"Idiot Cyclist"

Raam

spotted this over in "motors"...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52208173#post52208173

beans

Hmm... I probably would have moved over into the coned-off lane, just to ease the congestion behind me. At the same time, he's perfectly ok staying to the left of the only viable lane there is. Everything to the right of the cones is technically off-limits.

Some of the attitudes in that thread though...

If it was a tractor they would have just had to suck it up.

jman0

Sounds like the OP was being a bit of a bully, beeping at him.
I certainly don't envy that cyclist however.
You'd have to wonder did he even realise the extent of the queue behind him.
Having said that, the cyclist was well to the left in those photos.
Probably enough room there for a car to overtake, just that the OP was in some wide fecker of a camper.
Maybe it serves the OP right, he wants the cyclist off the road whereas it's his fat-arse of a vehicle that is actually causing the tailback.

jeffontour

Granted, the cyclist was well within his rights to stick to the left of the lane. However, the reason there's now a thread in the cycling forum moaning about motorists moaning about a cyclist is because the guy in the photo's didn't use common sense and offer the rest of the road users the opportunity to pass.

Respect and courtesy is a two way thing. Inside I was effing and blinding at cars with their nose sticking out over the cycle lane from a side road only this morning but to react only gives other road users a reason to gripe about cyclists as in this case.

We're vunerable enough as it is without getting the one's who spend their lives in airbag cocooned safety any more reason to be angry.

daymobrew

jeffontour wrote:

Granted, the cyclist was well within his rights to stick to the left of the lane.

.. snip rest of post - I agree with it all ..

I keep telling people that it is sometimes safer to give up your right of way. I'd probably have pulled over at some point and reported the camper driver for his intimidation.

Of course, if the cyclist pulled over, waited an age for traffic to pass, he'd surely be in the same situation within a few mins. I wonder if the resurfaced area to the right of the cones was safe to use. It would have been a pleasant, traffic-free route if it was.

jman0

jeffontour wrote:

the guy in the photo's didn't use common sense and offer the rest of the road users the opportunity to pass.

But that's just it. He was staying well to the left, allowing other road users to pass. In fact i'll bet that before that camper he was overtaken by loads of motorists.
It's just that this particular motorist was commandeering a particularly wide vehicle.

But yes i think teh cyclist should have pulled in, providing it was safe to do so.
Now maybe he did pass by a place that looked suitable (from a motorists perspective), but maybe that place had loads of loose chippings and the cyclist thought better of it.
Who knows. But some ignorant fecker beeping at you doesn't promote respect.

cyclopath2001

Tha camper van driver was at fault, he broke the law by attempting to intimidate the cyclist & he broke the law by attempting to drive along an unsuitable route.

It would be interesting to know if the van was right or left-hand drive?

Who took the photographs?

Bunnyhopper

Aw jeez, why can't we all just get along?

The funniest thing is that the queue of traffic was probably full of people thinking, "Those f***ing camper things are always in the way".

I'm not sure why the cyclist didn't move over, even if he was within his rights to stay put. Some of those comments on the original thread are plain scary - they just reconfirm some of my worst fears about what drivers think of cyclists.

cyclopath2001

Bunnyhopper wrote:

I'm not sure why the cyclist didn't move over,

He was over as far as he could, any more and he'd be in the ditch. If I was him, I'd have been afraid of being clipped by a mirror.

It's amazing how drivers get steamed about someone using up a little of bit of road space while actually moving, while whole lanes can be blocked by empty cars & that's alright.

Capt'n Midnight

In the UK the situation is quite clear

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking (see Rules 188, 189 and 191.

more on the negative effects innapropiate "traffic calming" can have on cyclists
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html


I can't find a link to the three feet / one meter from the edge of the road that motorists are obliged to out by, if there are cyclists around.

DublinWriter

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Who took the photographs?

Queue the inevitable barrage of "OMG! Using a mobile phone in a vehicle, you babykiller!".

I think the cyclist was right to stay put. If he had gone into the coned area to the right, not only would he have been going into oncoming traffic, but he would have had feck all chance of getting back into his proper lane again because of the tailback that Mr.Campervan must have had originally caused.

To be honest, it's just all symbolic of how horribly tetchy and irritable we've all become as a nation. Mr.Campervan I assume wasn't running late on his way to work, didn't have the wife just about to go into labour in the back, and didn't have a hot date with Claudia Shiffer to make.

cyclopath2001

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the UK the situation is quite clear

Here, the law set out in SI 182/1997:

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

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

HusseinSarhan

jman0 wrote:

[The OP] wants the cyclist off the road whereas it's his fat-arse of a vehicle that is actually causing the tailback.

Yeah great, clearly it's the cyclist causing this horrendous tailback. Why could he not just use the other free lanes? So what if it's not 100% by the book? It was an exceptional circumstance. I am a cyclist, and don't run red lights, ride on pavements or anything stupid like that. I would have used the free lanes, because it makes sense to.

I don't think the driver was being unfair really. The only excuse for the cyclist would be if he was listening to music and didn't hear them. It should not matter what his rights are, I think you have to be pretty selfish to do that. A bit of cop on goes very far.

DublinWriter, what's this about drivers being too touchy? This forum's seen plenty of topics like:

Potholes on the roads! :eek:
Cycling lanes are crap in Ireland! :mad:
Rude drivers! :eek:
etc. etc.

When you drive a car you like to actually travel at speeds above 12kmh. Even on a bike that's slow!

And this too:

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

Irony?

I agree with Bunnyhopper on this one really.

jman0

HusseinSarhan wrote:

Yeah great, clearly it's the cyclist causing this horrendous tailback. Why could he not just use the other free lanes?

I'd bet that loads of motorists overtook the cyclist before that camper came up behind him. Therefore, the cyclists isn't causing the tailback.

I think you'd be mad to take the other side of the road.
There, you'd have to face oncoming traffic at speed AND you'd never get back into your proper lane. You think those cars would let up and allow you back in?

Like i said, i think the cyclist should have pulled in, however we are assuming that he is aware of the size of the tailback. Which he may not be. He may look over his shoulder and see a huge camper van entirely blocking his view.
We are also presuming there exists a safe place to pull into, which may or maynot be the case.

More than likely what really happened is this:
The road is narrowed with traffic cones, the cyclist stays as far left as possible.
Loads of cars overtake at close range to the cyclist, he slows up a bit concerned over loosing control and being clipped by a wing mirror.
Mr. Campervan comes up next, and apparently cannot get around (i wonder why HE doesn't take the other lane since he is the one wishing to do the overtaking) Regardless he's rude, starts beeping at the cyclist as tho the cyclist has no right to be there.
The cyclist decides it's not worth being polite to this wanker.

BeardyGit

The cyclist obeyed the law and that's all there is to it.

The wa...eh, contributor in the campervan is no different to any other road user who thinks he owns whatever piece of tarmac a cyclist is riding on.

I'd love to see him prosecuted for harassing that lad on the bike - It would serve him right. Even more than that I'd like to see campervan's banned from the road during peak traffic times and on any route with limited access, just like this one.

Twa... :rolleyes:

Johnny Jukebox

The chap on the bike looks like a fairly serious roadie to me, judging by the cut of his jib.

Given that, its fair to assume that hes suffered (like us all) his share of bad and dangerous driving over the years, and in all probability a litany of abuse by drivers and hence feels he owes them no favours. Also, hes probably out doing some training and feels disinclined to break his rhythm to accomodate the motorist.

The ire of the motoring community should be directed at the muppets who devised the lane closure arrangement IMHO.

blorg

It's not clear from the few photos what opportunities the cyclist might have had to allow other traffic to pass. Personally I try to make every effort to allow traffic to pass _when safe to do so_, and if this was going on up a hill for 6km I suspect I may well have found an opportunity to pull in for a few minutes.

But on the topic of the cones:

The cones may simply signify that it's the other side of the road (e.g. they have moved the central line for roadworks.) In this case, I am amazed that people are actually suggesting that a cyclist _cycle on the wrong side of the road_. So it's clear now, but what if he then experiences an oncoming vehicle? Doubt with the queue that he'd get back onto the right side.

Alternatively the cones may signify that that part of the road is closed for roadworks and no-one should be using it. In that case, honestly, nobody should be using it. A cautionary tale: I regularly cycle along the N11 just before the M11 starts. Now until recently there were major roadworks on that bit:



The lanes they have allowed through are much too narrow to even _think_ of it being possible for anything to overtake a cyclist, so I'd plank myself in the middle and just go as fast as I could. Of course some of the time I would get beeped out of it (not all, as most motorists realised there was simply nothing else I could do.) Note also the 50km/h limit which I would be pretty close to in any case going through this bit. Of course most people flew though this at 120, so a cyclist doing the limit annoys. After a while I got a bit sick of this and decided I'd cycle through the cordoned-off works area, which appeared pretty safe and stable:



And cycling through there was fine for a week or so, until one day I cycled through and straight into a 1.5m trench that had been dug across the road. Not injured, thank god, but my conclusion from this is that I am never cycling in an area cordoned off for roadworks again, and it is not reasonable for anyone to expect me to.

Why didn't the guy in the camper van stop, move some of the cones, and pull onto the other side himself?

RedPlanet

The Camper van could also have pulled up onto the verge on the left whenever it was possible, and allowed the cars behind him through.
I actually don't believe that cars could not, or would not overtake the cyclist in this scenario.

BrianD3

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Tha camper van driver was at fault.....he broke the law by attempting to drive along an unsuitable route.

What law did he break by "attempting to drive along an unsuitable route"? What was unsuitable about the route, do you know that there was a width or weight restriction etc. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

I actually agree with the points being made that the cyclist was within his rights to do what he did and the camper driver should not have acted aggressively. But if there was a suitable place for the cyclist to pull into I would hope that he would use it just for consideration for other road users.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if the cyclist had come across a road user going even slower than he was. I have actually seen tractors/JCBs going slower than and being overtaken by cyclists. In this case would the cyclist have waited behind the slow vehicle ? Unlikely. More likely he would have either tried to squeeze by or would have taken to the closed off area of road to get by.

Forgot to mention - the road in question was a dual carriageway and there was no contraflow present. It can clearly be seen from the pictures in the original thread that it is a dual carriageway and that traffic going the opposite direction is on the other carriageway, it is also stated in the original post that the road is a dual carriageway. So if the cyclist had moved into the cordoned off area he would not have been facing into oncoming traffic as some are suggesting (perhaps they haven't read the original thread)

jman0

BrianD3 wrote:

I actually agree with the points being made that the cyclist was within his rights to do what he did and the camper driver should not have acted aggressively. But if there was a suitable place for the cyclist to pull into I would hope that he would use it just for consideration for other road users.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if the cyclist had come across a road user going even slower than he was. I have actually seen tractors/JCBs going slower than and being overtaken by cyclists. In this case would the cyclist have waited behind the slow vehicle ? Unlikley. More lilkey he have either tried to squeeze by or have taken to the closed off area of road to get by.

I agree, if the cyclist was aware of the queue behind (which may not be the case), and if there were a suitable place to pullup, and it was safe to do so; then yes i certainly would prefer the cyclist respect other road users and pull in.

Yes i agree a cyclist would usually overtake, even illegally, a slower moving vehicle. Which makes me wonder why the Camper van didn't do the same.
It would appear the camper driver had more respect for plastic traffic cones then vulnerable road users.
One thing a cyclist would not do in your scenario, is to ride up the tractor/jcb's arse and throw a tantrum to try and get them off the road.

Just read your edit there BrianD3.
It doesn't change the fact that the OP would rather the cyclist risk his safety and the law, by taking the blocked off lane, rather than doing it himself.

BrianD3

jman0 wrote:

Just read your edit there BrianD3.
It doesn't change the fact that the OP would rather the cyclist risk his safety and the law, by taking the blocked off lane, rather than doing it himself.

The bit I added was mainly to give some clarity because some posters in this thread thought that there would be oncoming traffic on the other side of the cones. Had there been oncoming traffic it would be completely unreasonable to expect the cyclist to cycle over there. Even with no oncoming traffic the cyclist was under no obligation to cycle over there and it would be technically illegal but at the same time it would seem reasonable if he had a big queue of traffic behind him for miles.

It would also be a lot easier for the cyclist to pull into the coned off area than for the camper van and the rest of the traffic to drive through the cones into it to overtake the cyclist. The latter would be a farcical and dangerous situation. The lane in the pics is not wide enough for even a normal width car to overtake the cyclist safely so it wouldn't just be the camper van taking to the coned off area.

aodhu

I know it's been said already but 3 things to think about
1) It would have been illegal for the cyclist to cross over and cycle in the coned off section.
2) If the cyclist did manage to get over to coned off area with out being run over by a certain camper van how is he supposed to get back off this coned section with cars now whizzing past on his left (at least as whizzing as they can, stuck behind a camper van)
3) You have to assume that the road was coned off for a reason and Murphy's law states that once the cyclist crosses over he'll arrive at that reason! (I don't know this road but I can see crests and bends in the pictures) Be it resurfaced road, pipe laying, a major accident with lots of guards waiting to give out to the cyclist for cycling in the coned off section. Which invariably leaves him stuck out there because of point 2!

As for stopping and letting traffic by, if I was in a car behind that's what I like him to do, but if I was the cyclist in question I might actually be afraid to do so. I'd be thinking something like: "If I Slow down now will this git behind me actually realise I'm slowing down or will he run me over?"

blorg

BrianD3 wrote:

It would also be a lot easier for the cyclist to pull into the coned off area than for the camper van and the rest of the traffic to drive through the cones into it to overtake the cyclist. The latter would be a farcical and dangerous situation. The lane in the pics is not wide enough for even a normal width car to overtake the cyclist safely so it wouldn't just be the camper van taking to the coned off area.

There seemed to be plenty of room for a camper/following cars to drive in the coned-off area, so why exactly would the problem be there? Why would it be dangerous?

BrianD3

blorg wrote:

There seemed to be plenty of room for a camper/following cars to drive in the coned-off area, so why exactly would the problem be there? Why would it be dangerous?

It would be dangerous and farcial. Cones would get run over and trapped under vehicles, drivers would stop in the road and get out to move cones etc.

Added to the fact that the coned off area is coned off for a reason i.e. deemed not suitable for motor vehicles to be driving on. Might or might not be suitable for a cyclist or pedestrian though

2) If the cyclist did manage to get over to coned off area with out being run over by a certain camper van how is he supposed to get back off this coned section with cars now whizzing past on his left (at least as whizzing as they can, stuck behind a camper van)

This is something that slow moving vehicles deal with all the time. Eg tractors tend to travel in the hard shoulder on national primary routes even though they're not obliged to. They still manage to get back into the normal lane when they need to and get where they're going OK. There would be chaos on the roads if they drove in the normal driving lane all the time

daymobrew

blorg wrote:

There seemed to be plenty of room for a camper/following cars to drive in the coned-off area, so why exactly would the problem be there? Why would it be dangerous?

In the first picture, it looks like there is an oncoming car on the other side of the cones. Do you see the speck of light right in the middle of the photo? IMO that would make it unsafe (and illegal) to cross the line of cones.

jman0

daymobrew wrote:

In the first picture, it looks like there is an oncoming car on the other side of the cones. Do you see the speck of light right in the middle of the photo? IMO that would make it unsafe (and illegal) to cross the line of cones.

I zoomed in there.
There is something in the middle of the other lane about 50m ahead. Standing vertical but it's not a cone. Actually looks like a stainless steel bollard but i doubt that's what it is.
There is a cone down further up the road, near the bend starts.
Which presents our Camper Van with an ideal opportunity.

I feel for the cyclist, he didn't put the bloody cones out, he's taking up minimal road space unlike mr. King-of-the-Road behind him.

BrianD3

The white spec definitely isn't a car. I think it's an artefact from the photo compression or from the camera/scanner. if you look to the left of the photo there is a similar "spec of light" on one of the trees near where the cyclist is!

blorg

BrianD3 wrote:

It would be dangerous and farcial. Cones would get run over and trapped under vehicles, drivers would stop in the road and get out to move cones etc.

What exactly would be dangerous about the camper driver stopping for a moment, hopping out to move a few cones and then turning into the coned off area? Unless of course...

BrianD3 wrote:

Added to the fact that the coned off area is coned off for a reason i.e. deemed not suitable for motor vehicles to be driving on. Might or might not be suitable for a cyclist or pedestrian though

That is exactly my point, the coned off area _is_ coned off for a reason and it would be illegal and likely dangerous for the cyclist to cycle there. See my story about cycling through a coned off area to avoid blocking fast-moving traffic on the N11 dual carriageway and ending up in a trench.

This is something that slow moving vehicles deal with all the time. Eg tractors tend to travel in the hard shoulder on national primary routes even though they're not obliged to. They still manage to get back into the normal lane when they need to and get where they're going OK. There would be chaos on the roads if they drove in the normal driving lane all the time

This cyclist was as far to the left in the hard shoulder as he could possibly be, so I don't see your point here.

I don't understand how posters can advocate that the cyclist _break the law_ and possibly endanger himself so as to avoid inconvenience to the driver behind him - when that driver is unwilling to do the same himself (presumably for the same reasons.)

jman0

It is misplaced anger on the part of mr. CamperVan.
He should be upset with the council for placing the cones in a manner which prevented him from overtaking a slower moving vehicle.
It is poor form that he would resort to bullying the vulnerable road user in front of him.

aodhu

BrianD3 wrote:

This is something that slow moving vehicles deal with all the time. Eg tractors tend to travel in the hard shoulder on national primary routes even though they're not obliged to. They still manage to get back into the normal lane when they need to and get where they're going OK. There would be chaos on the roads if they drove in the normal driving lane all the time

Brian, this is a totally different situation, a tractor pulling in from the left is not the same as a cyclist pulling in from the right and having to cross the entire lane to get back to the left side of the road.

Trojan

What a friendly camper van driver.

The cyclist should have taken the lane, stopped, taken a picture of the number plate and then pulled in to report this arrogant bully to the Traffic Watch immediately.

peasant

Right ....a quick clarification of as many points as I can think of from the driver of the camper van.

- the road was indeed a dual carriageway with the driving lanes coned off and only the hard shoulder left for all the traffic to use.

- there was no traffic in the coned of section in any direction ...any "specs of light" are probably bird**** or flies on the windscreen

- the hard shoulder was not wide enough for any vehicle to overtake the cyclist with a safe distance. This didn't keep a few cars in front of me from overtaking and brushing dangerously close past the cyclist. I on the other hand decided not to risk his life and chose to stay behind at a safe distance, at the same time giving him an opportunity to get out of harms way beyond the cones.

- I am fully aware that the cyclist had every right to be there and that he did nothing wrong (legally). I also admit that i should not have beeped the horn at him. My first beep at him actually was just to make him turn around ...which he did. So I waved at him (in a very friendly way I may add) that I would give him room to move over beyond the cones where he would be safe. At which point he chose to flip me the bird.
After that, my beeping the horn was somewhat more impolite which i know i shouldn't have done ...but I'm only human

- the camper did not cause the queue ...the speed limit in that section was 50 km/h ...even a camper can do that

- the camper is LHD, my wife in the passenger seat took the pics while I had both hands firmly on the steering wheel

- this section of roadworks stretched for a long way (my guess is 6-7 km, but i can't be sure) and assuming that the cyclist was local, he must have known the road and must have had a fair idea just how much of a tailback he would cause

- I do understand that the cyclist may have been reluctant to move beyond the cones for some reason ...still it was the safest place to be and it is where I would have cycled, if I was the cyclist. What I don't understand is that he did not turn left at an entrance into a gateway (a bit like a small parking lot ..about 50 m long and 10 m deep, so well off the road) to let the meanwhile 100+ cars past that had queued up behind him over the last 20 mins.
If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely ...see if he survives that one ...

beans

If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely

If there were not enough room for vehicles to pass me, and I find that they insist on attempting to do so, you'll find me in the centre of the lane fairly sharpish for my own protection

I probably would have been right of the cones myself, but I can see why he would be reluctant to do this as others have pointed out

peasant

beans wrote:

If there were not enough room for vehicles to pass me, and I find that they insist on attempting to do so, you'll find me in the centre of the lane fairly sharpish for my own protection

That's probably what I would do myself in that situation...but what if you had 6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available ...wouldn't you rather take that option?

blorg

peasant wrote:

That's probably what I would do myself in that situation...but what if you had 6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available ...wouldn't you rather take that option?

But if it was totally empty and safe, then why was it coned off? I've cycled myself on coned off portions of roads that have seemed fine initially, and then suddenly there appears a trench. I've learnt that the hard way. And if it was so empty and safe, you could have stopped for a moment, removed one or two of the cones, and driven along it yourself - no?

Edit: I pulled in _twice_ this afternoon to let trucks past on the scalp to/from Eniskerry and by god I did it only just in time as I swear the fúckers were just going to blast into me if I hadn't. I was planning on pulling in for the second one anyway but he _ahem_ accelerated my decision for me. The first one literally forced me off the road, wasn't going to stop for him as he could have overtaken safely approximately 50m on.

peasant

blorg wrote:

But if t was totally empty and safe, then why was it coned off? I've cycled myself on coned off portions of roads that have seemed fine initially, and then suddenly there appears a trench. I've learnt that the hard way. And if it was so empty and safe, you could have stopped for a moment, removed one or two of the cones, and driven along it yourself - no?

Im not Donegal Co. council so I can only assume;

The road is coned off for resurfacing works. It was Sunday, nobody working on it, but they probably didn't want to remove 6- 7 kms of tightly spaced cones just to put them up again on Monday.

Your second suggestion:

If there had been a way to move over without having to stop and remove cones, I would have done so. Stop, fake breakdown, have a smoke and safely rejoin road once the queue has passed ... I was certainly thinking about it. Because, you see, i wasn't the only one honking their horn that day. Lots of cars behind me thought that I was holding everybody up.
Given half a chance, I would have gladly removed myself from that situation and let the really guilty party take the brunt.

blorg

peasant wrote:

Im not Donegal Co. council so I can only assume; The road is coned off for resurfacing works. It was Sunday, nobody working on it, but they probably didn't want to remove 6- 7 kms of tightly spaced cones just to put them up again on Monday.

Sure, you can assume that, but without actually driving/cycling the length of it safely you don't know WHAT you might come across/fall into. Roads being resurfaced often have significant drops and kerbs where they have finished a bit, holes, dangerous stuff left lying around, etc. You cannot _ever_ presume that a works area of whatever type will be left by the workers in a safe state.

peasant wrote:

If there had been a way to move over without having to stop and remove cones, I would have done so. Stop, fake breakdown, have a smoke and safely rejoin road once the queue has passed ... I was certainly thinking about it.

Stopping and removing cones would have taken you what - two minutes? Presumably the cyclist was delaying you much more than this or you wouldn't have been complaining about it?

peasant wrote:

Because, you see, i wasn't the only one honking their horn that day. Lots of cars behind me thought that I was holding everybody up.

Well, in a way you _were_ what was holding everybody up as your vehicle was too wide to overtake the cyclist.

peasant wrote:

Given half a chance, I would have gladly removed myself from that situation and let the really guilty party take the brunt.

Have you not considered that the "really guilty party" here, besides yourself, might be whoever put up/left the cones. Allowing people drive on the other side of the cones would only be a matter of removing the cones on _either end_ you see, not the lot. Unless, of course - it was in fact unsafe to drive the length.

Trojan

peasant wrote:

6-7 km's of totally empty and safe dual carriageway available

I didn't see any available dual carriageway in the picture.

peasant wrote:

My first beep at him actually was just to make him turn around ...which he did. So I waved at him (in a very friendly way I may add) that I would give him room to move over beyond the cones where he would be safe. At which point he chose to flip me the bird.
After that, my beeping the horn was somewhat more impolite

Put yourself on his bike. He's an experienced cyclist so he knows all about idiot drivers almost side-swiping him, passing him on the right then turning left across his line, muppets in stationary cars swinging open doors into his path when he's doing 20-30km/h (yeah that one can hurt), making sure he doesnt get in artic's blind spots, avoiding suicidal pedestrians or road rage drivers who got held up by 10 seconds as he took the lane to pass a line of parked cars. The usual run of the mill experience for any dedicated cyclist really.

He's doing around 20km/h in a narrow lane going uphill and working like hell, staying as far left as possible to avoid inconveniencing traffic and hoping no-one will take a side swipe at him for daring to take his rightful place on the road. A couple cars squeeze passed him, he's thinking that was a bit close for comfort but if he stays left enough it should be fine.

Next thing he hears a car beeping at him, typical, eh? He glances around and sees the driver in the dark cabin of an enormous wide camper van gesturing incoherently at him. How the hell is he going to pass in that thing, and why is he shaking his fist? F#ck 'im, the cyclist is over as far as he can go and if the van is too big to go past that's just tough luck. And then this thought is cemented when the arrogant driver tries to bully him into the ditch by leaning on the horn.

peasant, you gave him plenty of angry energy to keep the speed up, I'll wager Also I'll bet a pint he would have pulled over if you hadn't leaned on the horn.

Ah well, the joys of cycling in a country of ignorant motorists.

peasant

In fairness now, the cyclist wasn't exactly the superfast tour de France type of cyclist ...he was fairly slow and most of this section was uphill. Even if there had been trenches or holes in the coned off section he would have been able to spot them soon enough in order not to fall in.

Overall I just think he would have been so much safer on two empty wide lanes with possible holes in them than on one narrow full one with cars squeezing past (or possibly attempting to squeeze past)


As I said above ..I saw cars in front of me brushing past him (he was also a tad wobbly on the uphill struggle) ...i actually feared for his life.

That's why I beeped and waved him over to the right and he just gave me the bird.

As i said, in a way he was lucky that i was behind him and shielded him from the traffic. I bet you all the other cars would just have sqeezed past him regardless ...very likely with fatal consequences.

For not realizing this and not moving over when invited to do so safely I maintain he acted idiotically.

EDIT: in a way, I would have thought him to be less of an eejit (just plain inconsiderate) had he at least cycled in the middle of the lane, if you know what i mean. I think he really wasn't aware of the danger he was in .

blorg

Trojan wrote:

Also I'll bet a pint he would have pulled over if you hadn't leaned on the horn.

This point of Trojan's is just too true, hooting at cyclists (beyond a polite brief simple 'I'm here' or warning hoot) is the best way to guarantee that they will do exactly the opposite of what you want.

peasant

Trojan wrote:

Next thing he hears a car beeping at him, typical, eh? He glances around and sees the driver in the dark cabin of an enormous wide camper van gesturing incoherently at him. How the hell is he going to pass in that thing, and why is he shaking his fist? F#ck 'im, the cyclist is over as far as he can go and if the van is too big to go past that's just tough luck. And then this thought is cemented when the arrogant driver tries to bully him into the ditch by leaning on the horn.

Actually the "arrogant driver" first opened his window and shouted towards the cyclist "pull in to the right, I'm letting you in" ...which earned him another bird ....THEN he stood on the horn for a bit ...wrong, maybe ...but maybe you can just see my side as well?

And I'd also like to point out, that at no time during the 25 mins it took your man to clear this passage did I "drive up his arse" or try to bully him into the ditch. He had 25 mins to think of an escape ...one was even offered to him on the correct side of the road after about 15 mins. Did he take it? No!

Therfore he is and remains an idiot.

I would agree with blorg though, that all this hadn't happened had Donefal CC thought to make provisions for cyclists along this dangerous stretch.

blorg

peasant wrote:

In fairness now, the cyclist wasn't exactly the superfast tour de France type of cyclist ...he was fairly slow and most of this section was uphill. Even if there had been trenches or holes in the coned off section he would have been able to spot them soon enough in order not to fall in.

This actually shows a misunderstanding of how cycling works. With the position you will typically be in going up a hill you will generally be looking closer to straight down at the road than straight ahead and have severely restricted forward visibility.

And you haven't answered the question of why you didn't stop briefly to move the cones and drive on that section yourself?

peasant

blorg wrote:

.

And you haven't answered the question of why you didn't stop briefly to move the cones and drive on that section yourself?

Because I didn't fancy a beating:D ...and that's just what I would have received had I given the car drivers behind me the chance to get at me ...most of them probably didn't realize that i was being held up by a cyclist.

jman0

As a regular cyclist commuter, and weekend roadie much like yer man in the photos.
I can say plainly that i would not, under just about any circumstances, take the lane on the right.
I would however, pull-in to the left providing it was safe to do so, to allow the queue to pass.

blorg

peasant wrote:

Because I didn't fancy a beating:D ...and that's just what I would have received had I given the car drivers behind me the chance to get at me ...most of them probably didn't realize that i was being held up by a cyclist.

I'm sure you could have gestured to the cars behind that you were moving over to let them pass. Weak excuse TBH. And this is the crux of the matter - why you considered it OK to pressure the cyclist to cycle on that "perfectly safe and flat" bit of road but did not consider it appropriate for yourself to do so.

peasant

blorg wrote:

I'm sure you could have gestured to the cars behind that you were moving over to let them pass. Weak excuse TBH. And this is the crux of the matter - why you considered it OK to pressure the cyclist to cycle on that "perfectly safe and flat" bit of road but did not consider it appropriate for yourself to do so.

errrm ...do you have a driving licence and/or do you actually drive cars as well as bicycles?


you just can't be serious ...me stopping in the road, getting out of the cab, wandering off to remove about 5 to 6 cones to create a wide enough gap ...on my way back into the cab the latest is when the drivers behind would have killed me ...literally.

after all they had a good few minutes to work up a boil, hadn't they?

hunnymonster

I both drive and cycle. If you say they other part of the road was good enough for the cyclist then it should have been good enough for you. In reality, noone should have been on the rhs and it is just unfortunate that a wide camper came up during the 25 mins that a cyclist was using that part of the road.

blorg

Would have taken you two minutes tops. You were already crawling along and your intention in stopping briefly is to allow traffic to make progress, so I don't see what the problem is.

I'm well aware that it would have been illegal (and possibly dangerous) for you to drive there. Just as it would have been illegal (and possibly dangerous) for the cyclist to cycle there.

EDIT: It's a rhetorical device. I _don't_ personally believe you should have driven there, of course not. Point is: neither should the cyclist, as hunnymonster correctly points out.

jman0

peasant wrote:

- I do understand that the cyclist may have been reluctant to move beyond the cones for some reason ...still it was the safest place to be and it is where I would have cycled, if I was the cyclist. What I don't understand is that he did not turn left at an entrance into a gateway (a bit like a small parking lot ..about 50 m long and 10 m deep, so well off the road) to let the meanwhile 100+ cars past that had queued up behind him over the last 20 mins.
If the same situation happened to me again tomorrow (with the same cyclist), I WOULD turn into the driveway and let 100 angry car drivers rush past him where there is no room to do so safely ...see if he survives that one ...

My question is why didn't you pull-in to this 50m small car park and let queue past?
We've already established that cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

peasant

jman0 wrote:

My question is why didn't you pull-in to this 50m small car park and let queue past?
We've already established that cars were able to overtake the cyclist.

Simple answer ... because the paved area was rather narrow and there was deep muck either side of it ...I didn't want to get stuck.

Question to all cyclists here:

Cyclists have a reputation of not taking traffic laws 100% seriously if it suits their needs and/or helps their safety. Examples like cycling on walkways, footpaths and bus lanes spring to mind. Personally ..as long as nobody else is inconvenienced or even endangered I have no issue with that, especially when it helps to move cyclists out of harm from fast flowing traffic.

I would assume that at least 80% if not 99% of all cyclists would agree with me here.

So why, in this case, when the choice was:

a) cycle "legally" for 25 mins and risk your live and inconvenience hundreds of others

or

b) cycle "illegally" for any length of time (including a stop if so desired) in perfect solitude and safety (with the only caveat being to keep an eye on the road for possible hazards, which by the way applies equally to the other scenario)

everybody pulls the "but it's not legal to cycle there" - card ??

I just don't get it ...

John_C

peasant wrote:

b) cycle "illegally" for any length of time (including a stop if so desired) in perfect solitude and safety (with the only caveat being to keep an eye on the road for possible hazards, which by the way applies equally to the other scenario)

everybody pulls the "but it's not legal to cycle there" - card ??

I just don't get it ...

I’m going to pull the ‘it’s not safe to cycle there’ card. The cyclist didn’t necessarily know what was in there, he could have met a car coming the opposite way and even if he didn’t, getting back out of there would have been a dangerous manoeuvre.
If it were me, I’d have pulled over into the gateway or a field or something when one appeared and I can only guess that the reason this fella didn’t was because he was having a horn blown at him.