Musings from a cyclist...

TinyExplosions

Hey folks,
We quite often get a few of you fellas (and maybe girls) popping over to the cyclists forum to give out about us, and I guess we have bad press on this here board too, so I thought I'd try to 'extend the olive branch' so to speak, and try to clear a few things up, then maybe we can live in harmony both on (and off!) the road.

One of the first things that comes up time and again is this issue of 'road tax', and why cyclists should have to pay it etc etc. Well, to be pedantic for a moment, no one pays road tax. Motorists pay 'motor tax' based on the emissions produced from their cars. This is spent on road upkeep, but is a small proportion of the total spent on our roads. The majority of funding for road construction/maintainence comes from either European funding, or from the general taxation. All cyclists are tax payers (or should be unless earning below the threshold), so do pay for the upkeep of the highways in the same way as motorists. We don't have a specific tax as we don't produce emissions in the same degree as cars (a bit of Carbon Dioxide and Methane don't count!)

The second thing to come up is the issue of cyclists not having lights. This is against the law, and many (if not all) of the people on the cyclists forum agree with this, and have adequate lighting. Complaining on t'inernet that this isn't enforced is not our problem, but up to the Gardai -if they stopped more cyclists who didn't have lights, more people would get them. We know it's a problem, but in general you're preaching to the choir on that point.

Also, breaking red lights comes up a lot, but once again complaining in the cyclists forum, or on t'internet is generally a waste of time. Some people obey lights, some don't. In my experience, I see as many cars breaking red lights as I do cyclists on my daily commute (maybe the route I take is special, but it would average between 3 and 5 cyclists and motorists breaking the lights).

Finally the 'cycling in the middle of the road' / 'cycling two abreast' complaint. Generally, cycle lanes in and around Ireland are wholly unsuitable to cycling in, being filled with glass, potholes, road debris and the occasional car that has run out of petrol, or just stopped for a wee break (by that I mean small, not the other, though I suppose that's a possibility!), so in many cases it's safer for us to pull out into the lane a bit, to avoid accidents. Also, we have as much right to be on the road as motorists do, so taking such a road position, while it may inconvienience you for a short time, isn't illegal (we also don't see many threads complaining about slow moving taxis or cars, you just beep, and overtake when you can). The same is true for riding two abreast -inconvienient, but not strictly againsst the law (though you can argue that point somewhat). Most considerate cyclists will go to single file when it is safe if they notice a build up of traffic behind them, but mostly we ride side by side in order to make it harder to be overtaken on twisty, windy roads where it would be a dangerous to overtake.

There are idiot cyclists out there, and idiot drivers, but maybe with a little common sense we can get on together, and not be reduced to flaming various internet foura.

Thanks guys!

voxpop

TinyExplosions wrote: »

but mostly we ride side by side in order to make it harder to be overtaken on twisty, windy roads where it would be a dangerous to overtake.

is this for real or a joke

penexpers

voxpop wrote: »

is this for real or a joke

It's for real.

craichoe

voxpop wrote: »

is this for real or a joke

He's half right, you should cycle in the middle of the road of the left hand side, makes you more visible and less likely that the car behind you will chance overtaking.

TinyExplosions

voxpop wrote: »

is this for real or a joke

Absolutely for real, there have been a number of occasions up in the Wicklow mountains where people haven't left much room in an overtaking move

alias no.9

penexpers wrote: »

It's for real.

Absolutely for real. When you're cycling and things are be a bit of a squeeze for a car overtaking you, the last thing you want to do as a cyclist is keep tight to the ditch because it just invites the motorist to overtake and when the overtaking motorist discovers just how tight things really are, the cyclist is the one who gets squeezed into the ditch. I have many gripes with many cyclists but maintaing a good road position is not one of them.

Lord Nikon

My guess is, we just got a big visit from some of the folks from the cycling forum, and put lots of thanks in at the end of the OP.

penexpers

neuromancer wrote: »

My guess is, we just got a big visit from some of the folks from the cycling forum, and put lots of thanks in at the end of the OP.

Only about 1/2 of the thanks for the OP are from regluar cycling forum users.

kenmc

neuromancer wrote: »

My guess is, we just got a big visit from some of the folks from the cycling forum, and put lots of thanks in at the end of the OP.

Do you feel better now that you got some too?

Blitzkrieger

Buy something with an engine and f off, peasant.......

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly, so why should we have to sit behind a cyclist? If I was an ecomentalist I'd be giving out about all the exhaust fumes from all those vehicles being held up. If the road's wide enough for a cycle lane or a hard soulder, fine. Otherwise, you're a danger to yourself and others. If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....

TinyExplosions wrote: »

We don't have a specific tax as we don't produce emissions in the same degree as cars

Ummm, yes you do. The short version is that the food you eat to produce the calories you burn while cycling has a carbon footprint too. For some journeys, saving your energy by taking the car is more enviornmentally friendly.

Mr. Presentable

OP, much of your post makes sense, but some is just wrong.

Cycling two abreast to block motorists from overtaking is driving without consideration for other road users. And if traffic comes against you it will pass much closer to you than normal.

With respect to cycling in the middle of the left lane, according to the rules of the road, you are required to keep left, and that includes within the lane.

But yes, as we have seen, there are ill-educated cyclists and motorists.

kenmc

nipplenuts wrote: »

OP, much of your post makes sense, but some is just wrong.

Cycling two abreast to block motorists from overtaking is driving without consideration for other road users. And if traffic comes against you it will pass much closer to you than normal.

Actually as a road user you have a duty of care to all road users, yourself included. Maintaining a road position which enhances the safety of all road users cannot fall under the 'driving without consideration for other road users' umbrella. Dangerous overtaking, on the other hand, most certainly does.

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

<snip> If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....

Presumably the car, since the occupants would have a higher survival chance than the bike.

craichoe

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Buy something with an engine and f off, peasant.......

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly, so why should we have to sit behind a cyclist? If I was an ecomentalist I'd be giving out about all the exhaust fumes from all those vehicles being held up. If the road's wide enough for a cycle lane or a hard soulder, fine. Otherwise, you're a danger to yourself and others. If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....

Exactly the type of attitude that gets cyclists killed, you should treat a cyclist just like a motorbike or a car and overtake when it is safe to do so not because a cyclist can move in a bit and arra shure you might fit.

JackFrosty

We don't have a specific tax as we don't produce emissions in the same degree as cars (a bit of Carbon Dioxide and Methane don't count!)
What if all the cyclists in the country farted at the same time?:):):)

craichoe

All i can think is

what the f*ck is a cycling thread doing in motors.

TinyExplosions

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Buy something with an engine and f off, peasant.......

Mature. Real mature.... at least you make some 'interesting' points further down

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly, so why should we have to sit behind a cyclist?

Courtesy?

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

If I was an ecomentalist I'd be giving out about all the exhaust fumes from all those vehicles being held up. If the road's wide enough for a cycle lane or a hard soulder, fine. Otherwise, you're a danger to yourself and others. If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....

So cyclists shouldn't be allowed on narrow roads? Or we should be allowed on nice, big, shiny motorways?

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Ummm, yes you do. The short version is that the food you eat to produce the calories you burn while cycling has a carbon footprint too. For some journeys, saving your energy by taking the car is more enviornmentally friendly.

Long version is that in general you may well eat more calories than I do, I just burn them off (this isn't a personal attack, I mean 'you' in a general sense -you could be stick thin for all I know!)

JackFrosty

Taking up motoring space usual

TinyExplosions

JackFrosty wrote: »

We don't have a specific tax as we don't produce emissions in the same degree as cars (a bit of Carbon Dioxide and Methane don't count!)
What if all the cyclists in the country farted at the same time?:):):)

We'd smell worse than the sewerage plant in ringsend

kenmc

JackFrosty wrote: »

Taking up motoring space usual

Yeah but sure no-one notices cyclists anyway... least not until they're right in front of them.

TinyExplosions

craichoe wrote: »

All i can think is

what the f*ck is a cycling thread doing in motors.

As I said at the top, I just wanted to raise a few points about cyclists that seem to get overlooked in other threads. It's in motors, as it's about motorists as well as cyclists. Kind of similar to thread

peasant

craichoe wrote: »

All i can think is

what the f*ck is a cycling thread doing in motors.

official mod announcement

This thread was started to further goodwill and understanding between cyclist and motorists.

As such it has a lot of merit and is not at all out of place in a motoring forum.

It seems to me that it is about time that we get over this "us v them" thing and discuss things rationally.

I will monitor this thread and any post that is not made in the spirit of furthering understanding between the two factions (I'm looking at you Blitzkrieger ) from now on will be dealt with harshly.

So keep this thread between the ditches and try to be rational please.

craichoe

TinyExplosions wrote: »

As I said at the top, I just wanted to raise a few points about cyclists that seem to get overlooked in other threads. It's in motors, as it's about motorists as well as cyclists. Kind of similar to thread

That thread was closed, its an unending debate on which is better.. the bicycle or car...

I can see this becoming the new foglights thread

kayos

Cyclist? Whats that? Oh you mean target practice….

Honestly they complain of no cycle lanes yet when they get them they don’t use them. I know pot holes are annoying but just like any other road user you need to show consideration for the other people on the road. If I was to drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid the pot holes I don’t think others would consider it a good reason to do so.

All I’ve read is reasons why some cyclist’s think they should cycle two abreast, I think that’s fine until someone is stuck behind you, why they don’t use the cycle lanes and a “well you guys do it too” when talking about breaking reds.

As for not having lights well that’s Darwin at his best. If you are thick enough not to have reflective clothing and lights on your bike when cycling two abreast along the centre of the road, when there is a cycle lane that you wont use and at the same time you are breaking red lights… you get the picture.

Honestly if I was stuck behind two cyclists who decided to take over the road I would be very bloody tempted to put the foot down. While they are doing it to protect their bit of space they will cause an accident as some muppet two cars behind me will think I’m driving miss daisy and go to over take not just me but the cyclist and if he didn’t see you in time the guy on the outside will likely get smashed.

How about all the little things cyclists do that you didn’t mention, going down a one way street, cycling along with your hands in your pockets etc?

There are good and bad drivers just as there are good and bad cyclists. But making excuses for doing things that are a pain to other road users if not a danger is just pointless. Show consideration to other road users, if that happens to be a car, a truck a bus or even a horse. Your right to be on the public roads does not give you the right to be ignorant to the other people who have the same right.

Generally if a cyclist shows consideration I’ve no problems with them, I'll give them space and when passing give some more. I did more than enough following cycle races and waving the little red flag at junctions to hold back traffic when I was a young lad. I go to Holland and see cycle lanes as they should be and even little sets of traffic lights for the cycle lanes brilliant system and would love to see it implemented over here*.

*As long as it was done by a Dutch company and to their levels.

voxpop

I know that cyclist can have a tough time but seriously blocking the road by riding 3 abreast is extracting the urine. Is protecting other motorist from dangerous overtaking the reason ye guys also ride in large packs rather than smaller spaced out packs that would facilitate easier overtaking ?

biko

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....

Baffling statement but I guess you're just trying to get a rise here.

TinyExplosions, funny name for a cyclist. Would suit a driver more

Gavin

Cyclists are not going away. Gov. policy is to try and encourage more small journeys by bike. Motorists and cyclists need to get on and know why each other may do things the other doesn't understand.

To be fair, are any of the TinyExplosions points raised really unreasonable ?

A delay of less than a minute to ensure that the cyclist is correctly overtaken? Most cyclists will even wave on a car to overtake when they can see it's safe and perhaps the drivers vision is restricted.

Lord Nikon

kenmc wrote: »

Do you feel better now that you got some too?

I'm sure some is like, sarcasm, like.


Motorists hate cyclists, and cyclist hate motorists. Perfect equilibrium.

Why disrupt the balance?

JackFrosty

In fairness to you, you have raised some good points, but will the day ever come when every road user gets along with each other?

Even little old women get road rage these days!

Gran Hermano

Did we really need yet another 'four wheels bad: two wheels good thread from the militant cyclist front.

If only they'd stick to their cycle lanes and forum. Whilst they might enjoy pedalling their way around the gutters I resist their attempts at trolling.

Eoin

Also, breaking red lights comes up a lot, but once again complaining in the cyclists forum, or on t'internet is generally a waste of time. Some people obey lights, some don't. In my experience, I see as many cars breaking red lights as I do cyclists on my daily commute (maybe the route I take is special, but it would average between 3 and 5 cyclists and motorists breaking the lights).

I won't deny that a lot of motorists will break a red light just after it has turned red (and won't defend it either), but in my experience it pales in comparison to the number of cyclists who just breeze through a red light regardless of how long it has been red for. I notice this as a motorist and also as a pedestrian. The amount of times I've nearly gotten flattened by a cyclist breaking the red light is quite high - and of course, I'm the one who gets the abuse for daring to cross when the green man is showing.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said, but while it may be the majority of you in the cycling forum who know you should have lights, reflectors and all that stuff - well, unfortunately that doesn't extend to even close to the majority of cyclists I encounter.

DirkVoodoo

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Buy something with an engine and f off, peasant.......

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly, so why should we have to sit behind a cyclist? If I was an ecomentalist I'd be giving out about all the exhaust fumes from all those vehicles being held up. If the road's wide enough for a cycle lane or a hard soulder, fine. Otherwise, you're a danger to yourself and others. If it was a choice between hitting an oncoming car or taking a cyclist out, I know which I'd choose....



Ummm, yes you do. The short version is that the food you eat to produce the calories you burn while cycling has a carbon footprint too. For some journeys, saving your energy by taking the car is more enviornmentally friendly.

I actually find some of this pretty disturbing. Seriously, its not like people regard themselves as "cyclists" or "motorists" and you must stick to your own kind. The cycling two abreast is purely a safety measure. If you are on a windy country lane and there is a line of say, 8 cyclists, and no clear way to overtake (much like being behind a slow moving tractor, herd of cows, etc.) it is termed a "dangerous maneuvre". I was on a cycle around wicklow where a lad in a trooper went past one lad, cut in in front of the bunch and then went past the rest on a tight bend. The only way you can protect yourself on a bike from this kind of driving is to bunch up and essentially make yourself as "big as a car".

It has nothing to do with upsetting you, I'm really sorry. If you are overtaking on bends then you are a danger to every other road user.

I think the whole red light thing is pointless too. I see cyclists do it and I see cars do it, there ya go, not much more you can say. Yes its illegal but thats for the gardai to enforce and not other road users.

Also, peak power output of a small car will be in the order of 100 times more than an average commuter can produce, so your argument doesn't hold water there really. One extra weetabix in the morning should take care of things.

Also, this is hardly trolling, everyone here is having a constructive debate. I also object to being grouped as "one of them".