which side of the road do cyclists want

dolphin city

heading into work this morning via the promenade.

Came upon a cyclist on my left - was just going to move out a little to make sure he had enough room when lo and behold up comes a cyclist on my right hand side in the middle of the road. Not a bother on him. He then proceeded to bang each and every car to let them know he was on their right hand side.

Only saw this happening once before and it really got on my nerves. The cheek of them.

biko

Moved to Cyclists from Galway.
They can tell you.

snubbleste

Technically if a cyclist wants to overtake a motorist, he should do it on the right. It appears you were in slow moving motorist traffic if you saw him assaulting other steel cages.

Fey!

If he bangs on your car, open your door!

Cyclists are the first to rant and roar at motorists, and the loudest ones are the ones who don't obey the rules of the road, don't bother with lights or a hi-vis vest at night (or have them covered with a jacket or bag), and hop on and off the path whenever it suits them. They also don't really cared to stop at red lights, either.

One of the worst offenders is Cllr Connolly, our recently failed candidate at the recent general election. I sent her an email after the last time she cut me off at night at a red traffic light, but I received no reply. When she arrived on my doorstep during the general election I reminded her about the email. She couldn't tell my why she didn't reply justifying her blatant disregard for other road users.

This is not aimed in any way toward all cyclists, but unfortunately for the group the stupid (I was going to use retarded, but that would be unfair to a seperate group) idiots who give them all a bad name.

the keen edge

Can you explain the situation a little clearer please.

Are you saying that a second cyclist travelling in the same direction as you overtook you on your drivers side.

Were you approaching a junction?

I am a daily cyclist, and as so a driver of 15 years.

When approaching junctions while cycling, very often motorist leave little or no room for a cyclist to travel on the inside.
More times than I care remember, when approaching junctions cars have pulled across in front of me knocking me of my bike. This has occurred not out of malice toward me on my bike, just careless driving.

You my have pull out to give room, however the other cars ahead of you may not have.

Until you actually experience a car, van or truck pushing you up on to the kerb, it hard to appreciate the seriousness.

I would sooner anger a car driver than potential get myself knocked down.

"The cheek of him!", come on a bit harsh.

seamus

A cyclist is entitled (nay, required) to overtake on the right if it is safe and legal to do so.

Banging on the vehicles, well he's just a gob****e then. The same kind of ass who walks onto a pedestrian crossing as the lights are going amber to red and then gives abuse to the cars who beep at him or rev their engines.

There are gob****es in all modes of transport, cars, busses, cyclists, pedestrians. Just ignore them and you'll magically find they irritate you less.

dolphin city

the keen age - believe me "the cheek of him" is letting him off lightly.

it was a STRAIGHT road - no junction. I had no problem with the cyclist on my left (by the kerb) and made sure he had enough room - however this idiot came up on my driver side IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD facing oncoming traffic. It was lucky for him that I didn't make any quick movements or he would have been plastered up agains the windshield of oncoming traffic. He then proceeded to bang on the cars in front to "let them know he was there", in the middle of the straight road. He had no regard for anyone else on the road, INCLUDING fellow cyclists.

:mad:

funkyjebus

how if you made a quick movement would you plaster him, is he not in another lane (albeit the oncoming one)? that aside, this is the type of cyclist that gives us all a bad name. Sorry you had that experience op, but dont let him bring the rest of us down.

BostonB

Sounds like a bit of a nutter. tbh.

petethedrummer

dolphin city wrote: »

heading into work this morning via the promenade.

Came upon a cyclist on my left - was just going to move out a little to make sure he had enough room when lo and behold up comes a cyclist on my right hand side in the middle of the road. Not a bother on him. He then proceeded to bang each and every car to let them know he was on their right hand side.

Only saw this happening once before and it really got on my nerves. The cheek of them.

Cycling to work this morning I saw a motorist do something stupid*. What are you going to do about it?





*The driver pulled out of a parking space in front of a motorbike to do a u-turn. Incidentally the biker had his headlight on, making him extra visible. The biker avoided going over the bonnet by skidding to a stop.

kenmc

If I read it right, you were in slow moving traffic, overtaking a slow moving cyclist on the left of the road. You are required by law to leave sufficient gap whilst doing so, and it appears you did, so fair play.
At the same time, a fast moving cyclist was overtaking the line of slow moving cars, which they are also entitled to do. The only problem with this is that the ar$ehole banged on all the cars as he went by, which I think all regular posters on this forum would agree is way out of order.

I'm confused as to what your particular problem with him is though
a) he overtook you, perfectly legally by the sounds of it, or
b) he banged on the cars as he went by.

btw, a cyclist is permitted to cycle anywhere in the lane, as conditions dictate or require, there is no "side" of the lane dedicated to cyclists only.

dolphin city

kenmc wrote: »

If I read it right, you were in slow moving traffic, overtaking a slow moving cyclist on the left of the road. You are required by law to leave sufficient gap whilst doing so, and it appears you did, so fair play.
At the same time, a fast moving cyclist was overtaking the line of slow moving cars, which they are also entitled to do. The only problem with this is that the ar$ehole banged on all the cars as he went by, which I think all regular posters on this forum would agree is way out of order.

I'm confused as to what your particular problem with him is though
a) he overtook you, perfectly legally by the sounds of it, or
b) he banged on the cars as he went by.

btw, a cyclist is permitted to cycle anywhere in the lane, as conditions dictate or require, there is no "side" of the lane dedicated to cyclists only.

I was under the impression that cyclists should stay to the left of the road, near the kerb on a straight road if they are not turning right. This idiot was in the middle of the road - who should be hit - the person on the left or the person on the right? Are you trying to say that there is no rules of the road for a cyclist, that they can cycle anywhere they want on the road? I don't think so. They have rules that they must follow too, and flying down the centre of a road with cyclists on the kerb side while banging cars is certainly not part of the rules of the road.

Turbulent Bill

Cyclists are normal road users, the same as cars, trucks etc. Staying to the left of the lane is just a convenience for faster-moving traffic - it's not a legal requirement.

On the overtaking, the cyclist overtaking you on your right should have waited for you to overtake the (presumably slower-moving) one to your left first. Did you indicate while overtaking?

No excuse for the roof banging.

funkyjebus

dolphin city wrote: »

I was under the impression that cyclists should stay to the left of the road, near the kerb on a straight road if they are not turning right. This idiot was in the middle of the road - who should be hit - the person on the left or the person on the right? Are you trying to say that there is no rules of the road for a cyclist, that they can cycle anywhere they want on the road?

I'm afraid your under the wrong impression. Cyclists are free to use the whole road, just the same rights that are afforded to other vehicles. We are obliged to use a bicycle lane (if provided), however that law is under review afaik (but is a stupid one, considering the condition of some lanes and the thickness of bike tyres), therefore if we want to cycle on the middle of the road, we are entitled to and in going over to either side of the road is nothing more that mere courtesy to motor vehicles behind.

Your welcome BTW.

dolphin city

you might want to try looking up to the rules of the road for cyclists

Make sure you keep to the left.

A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

So no, they cannot use whatever bit of the road they want.
maybe you should do a refresher course?

Crippens1

OP, It sounds to me that you started an overtaking manouvre whilst another road user was in the process of overtaking you. Did you not check in your right mirror before moving out to overtake ?

The car-banging is inexcusable.

dave.obrien

dolphin city wrote: »

I was under the impression that cyclists should stay to the left of the road, near the kerb on a straight road if they are not turning right. This idiot was in the middle of the road - who should be hit - the person on the left or the person on the right? Are you trying to say that there is no rules of the road for a cyclist, that they can cycle anywhere they want on the road? I don't think so. They have rules that they must follow too, and flying down the centre of a road with cyclists on the kerb side while banging cars is certainly not part of the rules of the road.

No, what kenmc is saying is that the side of the road for a cyclist is to the left of centre, or where there is a centre line on the road, to the left of that. In other words, the same as any other form of road user other than a pedestrian. There is no law saying pedal cycles should stay to the extreme left, ie, in the gutter; in fact, pedal cyclists are encouraged to take a position on the road that maximises their own safety, as long as they are no more than 2 abreast and left of the centre. This often means the middle of the lane, which irks an awful lot of drivers, though for the life of me I don't understand why, other than the "I am inconvenienced for 25 seconds" thing, which is pretty road ragey if you ask me... Kenmc is also saying that the manner in which he overtook you was the legal way to do it, but the banging on your cars makes him a bell end. Don't judge us all like that, please!!!

The manner in which you were driving sounds good, and I have no clue why this guy was assaulting tonnes of metal for the craic... While his cycling sounds fine, his behaviour sounds like that of a d1ckhead.

dave.obrien

dolphin city wrote: »

you might want to try looking up to the rules of the road for cyclists

Make sure you keep to the left.

A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

So no, they cannot use whatever bit of the road they want.
maybe you should do a refresher course?

Em, keep to the left, like the cars do, yes.

Was there a cycle track provided? Did it have a solid white line and the correct signage? Cause if it didn't, then it was not legally required of the cyclist.

funkyjebus

dolphin city wrote: »

you might want to try looking up to the rules of the road for cyclists

Make sure you keep to the left.

A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

So no, they cannot use whatever bit of the road they want.
maybe you should do a refresher course?

I assume you got that information from the RSA website which issues guidelines, but not rules. Under the road traffic act there is no such requirement.

To put the RSA guidelines in perspective, they 'require' all motorists to leave 1.5 metres (iirc) between them and a cyclist, which happens very rarely.

seamus

dolphin city wrote: »

I was under the impression that cyclists should stay to the left of the road, near the kerb on a straight road if they are not turning right.

No. Cyclists should stay in the centre of the lane (actually just left-of-centre) and only move in towards the left to allow following traffic to pass them.

In practice, this isn't always feasible so cyclists tend to keep left and people now tend to assume that cyclists *must* keep left. Which is not the case.

who should be hit - the person on the left or the person on the right?

Why should anyone be hit?

Without making any comments about whether or not the guy was in the right, let's look at the situation in reality;

You came upon a cyclist at the left edge of the road. He was going slower than you, you determined your way ahead was clear and you moved out to overtake.

What did you miss here? You failed to check your right wing mirror and you failed to check your blindspot over your right shoulder.

If you had done either of these things, you would likely have spotted the cyclist overtaking you and then you could have slowed and waited behind the other cyclist until your way was clear. The guy may be an asshole for banging on the cars, but he wasn't doing it for the craic. He was justified in this case because you failed to spot him overtaking.

Let's remove the cyclist from this equation and stick a motorcyclist in here, overtaking a line of traffic, on the right, as he is legally entitled to do. Was it his fault that you didn't spot him?

Ignore the ifs and buts here for the moment. There are a hundred things that the cyclist could have done instead also, but examine your own conduct. We're all too quick to blame everyone else when a conflict occurs in traffic, we rarely think, "What did *I* do wrong?";
How did you miss this guy overtaking on the right? People don't appear out of thin air, he was likely overtaking long enough for you to have seen him in your wing or rear-view mirrors? Right?

BostonB

The cyclist shouldn't have been overtaking on the right if the car was overtaking a cyclist on the left.

Banging on the roof suggests he knew it wasn't safe. Which suggests hes (the cyclist) shouldn't have been overtaking.

Cyclist have a habit of assuming they can been seen when they can't. Lots of blind spots from a car. Part of the reason for defending your road position on a bike, by staying out into the lane, IMO is to make yourself visible, with the understanding that drivers often don't see you. Which is why is often a bad idea to blindly stay in the cycle lane. Its seems contradictory to accept this, then discount it, by insisting, drivers should see everything, and riding up their blind side. The law is one one thing. Reality is another.

That said, if you are in slow moving traffic, and there are cyclists around, you can expect them on both sides. Any cyclist busy route is always the same.

tomasrojo

Yesterday I saw a motorist do an illegal right turn at the triangle in front of the Hilton hotel on Inchicore Road and then drive the wrong way down a one-way street, all in order to do a u-turn. I've found out since that drivers and taxi drivers in particular do this bizarre manoeuvre all the time.

Is this a sufficient basis to start a thread and condemn motorists? No.

seamus

BostonB wrote: »

The cyclist shouldn't have been overtaking on the right if the car was overtaking a cyclist on the left.

Generally speaking, of course. He should have spotted the bike on the left, anticipated the car's move and held back to allow the car to overtake.
But strictly speaking if he was already overtaking before the car started overtaking then he had right-of-way and had every right to be where he was.

TinyExplosions

dolphin city wrote: »

I was under the impression that cyclists should stay to the left of the road, near the kerb on a straight road if they are not turning right. This idiot was in the middle of the road - who should be hit - the person on the left or the person on the right? Are you trying to say that there is no rules of the road for a cyclist, that they can cycle anywhere they want on the road? I don't think so. They have rules that they must follow too, and flying down the centre of a road with cyclists on the kerb side while banging cars is certainly not part of the rules of the road.

Your impression is wrong.

Cyclist on the right was overtaking you perfectly legally, you should have checked mirrors and blind spot (and indicated) before overtaking the cyclist on your left, just as you should do if overtaking a slow moving car. The banging was just the cyclist being an asshole, but overtaking you was perfectly fine.

If it makes it easier for you, treat a cyclist as you would another car before making assumptions

BostonB

If it was cars...

I would say it would be dangerous driving if a third car overtook the OP as the OP comes up behind a slow car in the cycle lane.

It would be potentially unpredictable, and in that light, it wouldn't be appropriate for the guy at the back to overtake everyone.

tomasrojo

BostonB wrote: »

If it was cars...

I would say it would be dangerous driving if a third car overtook the OP as the OP comes up behind a slow car in the cycle lane.

It would be potentially unpredictable, and in that light, it wouldn't be appropriate for the guy at the back to overtake everyone.

That sounds about right to me.

BostonB

dolphin city wrote: »

you might want to try looking up to the rules of the road for cyclists

Make sure you keep to the left.

A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

So no, they cannot use whatever bit of the road they want.
maybe you should do a refresher course?

Staying in the cycling lane, is actually not practicable. You couldn't turn right for example.

BostonB

Of course banging on the roof might cause some one to swerve, maybe to the right, but probably left. Putting either cyclist in more danger. Its a nutter thing to do.

Its different if it was car or van squeezing you.

kenmc

BostonB wrote: »

If it was cars...

I would say it would be dangerous driving if a third car overtook the OP as the OP comes up behind a slow car in the cycle lane.

It would be potentially unpredictable, and in that light, it wouldn't be appropriate for the guy at the back to overtake everyone.

You can't say "if it was cars" to fit it to this situation - you might as well say the OP should have left 20 seconds later and then the issue might not have happened.

If it was cars, and the OP was in traffic like the situation sounds like, then he probably wouldn't have been able to overtake a slow moving car safely anyway, so whether or not a third car could over take him whilst doing so would be moot.

On many roads there is PLENTY of space for 2 bikes and a car to fit side by side between the kerb and the center line of the road (I've often overtaken a cyclist moving slowly in a cycletrack whilst there were cars to my right, either moving or stationary), whereas I can't think of any where 3 cars would fit side by side in a single lane. So if the cyclist on the rhs of the lane was not in the path of oncoming traffic, then he would most likely be perfectly entitled to be overtaking as he did. Is there actually anything in the road traffic act forbidding the overtaking of another vehicle which is itself overtaking (as long as it doesn't fall under dangerous driving of course)?

tomasrojo

Perhaps the roof-banging cyclist was a member of the critically acclaimed Stomp dance troupe in search of new sounds?

kenmc

tomasrojo wrote: »

Perhaps the roof-banging cyclist was a member of the critically acclaimed Stomp dance troupe in search of new sounds?

No, think they're finished here and moved on. Saw them in the grand canal theatre though, deadly.

BostonB

kenmc wrote: »

You can't say "if it was cars" to fit it to this situation - ...

Maybe you missed this...

TinyExplosions wrote: »

...

If it makes it easier for you, treat a cyclist as you would another car before making assumptions

seamus

BostonB wrote: »

I would say it would be dangerous driving if a third car overtook the OP as the OP comes up behind a slow car in the cycle lane.

Inconsiderate, maybe. Dangerous, maybe not.

If there are three cars travelling in convoy and the third car overtakes the first two, the second car must yield until the third car has finished its manouver.

Change the first car in the above scenario so that it's not part of the convoy but they encounter it moving slowly, the third car has failed to adequately check the road ahead, but nevertheless still retains the right-of-way and the second car must slow down and wait for no. 3 to finish his overtake before no. 2 can proceed to overtake.

BostonB

Except car 1 isn't in the same lane.

But I'm sure this will explain why car 3 ends up backwards, in the field opposite when car 2 pulls out to avoid a swerve into lane from car 1.

They'll be right and dead.

BostonB

You have to have some common sense. The idea that you can ignore whats going on ahead, and just plough on regardless, is dangerous IMO.

TinyExplosions

BostonB wrote: »

Except car 1 isn't in the same lane.

But I'm sure this will explain why car 3 ends up backwards, in the field opposite when car 2 pulls out to avoid a swerve into lane from car 1.

They'll be right and dead.

No, car 1 is in the same lane... there was no mention of the bike in the OP being in a seperate lane, just on the LHS of the road, so my analogy holds. If you are in a car, and come upon a slow moving car in front of you, you should signal and check that you are not being overtaken before overtaking the slower car. (see convoy analogy above)

BostonB

My mistake your right. All that fluff about cycle lanes, made me think there was one. Shouldn't overtake unless your clear from others behind overtaking.

Cyclists and bikers appear in the mirrors in a much smaller time window in traffic, due to the sharper angle they approach from. So its quite common for a driver not to see you.

thehangtenguy

As someone who cycles to work daily, motorcycles and drives a van at the weekend, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of motorist do not check their blind spot. The author of this thread confirms this further with the suggestion that in doing a "quick movement" the cyclist wounld have been plastered.
I see example of last minute / blind changing lanes all the time. Cyclist shounld assume if motorist can pull out on you, they will. Assume you are invisible. Stay safe people.

ciotog

To come back around to the OP, I'm a cyclist in Galway and thinking about the prom there are stretches of that road where there is a continuous white line (I don't cycle there other than occasional Critical Mass cycle that way ). So it's quite possible she was on a stretch where that is the case and the cyclist on the right was overtaking on that continuous line. So if that's the case then there's an issue of illegal overtaking and expectation of another road user's behaviour. What has compounded it here is this banging on all the cars going by. No one here disagrees with that being completely ignorant behaviour. As regards road position of a bicycle, it has been outlined that a cyclist is entitled to use the lane as any other vehicle.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yesterday I saw a motorist do an illegal right turn at the triangle in front of the Hilton hotel on Inchicore Road and then drive the wrong way down a one-way street, all in order to do a u-turn. I've found out since that drivers and taxi drivers in particular do this bizarre manoeuvre all the time.

Is this a sufficient basis to start a thread and condemn motorists? No.

I say go for it! The taxi drivers always pretend there's a rank on that cycle track too. And the with-flow cycle track is on the wrong side of the one-way street anyway - it's great fun turning right off the South Circular with traffic and fending off the car traffic to get into the right lane. And then the open-top tour bus pushes by with inches to spare, and not even a hello! Shocking. To the tourism forum!

Idleater

ciotog wrote: »

So it's quite possible she was on a stretch where that is the case and the cyclist on the right was overtaking on that continuous line. So if that's the case then there's an issue of illegal overtaking and expectation of another road user's behaviour.

There is nothing prohibiting overtaking where there is a continuous line, only the crossing of said line. As a cyclist and motorcyclist I use this to my advantage when conditions allow.
As a car driver, I ensure I position myself to maximise my safety without impeding others as best I can.
Now, I don't know the widths of the road in question but it is highly probable that all 3 could legally overtake while remaining within the law.

Jawgap

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

No excuse for the roof banging.

Quite right - down with that sort of thing......no to roof banging

Yes, to finger banging......

morana

I wish the mods would ban this type of BS! threads not roof banging!

All we get are cyclists do this and this and then dont do this and all the rest..
When will peoplerealise cyclists in the main wont go around banging stuff (cars, etc) unless there is a danger to them. Yes there are some assholes on bikes out there, I may be one myself but its pointless debating this!

-Chris-

This thread should be renamed "Which side of the road does this particular cyclist want?"


We haven't held cyclist elections recently, this cyclist does not represent us or speak with our voice, and certainly does not have a mandate from us to bang on cars.


Don't let that get in the way of a good rant though... :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

And we're done