Abuse

ep1k-w1n

what exactly is the problem OP?
you were in the wrong and got corrected about it, no big deal.
just take it like a man and learn from it.

who knows its may even safe your life some day.
its not like he attacked you.

Raam

I think the issue is that it was needless.
Bicycles belong on the road, not on a path.

rflynnr

ep1k-w1n wrote: »

what exactly is the problem OP?
you were in the wrong and got corrected about it, no big deal.
just take it like a man and learn from it.

who knows its may even safe your life some day.
its not like he attacked you.

If the situation had been that black and white I wouldn't have posted in the first place. I wasn't "corrected" (which implies a kindly teacher-like figure showing me the right way to do algebra), I was subjected to abuse. As for "taking it like a man", what is this, the western frontier? Bear in mind, someone with half a ton of metal at their disposal sped up behind me and basically told me to get off the road: in any such car-bike confrontation the driver, by definition, holds the upper hand. Most drivers are conscious of that power at some level but do not exploit it: the same was not true of this guy.

And only the most optimistic reading of the situation could describe it as potentially saving my life. The incident on Tuesday may have made me more nervous about using that piece of road but it hasn't altered the layout of the bikelane one whit. And it is precisely the danger of using that particular piece of bike lane (further details of which I'm happy to go into if you wish), that discourages me from using it.

At some level this comes back to the thorny issue of mandatory bike lanes. The problem with the mandatory status is that it legitimates this kind of driver behaviour because they perceive the lanes as primarily functioning to remove cyclists from their path rather than being to ensure the safety of the cyclist. The assumption amongst some drivers (and I've encountered similar behavior before though of a less aggressive nature) is that the decision to remain on the road when a bike lane is present is motivated by some anti-authoritarian, live-free-or-die spirit. The possibility that the bike lane may

a) Pose a threat to the cyclist's safety
b) De facto, not be a cycle lane because it's not recognised as such by pedestrians
b) Simply not lead to the cyclist's destination

doesn't seem to be considered.

Indeed, as I write, it occurs to me that these points would be self-evident to anyone who cycles in the city on a regular basis. Given that, ep1k-w1n, would it be fair to assume that you're in not in that category or do I do you a disservice?

bealbocht

blorg wrote: »

First part is very true, second part less so- try to be the better person. Taking the centre of the lane because it is unsafe for a driver to pass is also quite different from doing it simply to piss a driver off.

I always wave if someone hoots at me; (1) it _could_ be someone I know greeting me, (2) if not a friendly wave pisses them off a hell of a lot more than the finger anyway.

nah.. wouldnt do it to piss someone off, I dive too, and wouldnt appreciate it.
Havent had to give the finger for ages, for some reason.. , but recenlty gave a "what the....?" (palm up to the sky, although possibly hard to tell when I am wearing gloves) to a driver who turned right across my path. He stopped , he though about it, then he did it. A bit of a row ensued, firstly he told me I should have my lights on and have indicated. I had no come back to this, as I was going straight at 2 in the afternoon. I put it to him he could have killed me, and he said he would have loved that.. he would love to kill a cyclist. I suggested he would not be so mouthy when he ends up in "The Joy". Then we shook hands and went about out business. Well , he drove off in his Merc..

Bunnyhopper

Verb wrote: »

Forget about it. Arseholes are arseholes.

+1

And thanks from us all to the stooopid PDs and their stooopid mandatory-use law...

[Off-topic, but still - given that we seem to keep complaining about the mandatory-use rule, and given that there do seem to be some vaguely pro-cycling noises coming out of Leinster House these days, is it time for a concerted campaign of emailing (and anything else you can think of) to lobby for a change in the law?]