: »

This is all spoken in past tense* :P

You're so so mean

Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it?

*bambi face*

eeeee · 01-11-2014 7:01am

rollingscone wrote: »

Can I try a. Being on an old racer or b. Being a woman without simultaneously experiencing the other or is it a package deal/magical bicycle scenario?.

It's a package deal with extra feminism

Harrybelafonte · 01-11-2014 8:55am

gadetra wrote: »

You're so so mean Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it? *bambi face*

Wouldn't worry about it, I'm pretty much sat on my ass for the last two months, so you're probably doing more than me. It'll all end well.

CramCycle · 01-11-2014 10:25am

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

This proceeded with multiple tyre tapping

I wouldn't be able to tolerate that at all, not a physical guy so probably would have just backed up awkwardly so they couldn't and let them go ballistic as the light went green and I didn't move.

rollingscone · 01-11-2014 10:33am

gadetra wrote: »

You're so so mean Come January when I have two arms and my fitness back I'll be totally back On it *harrumph*

I'm dreading how slow I'm gonna be ' in the wild'. Turbo doesn't really count as towards proper cycling fitness does it? *bambi face*

Yes. Yes it does. I decided to get a turbo the day I met Carpenter on the road and he, after months out due to a broken bone had to wait for me at the top of every climb. He explained how he'd been on the Turbo again since before he regained the ability to walk.

galwaycyclist · 01-11-2014 11:03am

Plastik wrote: »

Sorry, but that's utterly bewildering logic. If you were to adhere to what you are suggesting there would be gridlock in rush hour of vehicles in the lanes and cyclists waiting for the lane to become free so they could overtake someone bolt upright in flapping high-vis because they are at the head of the space between the lane and vehicles. If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

ROK ON · 01-11-2014 12:15pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why presume that overtaking means that a person is hurried?
It simply means that one person is going faster than another.
That implies nothing. Different people travel at different speeds for all sorts of reasons - an o errand can't imply anything other than an overtake. As long as it is safe, not invading someones space and not discourteous then I can't perceive an issue.
Do you suggest that no overtaking occurs on urban streets even if space exists?
Should we all travel at some preordained unhurried space?
What is the issue about o retaking cars on the outside?
I can think of roads where I could safely overtake a fellow cyclists at say 20-25k but that cars outside of me may be going 60+

galwaycyclist · 01-11-2014 12:40pm

ROK ON wrote: »

Why presume that overtaking means that a person is hurried?
It simply means that one person is going faster than another.
That implies nothing. Different people travel at different speeds for all sorts of reasons - an o errand can't imply anything other than an overtake. As long as it is safe, not invading someones space and not discourteous then I can't perceive an issue.
Do you suggest that no overtaking occurs on urban streets even if space exists?
Should we all travel at some preordained unhurried space?
What is the issue about o retaking cars on the outside?
I can think of roads where I could safely overtake a fellow cyclists at say 20-25k but that cars outside of me may be going 60+

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

Plastik · 01-11-2014 12:57pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Again I ask the question. If you are in such a hurry then why aren't you overtaking the cars on the right?

I'm not in a hurry. In fact for 95% of my time commuting in Dublin on bike I'm absolutely not in a hurry. I try and keep my HR right down in z1/z2. In case that means nothing to you, that's easy. Never the less, I'm quite a lot faster than a lot of commuters. But am I in a hurry, no.

I overtake filter through traffic in the safest way possible. I occasionally filter between two lanes of stationary traffic. I occasionally filter down the outside between traffic on my side and oncoming traffic, but by enlarge, I filter down the inside. And I'll explain it to you just to alleviate your facetiousness, I do it on the inside because it's generally the safest place to do it. It's where the cycle lane is. It's where the bus lane is. And most importantly of all, if you have ever spent time cycling on heavily congested roads, it's where drivers expect you to be. And that expectation counts for a lot if you don't want to get run over.

Please explain why you think that passing another cyclist, while we are both filtering through stationary traffic, puts us in conflict with each other? Why do you think that someone cycling slowly has the right to complain to someone that passes them if there was ample room to do it and there was no danger to either party?

ROK ON · 01-11-2014 1:11pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

I don't believe that passing other cyclists puts me into conflict with those cyclists - meaning that I pass when it is safe to do so. But I have also passed cyclists while cycling in front of cars moving behind me. The only time I go outside cars is when I am either turning right and/or cars are moving so slowly and there is no way past on the inside. In the circumstances I outlined there was plenty of space - I was in a bus lane as was the cyclist I passed. The cars stuck in traffic were sharing the same street but not the same exact lane. As I have mentioned - there was a lot of space.
It is unnecessary to overtake outside a car when ample space exists to overtake outside the cyclist in a standard fashion.

But don't worry, I wouldn't ever be able to overtake you safely. It would be impossible to navigate around the extraordinarily large chip on your shoulder.

galwaycyclist · 01-11-2014 1:41pm

ROK ON wrote: »

I don't believe that passing other cyclists puts me into conflict with those cyclists - meaning that I pass when it is safe to do so. But I have also passed cyclists while cycling in front of cars moving behind me. The only time I go outside cars is when I am either turning right and/or cars are moving so slowly and there is no way past on the inside. In the circumstances I outlined there was plenty of space - I was in a bus lane as was the cyclist I passed. The cars stuck in traffic were sharing the same street but not the same exact lane. As I have mentioned - there was a lot of space.
It is unnecessary to overtake outside a car when ample space exists to overtake outside the cyclist in a standard fashion.

But don't worry, I wouldn't ever be able to overtake you safely. It would be impossible to navigate around the extraordinarily large chip on your shoulder.

Funny that you are only mentioning the bus lane part now. In congested conditions I usually pass on the right. So no it is unlikely that you would find yourself overtaking me.

Overtaking two vehicles in the same lane at the same time when one is also overtaking the other is, with regret, not describable as overtaking in the "standard" manner. It could be seen as a bit "daft".

Something tells me it would be interesting to get the other party's side of the story on this.

Lumen · 01-11-2014 1:44pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Overtaking two vehicles in the same lane at the same time when one is also overtaking the other is, with regret, not describable as overtaking in the "standard" manner. It could be seen as a bit "daft".

The law considers bicycles three abreast in a single lane when overtaking to be normal.

lukegjpotter · 01-11-2014 2:21pm

Where are the cops to dish out a few â‚¬750 fines to these?

What I also find annoying is when the slower dudes stop in front of you at the lights. Like they're putting everyone in danger by having me to go around them.

When I'm driving, and I see cyclist not peddling, just coasting down a narrow road, it makes me feel sad for humanity.

Weepsie · 01-11-2014 3:39pm

I always have to stop at the 5 lamps heading into town. Generally people take their place in line as it can be a busy stretch. There's one guy who repeatedly goes up on the path and goes to the front and then goes quite slowly. He nearly got himself hit by a car and it would've been his fault as he didn't appear to be paying much attention.

A few days after his near miss and having had him do this again and again I was first in the queue and he did it again, I asked him to stop doing it, that he can't cycle on the path and he would arguably be better off otherwise. He said sorry but late passed me when I was stationery to turn to say something smart about what I was doing of which was nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.

As with every group their are a few who think they are more important and their journey and job or whatever is much more important. Some people might do it the odd time and by accident, might be having a bad day so I'd take that into account but you get used to seeing the same eejits doing and it grates

Weepsie · 01-11-2014 3:40pm

I always have to stop at the 5 lamps heading into town. Generally people take their place in line as it can be a busy stretch. There's one guy who repeatedly goes up on the path and goes to the front and then goes quite slowly. He nearly got himself hit by a car and it would've been his fault as he didn't appear to be paying much attention.

A few days after his near miss and having had him do this again and again I was first in the queue and he did it again, I asked him to stop doing it, that he can't cycle on the path and he would arguably be better off otherwise. He said sorry but late passed me when I was stationery to turn to say something smart about what I was doing of which was nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.

As with every group their are a few who think they are more important and their journey and job or whatever is much more important. Some people might do it the odd time and by accident, might be having a bad day so I'd take that into account but you get used to seeing the same eejits doing and it grates

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 01-11-2014 3:53pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I think you are trying to change the subject you have gone from cars not moving at all to cars moving at 60+. You have tried switch from a situation where the cyclist in front of you is overtaking someone else to a situation where you are both being passed.

So I'll ask again, in congested traffic situations where you are faster than the cars, why arent you overtaking the cars on the right?

Why are you putting yourself in conflict with slower cyclists, who have right of way over you, by going on the inside?

Edit: If you don't want to tell us thats ok.

It's possibly safer to do so. You or I do not know the exact situation. We do not know how much space there is. In most cases I find overtaking the cars on the right to be dangerous (stopped or slow traffic). They rarely look to their right when taking off and are more focused on the left side of their vehicle which is where they would expect to see a cyclist.

I, and many other cyclists I meet, would only overtake on the right if the car has not given me any room due to whatever reason (ignorance, carelessnes or pre-empting the approach of a large vehicle etc etc)

CramCycle · 01-11-2014 4:03pm

lukegjpotter wrote: »

What I also find annoying is when the slower dudes stop in front of you at the lights. Like they're putting everyone in danger by having me to go around them.

While annoying, if it's not safe to over take then you should wait till it is. They are not putting you in danger, they are annoying you, you are putting yourself in danger.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 01-11-2014 4:58pm

CramCycle wrote: »

While annoying, if it's not safe to over take then you should wait till it is. They are not putting you in danger, they are annoying you, you are putting yourself in danger.

Why is it that every time a poster mentions "danger" and "overtaking" in the same sentence everybody automatically pictures a cyclist dangerously overtaking another cyclist?

The fools that jump you at the lights and stop cause myself and others to overtake them again. An overtaking maneuver will always contain an element of danger for a cyclist as we don't have the same power/torque a vehicle has, we cannot accelerate as fast and are limited in speed. How many times have you or anybody else overtaken a cyclist to have a car/motorbike/bus behind you before the maneuver has been complete?

It certainly quite common due to the fact that limits are not adhered to.

CramCycle · 01-11-2014 5:12pm

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

Why is it that every time a poster mentions "danger" and "overtaking" in the same sentence everybody automatically pictures a cyclist dangerously overtaking another cyclist?

because in the post I was responding to that's what he said. That the annoying, ignorant and rude sh1t (my description not the posters) put him in danger. They didn't, you can't force an overtake.

I have rude annoying and ignorant sh1t do this every day, they don't put me in danger though, they simply annoy the hell out of me.

galwaycyclist · 04-11-2014 8:52pm

Lumen wrote: »

The law considers bicycles three abreast in a single lane when overtaking to be normal.

Uh no this is what the law states

Pedal Cyclists
47. (1) 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.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

And this is what the law states on overtaking:

Overtaking
10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

So in situations like we were discussing - where a cyclist is overtaking a car or cars in the same lane e.g. "other traffic" - then other cyclists are required to stay behind each other - to stay in single file.

On the issue of cycling three abreast if there was no other traffic in the lane.

The prohibition on inconveniencing other road users while overtaking means you can only cycle two abreast by mutual consent. You can't just drive, or cycle, up beside someone else in the same lane unless you are overtaking.

So if the other cyclist has not consented for you to cycle beside them then arguably they also count as "other traffic"

ted1 · 04-11-2014 9:13pm

Edith Embarrassed Telepathy wrote: »

It's possibly safer to do so. You or I do not know the exact situation. We do not know how much space there is. In most cases I find overtaking the cars on the right to be dangerous (stopped or slow traffic). They rarely look to their right when taking off and are more focused on the left side of their vehicle which is where they would expect to see a cyclist.

I, and many other cyclists I meet, would only overtake on the right if the car has not given me any room due to whatever reason (ignorance, carelessnes or pre-empting the approach of a large vehicle etc etc)

I over take on the right coming down Anglesa road, the inside road is in awful condition and there's a few pinch points. Much safer seen the oncoming cars.

CramCycle · 04-11-2014 9:28pm

ted1 wrote: »

I over take on the right coming down Anglesa road, the inside road is in awful condition and there's a few pinch points. Much safer seen the oncoming cars.

Same here, the road gets too narrow whenever there are parked cars. Took too overtaking on the right after one too many nitwits either attempted an overtake in a car when I was only a few feet behind the car in front and/or an overtake on the S bend part. Guy nearly drove into a bus then me trying to overtake there before. I still reached the lights at Ballsbridge at least 10 cars in front. Then the f wits on bikes trying to squeeze past when you slow for a pinch point, seen one guy knock himself down doing this. Another woman who nearly got crushed at a pinch point only the car spotted her at the last minute and swerved out. Luckily she escaped this near death experience without noticing so she could run a red light and nearly get hit by a guy going through crossing traffic.

Lumen · 04-11-2014 10:17pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So in situations like we were discussing - where a cyclist is overtaking a car or cars in the same lane e.g. "other traffic" - then other cyclists are required to stay behind each other - to stay in single file.

I've really no idea what you thought you were discussing, but I thought ROK ON was describing overtaking other cyclists in-lane.

Maybe my reading comprehension failed.

galwaycyclist · 05-11-2014 11:35am

Lumen wrote: »

I've really no idea what you thought you were discussing, but I thought ROK ON was describing overtaking other cyclists in-lane.

Maybe my reading comprehension failed.

Let me remind you:

ROK ON wrote: »

<snip>
As I pass between her and a car stationary in traffic she goes a bit Bolshy and accuses me of breaking lights and giving cyclists a bad name.
I was furious given that I waited at the lights for a good while as the just turned red when I arrived at them.
Bit shocked - only thing I could say to her was relax.
Still a bit bugged by it. You simply can't win.
I think some people cannot accept that other peoples commuting pace is faster than them - so they take an overtake as an insult. I'm not fast. Just faster than about half the commuters with I'd say about half again faster than me.
I dress in Lycra commuting for comfort and utility. But I don't race while commuting - ever.
Find it nuts that I can't overtake some daft bird without getting a dose of verbals.

ROK_ON then continues in the same vein.

ROK ON wrote: »

I am neither fit or fast. This lady wasn't overtaking anyone. She was cycling on the road. The car to my right was stuck in traffic and not moving. There was ample space for me to pass by the lady with space.
There was no one trying to cram into space that wasn't there. She simply got antsy because I passed her. She wasn't holding me up because the space existed to pass. If she was holding me up I would simply have waited until I could pass.

Do you feel that when space exists to safely overtake that somehow i should cycle behind someone for some reason?

The user Plastik then offered this opinion - which was thanked by ROK_ON

Plastik wrote: »

<snip>
If there is space between a cyclist and the traffic to our right hand side, I pass.

There's nothing inconsiderate about it an there's nothing obnoxious about it.

The user Plastik also offered this which was also thanked by the user ROK_ON.

Plastik wrote: »

<snip>
Please explain why you think that passing another cyclist, while we are both filtering through stationary traffic, puts us in conflict with each other? Why do you think that someone cycling slowly has the right to complain to someone that passes them if there was ample room to do it and there was no danger to either party?

In all cases we seem to have particular users on this board admitting, and endorsing, unlawful behaviour. Specifically overtaking other cyclists in the same lane while those cyclists are also overtaking other traffic. Something that is clearly prohibited by the traffic regulations.

Harrybelafonte · 05-11-2014 11:43am

NeedMoreGears · 05-11-2014 3:47pm

SI 332/2012 contains provisions relating to cyclists overtaking on the left

“(5)(a) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) may only overtake on the left—

(i) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or turn to the left,

(ii) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn to the left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention, or

(iii) in slow-moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver’s right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle,

(b) A pedal cyclist may overtake on the left where vehicles to the pedal cyclist’s right are stationary or are moving more slowly than the overtaking pedal cycle, except where the vehicle to be overtaken—

(i) has signalled an intention to turn to the left and there is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle in which the driver has signalled an intention to turn to the left will execute a movement to the left before the cycle overtakes the vehicle,

(ii) is stationary for the purposes of permitting a passenger or passengers to alight or board the vehicle, or

(iii) is stationary for the purposes of loading or unloading.”,

It is interesting that the provision in 5(a)(iii) that allows non pedal cyclists overtake on the left when the traffic in a lane to the right is slower is not restated but is replaced by a more general permission to pass a vehicle on the left, presumably regardless of whether the vehicle in the same lane as the pedal cyclist or in a lane to the right.

Prior to the introduction of SI 332, the more general exemptions to overtaking on the left would have, I believe, applied to pedal cyclists. Under the earlier regulations I think there would have been a good argument to be made that vehicles in lanes to the right "don't count" as such. Hence pedal cyclists could travel two abreast in the left lane and it would be legal for a third pedal cyclist to pass the other two. This in turn suggests that it is legal for up to three cyclists being abreast of one another during an overaking manoeouvre whilst all three are passing slower/stationary vehicles. Carrying this idea forward to the current regulations (on the basis that the new regulations were aimed at improving things for cyclists) suggests to me that it is ok to pass another pedal cyclist in a lane when there are slower moving or stationary vehicles in a lane to the right - always to the general provisions of safety, inconvenience etc.

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

Fian · 05-11-2014 4:54pm

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread. I understand Galwaycyclist to be objecting to passing a slower cyclist who in turn is filtering inside traffic on the basis that the slower cyclist is "overtaking" the cars and you are not permitted to by section 47(2) below:

Pedal Cyclists
47. (1) 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.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

This reasoning rests on that "filtering" being regarded as "overtaking" rather than "undertaking". Filtering is technically "overtaking" but i think there is a strong likelihood that a court would be persuaded that "overtaking" within the meaning of section 47(2) refers to overtaking on the right and the subsection does not prohibit passing to the right of slower cyclists and left of slower cars when it is safe to do so. Not that a prosecution is a realistic likelihood in those circumstances.

Bottom line: I wouldn't hesitate to make that manoeuver in front of a traffic cop.

dreamerb · 05-11-2014 5:37pm

Fian wrote: »

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread.

I think it generally isn't safe to do so: cycle lanes aren't wide enough.

You should not overtake another cyclist so close that a wobble from either of you has the potential for disaster, and I can think of only one (short) on-road cycle lane wide enough to allow that.

One of my pet hates is cyclists who won't wait for a short while and decide to squeeze between me and a moving car - with maybe less than a foot clearance from me and without even announcing their presence in advance. What's worse is that it tends to happen when I'm already "queueing" behind a slower cyclist waiting for a safe place to overtake.

... not accusing ROK ON of doing this, btw. I made no assumption from his post that there was anything unsafe about his overtaking. If anything I'd have assumed it was in a bus lane.

galwaycyclist · 05-11-2014 6:19pm

Fian wrote: »

I agree and i think it is pretty clear that so do An Garda Síochána since I have never heard of a cyclist being prosecuted for the heinous offence of "overtaking another cycle, in a cycle lane, when safe to do so, while both are filtering inside cars" which has been described in this thread.

I think you may be the first to introduce the cycle lane. The original description did not include either a cycle lane or a bus lane. Clearly the use of separate lanes is a different situation.

I understand Galwaycyclist to be objecting to passing a slower cyclist who in turn is filtering inside traffic on the basis that the slower cyclist is "overtaking" the cars and you are not permitted to by section 47(2) below:

If someone is already overtaking then, in my view, they are entitled to complete the manouevre without interference from following traffic regardless of what vehicle either is using, or what either's preferred speed is.

The issue here is a bit like bus drivers and taxi-drivers who object to being held up by cyclists in narrow bus lanes. They are already getting the benefits of being able to keep moving past stalled traffic but some people seem to want their cake and eat it too.

galwaycyclist · 05-11-2014 6:40pm

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

It is interesting that the provision in 5(a)(iii) that allows non pedal cyclists overtake on the left when the traffic in a lane to the right is slower is not restated but is replaced by a more general permission to pass a vehicle on the left, presumably regardless of whether the vehicle in the same lane as the pedal cyclist or in a lane to the right.

Prior to the introduction of SI 332, the more general exemptions to overtaking on the left would have, I believe, applied to pedal cyclists. Under the earlier regulations I think there would have been a good argument to be made that vehicles in lanes to the right "don't count" as such. Hence pedal cyclists could travel two abreast in the left lane and it would be legal for a third pedal cyclist to pass the other two. This in turn suggests that it is legal for up to three cyclists being abreast of one another during an overaking manoeouvre whilst all three are passing slower/stationary vehicles. Carrying this idea forward to the current regulations (on the basis that the new regulations were aimed at improving things for cyclists) suggests to me that it is ok to pass another pedal cyclist in a lane when there are slower moving or stationary vehicles in a lane to the right - always to the general provisions of safety, inconvenience etc.

TLDR - I suspect it's ok to pass a cyclist within lane when there is traffic in a lane to the right subject to the usual safety and convenience obligations.

I agree that situations where there are separate traffic lanes are a different situation and that where there is a free lane for cyclists to use then it would appear they may overtake each other within that lane.

But that was not what was being discussed by some of our contributors. What was being described and endorsed was passing both cyclists and other traffic in the same lane at the same time. The regulations on over taking above do not seem to me to provide for simultaneously passing two vehicles in the same lane at the same time by driving between them when one is overtaking the other.

Again the legality of the cyclists being three abreast seems to me to rest on the idea that two of them are not overtaking each other - they have chosen by arrangement to cycle side by side.

NeedMoreGears · 05-11-2014 6:42pm

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was thinking in terms of bus lane or a lane designed for motor traffic. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle lane that's wide enough for two (let alone three!). Come to think of it. I'm not sure I've seen that many lanes that would provide enough room for a cyclist to pass another cyclist while there was a stationary car in the lane as well.

Carawaystick · 06-11-2014 1:31am

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was thinking in terms of bus lane or a lane designed for motor traffic. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle lane that's wide enough for two (let alone three!). Come to think of it. I'm not sure I've seen that many lanes that would provide enough room for a cyclist to pass another cyclist while there was a stationary car in the lane as well.

There's shared use (spit!) lanes on the r132 more than 3m wide. so your could pass a stopped car and undertake a slower cyclist all at the same time...

The Long Mile road in Dublin has cycle lanes where you could pass 2 abreast cyclists.

Obviously the solution is to have advanced stop lines, so cyclists can spread out 20 abreast for the mass start as the lights go green

stop · 06-11-2014 9:53am

A man's gotta have a code, here's mine.

I overtook you, later I stopped at the lights. Please stay behind me unless you are barrelling through the red light, in which case I will overtake you again when I catch up to you.

If you try to overtake me at a busy junction, like the ones on the canal cycle path, where I know you have skipped everyone else queuing patiently, I will not let you in. I will keep you in the opposite lane. You can overtake me when we have cleared the junction.

If I have stopped (in heavy traffic) to let a car travelling in the opposite dirdirection make a right turn, and I have deliberately placed myself to stop people passing while the car passes, do not see this as an opportunity to overtake. Again, wait until I have cleared the junction before you try.

CramCycle · 06-11-2014 10:28am

stop wrote: »

If you try to overtake me at a busy junction, like the ones on the canal cycle path, where I know you have skipped everyone else queuing patiently, I will not let you in. I will keep you in the opposite lane. You can overtake me when we have cleared the junction.

I came along the canal path yesterday evening, with the DB blinding lights and people just overtaking into oncoming cyclists, I am still confused (but grateful) that there are not more incidents. I will be sticking to the road on the way home tonight.

Skipping at traffic lights

Comments