Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sad B*str*ds

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Slightly off-topic, but I see they've updated the Rules of the Road again and taken out some of the inaccurate stuff regarding cycling.


  • Options
    #63
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    el tonto wrote: »
    Slightly off-topic, but I see they've updated the Rules of the Road again and taken out some of the inaccurate stuff regarding cycling.

    Which bits?


  • Options
    #64
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    blorg wrote: »
    @Tim- Acoustic posted saying he was cycling two abreast (as he is legally entitled) when a boy racer came up behind him "constantly beeping and reving his car , he frightened the life out of me as we didnt even hear him comming and all u hear then is a beep"

    I did not get from the post that there was heavy traffic or for that matter that he was unreasonably impeding the boy racer from overtaking.

    Maybe you would like to quote from the ROTR on the appropriate use of the horn and analyse whether "constantly beeping and reving his car" fits the prescribed use.

    See thats the attitude that leads to such confrontations, TOB's deciding to interpret the rules to suit themselves. Any reasonable person, when they realise they are holding someone back, gets in out of the way. And no, cyclists do NOT have the legal right to remain 2 abreast when holding up traffic, the ROTR and case law are quite clear on that - maybe a little less "pedantic pat" and a bit more "Accomodating Al" would lessen the prevalence of such encounters.


  • Options
    #65
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    Raam wrote: »
    All I see is: "excellent retort"
    because you are in primary school, good boy, what class are u in?


  • Options
    #66
    mloc123
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    Everybody...

    lancemot.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Raam wrote: »
    Which bits?

    Didn't they once give the impression that riding two abreast was not legal?


  • Options
    #68
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    el tonto wrote: »
    Didn't the once give the impression that riding two abreast was not legal?

    Ah bummer... that was the only reason I rode two abreast. Now that it's totally legal I don't want to do it anymore.


  • Options
    #69
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    TimAllen wrote: »
    See thats the attitude that leads to such confrontations, TOB's deciding to interpret the rules to suit themselves. Any reasonable person, when they realise they are holding someone back, gets in out of the way. And no, cyclists do NOT have the legal right to remain 2 abreast when holding up traffic, the ROTR and case law are quite clear on that - maybe a little less "pedantic pat" and a bit more "Accomodating Al" would lessen the prevalence of such encounters.
    OK Tim, so who came up behind the unsuspecting cyclist and obnoxiously broke the ROTR first in an intimidating fashion? To be honest "fúck you mate" is a natural first reaction when this happens...

    You might also want to quote the ROTR on what it says about overtaking coming up to a junction (hint: it is not "you SHOULD".)


  • Options
    #70
    ROK ON
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭ROK ON


    The way I see it is as follows.

    (1) The OP had a right to be aggreived at this particular situation, and 'attacking' the car is usually what goes through ones head at these emotionally charged times. However, it serves no purpose and is illegal anyway.
    (2) Cycling 2 abreast - that old chesnut. Everyone is correct, but at different times. There are times where it is easier to overtake a disciplined block of cyclist 2 across and four deep. As a novice driver I have had to do this (on country road) and found it easier than having to overtake a singe lane of tourers. I imagine that the cyclists are just one vehicle and indicate then overtake when appropriate and safe. As a driver and cyclist, I try to see that I am no more or less important than anyone else on the road.
    I will warrant that excessive lane hogging is rude, but in terms of law and order, I hope the road traffic Gardai have better things to be doing than enforcing slow moving tractors, grannies, sunday drivers and cyclists.

    FWIW on almost every boards spin I have been on where there is a gang of us, someone invariably shouts 'car up' or 'car back' to indicate there is a car that maybe trying to pass us. We almost always assume single file position at this stage. And us boardsies aint exactly organised. So a disciplined cycling club would probably have a more disciplined approach.

    All in all the roads are there to be used be everybody, none of us own them. Let there be love.


  • Options
    #71
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    el tonto wrote: »
    Didn't the once give the impression that riding two abreast was not legal?
    still does, and its still right!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    I think our boards spins are an excellent example of cyclists looking out for each other AND not trying to cause a nuisance to traffic.

    +1 ROK ON about the passing out a group as opposed to a stretched line. On winding roads this can lead to cars driving along cyclists around bends. Where do they pull in if they need to perform some "evasive maneuvres"? Cycling 2 abreast keeps everyone safe and ensures motorists only overtake when it is safe to do so (well, nearly always).


  • Options
    #73
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    Raam wrote: »
    Ah bummer... that was the only reason I rode two abreast. Now that it's totally legal I don't want to do it anymore.
    No need to revert to stereotype, we know you're a rebel without a clue:P


  • Options
    #74
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TimAllen wrote: »
    See thats the attitude that leads to such confrontations, TOB's deciding to interpret the rules to suit themselves. Any reasonable person, when they realise they are holding someone back, gets in out of the way. And no, cyclists do NOT have the legal right to remain 2 abreast when holding up traffic, the ROTR and case law are quite clear on that - maybe a little less "pedantic pat" and a bit more "Accomodating Al" would lessen the prevalence of such encounters.

    I'm afraid Tim that you're the one putting your own selective intrepretation on the law. First of all, Acoustic never said he was riding two abreast. Secondly, he never said he was holding up traffic. For all we know the guy immediately came up behind them and began harrassing them rather than waiting either for a.) a reasonable overtaking opportunity, or b.) the cyclists to pull in at the first convenient place if no overtaking opportunity presents itself.

    What's TOB?


  • Options
    #75
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Tosser on bike, methinks.

    Or else Tim on bike, which is less likely.

    EDIT: Actually they are one and the same :)


  • Options
    #76
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TimAllen wrote: »
    still does, and its still right!

    No, it now says "Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians".


  • Options
    #77
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    DirkVoodoo wrote: »
    I think our boards spins are an excellent example of cyclists looking out for each other AND not trying to cause a nuisance to traffic.

    +1 ROK ON about the passing out a group as opposed to a stretched line. On winding roads this can lead to cars driving along cyclists around bends. Where do they pull in if they need to perform some "evasive maneuvres"? Cycling 2 abreast keeps everyone safe and ensures motorists only overtake when it is safe to do so (well, nearly always).

    thats exactly the attitude that perpetuates the "us versus them" relationship between motorists and cyclists.
    Cyclists have no right to determine when it is safe for a motorist to overtake, and have no right to cycle two abreats and hold back traffic - just accept this a s the truth (it will set you free - bible reference)

    I, and an increasing number of motorists keep video recording on every journey now - it comes in handy in a dispute, not usually for cyclists in my experience, more likely in a collision with another motorist.) I have had two occasions to complain to cycling clubs regarding their members behaviour on the road including causing huge traffic tailbacks and another where cyclists were holding onto a support car preventing motorists from overtaking.
    On the latter this was denied until I mentioned to the club chairman that I had video evidence and that if he believed I was lying then I would take it up with the gardai - he met me and viewed the footage and agreed that such behaviour was wrong and thanked me for being willing to sort it out without involving the gardai. I got a full apology from the offenders and a promise that such behaviour would not be repeated (I am taking them at their word as "gentlemen")


  • Options
    #78
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    TimAllen wrote: »
    On the latter this was denied until I mentioned to the club chairman that I had video evidence and that if he believed I was lying then I would take it up with the gardai - he met me and viewed the footage and agreed that such behaviour was wrong and thanked me for being willing to sort it out without involving the gardai. I got a full apology from the offenders and a promise that such behaviour would not be repeated (I am taking them at their word as "gentlemen")

    Blackmail! Excellent :)


  • Options
    #79
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,031 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Beware The Third Eye Of The One Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken.

    3rd_eye_video_camera.jpg


  • Options
    #80
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    el tonto wrote: »
    No, it now says "Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians".

    Nobody ever argued that you cant ride two abreast - the debate surrounds whether you are entitled to do so at all times and block traffic behind you - clearly you are prohibited from doing so!


  • Options
    #81
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    TimAllen wrote: »
    I, and an increasing number of motorists keep video recording on every journey now

    Dogging in car parks Tim? You're a sick man!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ROK ON
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭ROK ON


    @ Tim.

    Just a quick query.
    If you were in a situation where driving on a narrow country road, do you think that experienced drivers would find it easier to overtake a disciplined line of 8 cyclists, cycling two abreast, or a single file of 8 cyclists. Try to imagine that it is a country road, so either way you have to croos the white line to overtake.

    Curious. I am, as I said a novice driver, and haveing faced both, I know what I find preferrable.

    Also, what I dont get is the attitude that I have to pass people out.
    While being behind slow moving traffic is frusrating, are there not cases of just suck it up till safe to pass. That is on my fictional narrow country road, it may not make much difference whther cyclists are in single file or 2 abreast.


  • Options
    #83
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    Raam wrote: »
    Blackmail! Excellent :)
    blackmail, never! Just dont like someone implying me to be a liar


  • Options
    #84
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TimAllen wrote: »
    Nobody ever argued that you cant ride two abreast - the debate surrounds whether you are entitled to do so at all times and block traffic behind you - clearly you are prohibited from doing so!

    Sigh. I said the ROTR once gave the impression that cycling two abreast was not legal. You said it still does and its right. Forgive me then for assuming that you meant what you were saying.


  • Options
    #85
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TimAllen wrote: »
    Cyclists [..] have no right to cycle two abreats and hold back traffic - just accept this a s the truth (it will set you free - bible reference)

    Who is saying they do? I think most people on this forum would agree that cyclists riding two abreast should move to single file and/or pull in if traffic starts piling up behind them and there are no overtaking opportunities.


  • Options
    #86
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    ROK ON wrote: »
    @ Tim.

    Just a quick query.
    If you were in a situation where driving on a narrow country road, do you think that experienced drivers would find it easier to overtake a disciplined line of 8 cyclists, cycling two abreast, or a single file of 8 cyclists. Try to imagine that it is a country road, so either way you have to croos the white line to overtake.

    Curious. I am, as I said a novice driver, and haveing faced both, I know what I find preferrable.

    Also, what I dont get is the attitude that I have to pass people out.
    While being behind slow moving traffic is frusrating, are there not cases of just suck it up till safe to pass. That is on my fictional narrow country road, it may not make much difference whther cyclists are in single file or 2 abreast.

    I think the bold part sums up your situation - and I dont mean to be condescending.

    Cyclists should be in single file and should not tailgate one another - especially on a country road


  • Options
    #87
    TimAllen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭TimAllen


    el tonto wrote: »
    Sigh. I said the ROTR once gave the impression that cycling two abreast was not legal. You said it still does and its right. Forgive me then for assuming that you meant what you were saying.

    You are forgiven! - don't forget the all important context when making such bold statements. Cheers!


  • Options
    #88
    Jumpy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    Lumen wrote: »
    This is difficult when the rear-ender has amnesia induced by head trauma.

    HELMETS FTW.


    image011.jpg


  • Options
    #89
    Nietzschean
    Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    TimAllen wrote: »
    Cyclists should be in single file and should not tailgate one another - especially on a country road

    so cyclists should be a car length apart on country roads and always in single file? jebus that would be boring...


  • Options
    #90
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    TimAllen wrote: »
    Cyclists ..... should not tailgate one another - especially on a country road
    How far is an acceptable distance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    TimAllen wrote: »
    You are forgiven! - don't forget the all important context when making such bold statements. Cheers!

    Indeed, the context being a discussion that the ROTR once gave the impression that cycling two abreast was illegal and now says it is legal in certain circumstances.


Advertisement