Conflict with a motorist over approach to T-junction

Iwannahurl

While out cycling today, with my two children installed in the trailer, I encountered a conflict situation with a motorist.

I was approaching the junction pictured below, intending to turn right. I was still in the area with the broken white line, but not far off the section with the continuous line.

I looked over my shoulder and reckoned that the motorist just behind me driving an Audi TT (zero to 100 km/h in just under 6 seconds, I believe) seemed intent on overtaking even on this relatively narrow stretch not far from a junction.

Being a bit Bolshie, and guessing that she might be turning left up ahead (flared junction with no lane divider but room for two cars side by side) I quickly signalled right and took the lane (primary position, as per Cyclecraft) in an attempt to discourage her from passing. Reason: I hate being overtaken by cars just before a junction, especially if they're turning left and I'm going straight ahead or right, and I find it especially unpleasant with kids on board.

She overtook me anyway, and then had to immediately pull in left across the continuous line because of approaching traffic, approximately as indicated by the arrow.

She was indeed turning left at the junction (of course she was, IMO, hence her compelling need to get there first) so when she entered the left-turn lane beside me she lowered her window and a shouting match ensued.

IWH: "What were you trying to do? There was a junction just ahead! I was turning right!"
TT: "You left it very late to signal! I didn't know which way you were turning!"
IWH: "Fine, so hang back and wait then."
TT: "Wait? For YOU?"

The caps and italics on the last word is an attempt to convey her tone.

To what extent was I in the wrong -- legally, technically or morally -- in the above encounter as described, which of course is only my version?

What could I have done better?

Oldlegs

"To what extent was I in the wrong -- legally, technically or morally"


Where to start ....

When you have kids in the back of your car/bike etc. the only consideration should be safety - not whether you are in the right or wrong.

There is many a person in a hospital ward (or worse) who were legally, technically or morally right.

Suggest next time, you pull in rather than pull out. If you feel strongly enough about it, dial the Gardai traffic watch (as a Cyclist you may want to keep this as a speed dial) and let them have a word with the driver.

jetsonx

Iwannahurl wrote: »

While out cycling today, with my two children installed in the trailer,

I am au fait with the excellent book Cyclecraft but I do not think the author covers cycling with a trailer that carries kids!

As for the incident, I know the type of driver you're on about...meet them all the time...when driving and cycling...extremely annoying I know but you should of just let her overtake. Never let ego or principles get in the way of safety.

Brave man taking a trailer on Irish roads. IMO, Bike+kids trailer = fine for somewhere like the hinterlands of Holland with flat dedicated cycle lanes that go on for miles- but Ireland?, with our narrow-potholed-blind-corner-ridden-drivers-not-on-the-look-out-for-cyclists-roads - too dangerous.

Iwannahurl

The only consideration should be safety, so stay at home or use the car?

zenno

I don't see a problem here regarding this cyclist with kids on-board.

the ass in the car should have given way to the cyclist as a matter of safety because when I see a person or persons cycling on any road ahead of me I always slow the hell down and give them way, as we don't want a ton of metal hitting anyone do we.

o.p that idiot in the car is just that, and idiot. all she had to do was slow down and waste a couple of her damn valuable seconds to give you way and have some respect for people cycling especially with kids on-board. there are some idiots out there driving these days and all they think of is themselves, wasters.

unfortunately o.p this is what you have to deal with but not all motorists are like this.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

you should have shot her in the face .

Cookie_Monster

you could have shouted at her a bit more for being an ignorant bitch but other than that nothing wrong IMO.

reallyunique

To what extent were you wrong?
Well legally I'd think that only a court could decide and it doesn't matter anyway as you're not going to court (I hope).
Technically? I'd want to be out at the white line if I were turning right, that said, if I'm slow moving traffic and there's only one car looking to pass me then I'd probably wait. Better to let them go than end up pushing a bad position. The worst case is something comes the other way and to avoid a head-on one of the cars hits you. You can certainly make a case for taking prime position technically as it is the recommended behaviour but it depends on how far back from the junction you are. Too far back and you're just blocking traffic.
Morally? Well that's easy, if you were "being a bit Bolshie" then it was a purely selfish act designed to get on the thrupenny-bits of the following driver. You hate being overtaken and that's why you pulled out, she probably hates being stuck behind slow moving traffic. If it were to get your kids to school on time rather than being late, if it were to show courtesy to other road users or to make a point that cyclists need space on our roads in spite of the law then grab that moral high ground. When you're doing it to annoy others or just 'cos you want to then maybe it's not the story you want people to tell in your eulogy.

What could you have done better? From her perspective I suppose "Get a car!" but I've been at both sides of these shouting matches and the best thing I've found is to avoid conflict. Hitting a car with a bike is rarely fun for the cyclist and hitting a cyclist with a car is absolutely guaranteed to ruin your week.
If you can, stay left, let the faster traffic past and be safe. Signal well in advance and ensure that you're being allowed to move out by following traffic. If you forget to or can't signal 'till it's too late then be prepared to slow or stop and wait to be allowed to move safely to prime position (someone will always let you out). This is not the fun way to ride, it's (probably) not the lawful way to ride and it's not even the assertive way to ride but it's safe and kinda character building.

Legally and morally having kids with you shouldn't really matter. In fact it'd be some serious git who'd see a trailer full of kids and think "Ah, I'll take a chance anyway." and I'm sure you didn't do anything you thought would put your children at risk.
Technically a trailer makes you slower and less maneuverable so you need to leave more space/time for changing lanes etc. If you're vulnerable and slow prime position is less useful as you can't make much use of it.

All the above is just an opinion but you did ask

Iwannahurl

@reallyunique: Thanks for your detailed response. I probably won't get a chance to address the many interesting points you make, so here are just a few comments as they occur to me.

1. "I'd want to be out at the white line if turning right". Every stretch of road and junction must be approached as appropriate I suppose. Unfortunately, depending on carriageway width and junction layout, I may find that I am being overtaken on the right by left-turning traffic or on the left by right-turning traffic (eg when I'm in the right-turn stacking lane). In this instance the roadway was narrow, so moving out to the line too soon would only have prompted her to overake (dangerously, given the lane width) on the left.

2. IIRC there were three cars behind. I have found that if one goes the rest often follow suit, so I could well have ended up inside a line of left-turning cars, since most vehicles are turning left at this junction.

3. "It depends on how far back from the junction you are". That's the judgment call, isn't it? I'm well used to cycling without a trailer, and if it was just me I would be at the junction much sooner. We're talking seconds here, of course, as the distance involved was only 20-30 metres. With the trailer I am slower and longer (as in length overall). The trailer is new so I'm still getting used to the changed dynamic in such situations.

4. By bolshie I mean assertive and not content to take any sh:t. If anything it's to "make a point that cyclists need space on our roads". The road was narrow and the time period involved could be measured in seconds. My gut feeling would be that there was little to be gained by anyone overtaking in such a short stretch of road. They could easily lose those seconds waiting at the junction anyway. It was not to get on the thruppeny bits of TT, as I made the judgment quickly after glancing over my shoulder. Sometimes such antagonism can arise if you're annoyed or harassed by a driver over a stretch of road, and you make up your mind not to let them get the better of you.

5. "Ensure that you're being allowed to move out by following traffic". This is a judgment call again, isn't it? How do I decide that motorised traffic is far enough behind me so that I can be "allowed" to turn right? I was overtaken recently, without trailer this time, while signalling to make a right turn on a 50 km/h residential street in heavy rain, by two motorists travelling at what I reckon must have been 60-70 km/h. I had reckoned they were far enough behind for me to head for the median line, but they accelerated and overtook dangerously (incidentally on a road where the local residents have been looking for a double continuous white line since 2006).

6. This is the character, for better or for worse, I've built over a lifetime of cycling since childhood!

Idleater

IWH, the only but of advice I can give from what I've learned as an advanced driver /rider is that you can't go far wrong by stereotyping motorists.
As soon as I read "I looked over my shoulder and reckoned that the motorist just behind me driving an Audi TT " I had a good idea what was more than likely going to happen. If it were a BMW I'd have expected nothing other than them to follow close behind, similar with a white van and I'd be less towards the white line if it were a micra.

Stereotyping helps guage the worst pitential outcome for the more vulnerable road user for any given "aggressor". I have to deal with all sorts of blockers and inappropriate passers on the motorbike which like a bicycle is small enough to ignore and squeeze out under the mine is bigger than yours rule.

Basically I'm suggesting that while you did everything right, the one thing to add to your next assessment of a junction manoeuvre is to assess the stereotypical handling of your move by the upcoming vehicle. If that means delaying the turn, turning early, moving further or less to the center of the road, so be it. If the vehicle conforms to the stereotype you are safe, if not you are still in a safe position and you can commend the driver for being better than their stereotype would allow.

Obviously as the others have said safety is key, so sacrifice nothing for that, there's nothing to be gained from being in the right but in hospital with a broken leg.

tomasrojo

jetsonx wrote: »

I am au fait with the excellent book Cyclecraft but I do not think the author covers cycling with a trailer that carries kids!

The latest edition does. Not sure whether it has any advice on this particular situation though.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I quickly signalled right and took the lane...What could I have done better?

Signalled for longer?

I vaguely recall someone once telling me to indicate for four seconds before changing road position, where possible. He may have been a driving instructor, I can't remember.

Nobody actually does this of course.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Signalled for longer?

I vaguely recall someone once telling me to indicate for four seconds before changing road position, where possible. He may have been a driving instructor, I can't remember.

Nobody actually does this of course.

I guess when you signal you have to look back and see whether the vehicle following has understood and is going to let you move out. If they're being an ass about it, let them go and try the next one.

galwaycyclist

Idleater wrote: »

IWH, the only but of advice I can give from what I've learned as an advanced driver /rider is that you can't go far wrong by stereotyping motorists.
As soon as I read "I looked over my shoulder and reckoned that the motorist just behind me driving an Audi TT " I had a good idea what was more than likely going to happen. If it were a BMW I'd have expected nothing other than them to follow close behind, similar with a white van and I'd be less towards the white line if it were a micra.

+1 and in fact if I remember correctly 'Hurl has a photo somewhere of a red tt trying to squeeze up on my right between me and a traffic island while I was waiting to turn right onto a roundabout. As I recall the tt was physically touching me.

I think we were trying to pose shots on how to cycle round a roundabout.

smacl

IMHO, making a risky manoeuvre overtaking a bike towing kids in a trailer is inexcusable. I'd have no hesitation reporting her to the guards, even a verbal caution might make her more considerate in future.

So that's the moral question dealt with. From a pragmatic point of view, I doubt I'd take my kids on tow in Dublin unless I had an extremely safe route planned that had no potential nasties like this involved. Even with my 7 year old cycling beside me, she's on the path if there's no cycle lane, and crosses at pedestrian crossings on right turns. Not ideal, but I just wouldn't make any compromises with safety in this regard. There are no good outcomes when the inevitable conflict arises.

Lumen

I've cycled a fair bit with a trailer on the roads around Dublin. It's safer than cycling solo, i.e. very safe indeed.

droidus

From the sounds of it, you did absolutely nothing wrong. You anticipated that she would cut you off, so you moved to the correct road position to prevent her from endangering you.

Report her to Trafficwatch for dangerous driving.

rp

jetsonx wrote: »

Brave man taking a trailer on Irish roads. IMO, Bike+kids trailer = fine for somewhere like the hinterlands of Holland with flat dedicated cycle lanes that go on for miles- but Ireland?, with our narrow-potholed-blind-corner-ridden-drivers-not-on-the-look-out-for-cyclists-roads - too dangerous.

I'm sick of hearing people saying that: I've used a child trailer extensively in Ireland and on the Mainland (Luxembourg), and Ireland was certainly the safest environment, with more considerate drivers. Child trailers are proven to be safer than front or rear mounted child seats (Allianz report): they present a more visible warning and in the case of accidents provide more protection.

fat bloke

"Won't somebody please think of the children!!?"

Replace "bike and trailer" with any other road vehicle, and the TT was in the wrong.

I used a trailer for a couple of years and absolutely detested being on the road with it. You'd be there trying to turn right as described, with a mobile phone using BMW X5 grill inches from the trailer, whistling turbo snarling at the back of the kids' heads, and inching left in order to squeeze past in a hair's breadth opportunity:mad:

Pigeon Reaper

The majority of Irish people have no experience with bicycle trailers and that then implies that they are unsafe. Anything unknown is normally considered unsafe until proven otherwise in a persons personal experience. On mainland Europe the trailers are everywhere and are often considered the best way of bringing children on short trips.

Net66Scam

As stated by several members, there is no absolute right and wrong here. Both the cyclist and the car driver have their perspective on what happened, and without independant verification 'the answer' will never truly be known.
IT SEEMS that the car driver was thoughtless and impatient, but the cyclist has also admitted to trying to 'make a point' by his/her actions and attitude.

The overiding consideration should have been safety, regardless of who was in the right.

Oldlegs

Net66Scam wrote: »

As stated by several members, there is no absolute right and wrong here. Both the cyclist and the car driver have their perspective on what happened, and without independant verification 'the answer' will never truly be known.
IT SEEMS that the car driver was thoughtless and impatient, but the cyclist has also admitted to trying to 'make a point' by his/her actions and attitude.

I disagree with the 1st point - based on the evidence (albeit from only 1 party) presented, it would appear that the driver was clearly in the wrong, especially as she confirmed that she was not prepared to wait for the road-user in front (i.e. the cyclist).

However, I think the OP was very wrong to endanger his children while trying to make the point. Why not slow down a bit, and wave the driver through - why let someone else's aggression ruin your day (or worse!)

monkeybutter

Thats not true at all, there clearly is a right and wrong here unless the poster is telling fibs

Lumen

Oldlegs wrote: »

However, I think the OP was very wrong to endanger his children while trying to make the point.

That's a low blow.

tomasrojo

TT: "You left it very late to signal! I didn't know which way you were turning!"

If I were driving, I certainly wouldn't overtake in this scenario. Easier to stay behind and see what happens.

Thud

a car weights more than a bike+trailer+kids+being in the right, there would only be one outcome if something went wrong, not worth risking it opt for the safer approach, so what if it adds 30 seconds to your trip...

Net66Scam

There is little to argue with in anyone's response to this topic.
Which might sound crazy, but the consensus seems to be that the car driver was probably inconsiderate , thoughtless and selfish (as far as we can tell): the cyclist was well informed about correct procedures and technique in the way his vehicle should be used, but perhaps was a little too 'assertive' given the safety considerations (and his own vulnerability) which should prevail; and the aphorism which has much to commend it - "Consider all other road users as idiots (who MAY be out to get you - by accident or design) and ride/drive defensively to prevent that possibility becoming a reality.

Piercemeear

I think there's confusion here. Quite a few seem to be saying that the OP is "risking his children" by taking the lane rather than keeping in until the junction. My own position would be that taking the lane* is ordinarily the safer option, avoiding an unnecessary overtake and cross-over by the car coming up to the junction. This makes an assumption about the driver behaving reasonably safely. Many would argue that making assumptions about the general predictability of drivers is foolish, but we all make such assumptions, within reason, or else cycling (and all other road use) would be impossible.

The OP was not "endanger[ing] his children" to teach some driver a lesson or to save time.

*In good time, with adequate signalling.

munsterleinster

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

The majority of Irish people have no experience with bicycle trailers and that then implies that they are unsafe.

I'm speechless:eek:

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

Anything unknown is normally considered unsafe until proven otherwise in a persons personal experience.

(Speech regained... )
What a load of complete and utter b0ll0cks!!!

droidus

Piercemeear wrote: »

I think there's confusion here. Quite a few seem saying that the OP is "risking his children" by taking the lane rather than keeping in until the junction. My own position would be that taking the lane is ordinarily the safer option, avoiding an unnecessary overtake and cross-over by the car coming up to the junction. This makes an assumption about the driver behaving reasonably safely. Many would argue that making assumptions about the general predictability of drivers is foolish, but we all make such assumptions, within reason, or else cycling (and all other road use) would be impossible.

The OP was not "endanger[ing] his children" to teach some driver a lesson or to save time.

Spot on. He was in fact taking the course of action most likely to ensure his and the kids safety.

smacl

Piercemeear wrote: »

The OP was not "endanger[ing] his children" to teach some driver a lesson or to save time.

Agreed entirely, the OP came on here having found himself in an unwanted position of conflict, looking for advice to avoid a similar situation from arising in the future. Having now established a potential risk, taking the same action on the same route and having a similar problem in the future would a different matter. I don't think the OP did anything wrong, it's just a matter of minimising risk to an acceptable (negligible) level.

Iwannahurl

Idleater wrote: »

IWH, the only but of advice I can give from what I've learned as an advanced driver /rider is that you can't go far wrong by stereotyping motorists.

She was in her 70s and wearing a pink bandana! And happened to be driving a TT with an elderly passenger in the front seat.

Stereotype that!

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

I've cycled a fair bit with a trailer on the roads around Dublin. It's safer than cycling solo, i.e. very safe indeed.

This thread has now run to 30+ posts over three pages so I probably won't be able to comment on all responses.

I would agree to some extent about the apparent safety aspects of using a trailer. It appears and feels safer than solo cycling in some ways. As an adult cyclist you are expected to be able to look out for yourself, but with a trailer it is assumed that there are kids on board. Also a trailer is bigger and brighter and has a flag on a pole for extra visibility.

In my experience many motorists give me a wider berth, perhaps a bit like that researcher in the blonde wig.

That said, I'm not immune from muppetry. A favourite wheeze is to try to overtake me on roundabouts, by whatever means possible (ie outside lane, inside lane, whatever is needed to get past this pedal-powered nuisance). On roundabouts I am much slower with a trailer, as you might imagine.

Far be it from me to stereotype any category of motorist, but my impression is that a disproportionate number of adverse incidents involve female drivers, including those with children on board themselves.

Net66Scam wrote: »

As stated by several members, there is no absolute right and wrong here. Both the cyclist and the car driver have their perspective on what happened, and without independant verification 'the answer' will never truly be known.

IT SEEMS that the car driver was thoughtless and impatient, but the cyclist has also admitted to trying to 'make a point' by his/her actions and attitude.

The overiding consideration should have been safety, regardless of who was in the right.

Oldlegs wrote: »

I disagree with the 1st point - based on the evidence (albeit from only 1 party) presented, it would appear that the driver was clearly in the wrong, especially as she confirmed that she was not prepared to wait for the road-user in front (i.e. the cyclist).

However, I think the OP was very wrong to endanger his children while trying to make the point. Why not slow down a bit, and wave the driver through - why let someone else's aggression ruin your day (or worse!)

Thud wrote: »

a car weights more than a bike+trailer+kids+being in the right, there would only be one outcome if something went wrong, not worth risking it opt for the safer approach, so what if it adds 30 seconds to your trip...

I would draw a distinction between conflict and risk for the purposes of this thread.

Contrary to the assertions of some posters, I did not and would not put my children at risk to make a point.

At no time did I feel that either I or the TT driver put my children at risk. However, the conflict was unpleasant, and entirely unnecessary in my opinion. The time periods and distances involved were not substantial, including the degree to which I needed to change my position in order to take the lane. The road was narrow at that point, and I already cycle well out of the gutter to avoid running the trailer into the kerb, drains, potholes, broken glass, debris etc.

What prompted me to start a thread about this incident was her contemptuous "wait for you" remark, which implied that I was entirely and perhaps intrinsically in the wrong.

The remark made me suspect that Ms TT was well out of order (she could have just blown the horn rather than overtake in the opposite lane 20 metres from a junction), yet at the same time I was not fully convinced that I did nothing wrong.

I absolutely expect motorists to wait for me in appropriate situations, which they would if I was in a car, but I need to have a reasonable basis for knowing when to do so.

This is not a case of being right versus being dead, IMO, and when physical risk is not a significant issue I do believe it's important for cyclists to assert their right to be on the road. As it happens, on an almost daily basis I have to assert our right as pedestrians to walk on the footpath unhindered, and I hope nobody would argue that might is right in that context.








EDIT: A thought occurs. Opinion is somewhat divided, and, bearing in mind the various types of cycling catered for in this forum, I'm wondering whether regular commuter/utility cyclists tend to have a different view from posters who are mainly into cycling as a sport. Just wondering.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What prompted me to start a thread about this incident was her contemptuous "wait for you" remark, which implied that I was entirely in the wrong.

I wouldn't say that.

I think it implies that she's an obnoxious bítch with an overpriced Golf.

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

I wouldn't say that.

I think it implies that she's an obnoxious bítch with an overpriced Golf.

BOOOOM!

Iwannahurl

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

BOOOOM!

/THREAD (with a bang)?

Bunnyhopper

Did she, in overtaking, cross the solid white line?

Overtaking across the solid white line is bad, mmmkay?

cyclopath2001

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Did she, in overtaking, cross the solid white line...Overtaking across the solid white line is bad, mmmkay?

Not only that, but the law explicitly forbids any overtaking that inconveniences or endangers anyone else.

morana

I dont know why you would try rationalise what happened. this is a daily occurrence for most cyclists really you just have to get on with.

I hope that doesnt sound like Iam havin a go at you..far from it. A lot of car drivers see you as an obstacle to go around or drive over .....

el Bastardo

morana wrote: »

I dont know why you would try rationalise what happened. this is a daily occurrence for most cyclists really you just have to get on with.

I hope that doesnt sound like Iam havin a go at you..far from it. A lot of car drivers see you as an obstacle to go around or drive over .....

... or drive through!


Motorists are bastards... sometimes. As someone said elsewhere here on this forum, if a motorist is cock-sure that they're right, you're wasting your time trying to educate them.

Oldlegs

I may have misinterpreted your outlook, based on the following description you used ...

"I looked over my shoulder and reckoned that the motorist just behind me driving an Audi TT (zero to 100 km/h in just under 6 seconds, I believe) seemed intent on overtaking even on this relatively narrow stretch not far from a junction.

Being a bit Bolshie, and guessing that she might be turning left up ahead ... "

If I were in the same situation with my kids in the trailer, I would have been more inclined to say to myself, "pull in, and wave the her past, someone else down the line will deal with her". Now, on the other hand if I were on my own on the bike, I might be (I bloody well know I would be!) more inclined to exerts my rights as a road user.

recedite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Contrary to the assertions of some posters, I did not and would not put my children at risk to make a point.
At no time did I feel that either I or the TT driver put my children at risk.

That would be my reading of it too. Both parties felt they should have priority in being first in the queue at the next junction. Pure one-upmanship. Probably more important is what happened just afterwards... whether you laughed it off, or were the kids left feeling bad; they never like seeing the parents being in an argument.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

...Both parties felt they should have priority in being first in the queue at the next junction. ...

.. but as most of us know the person in front has priority unless the person behind has blue lights flashing.

jimmymal

OP sometimes it is important to establish your intention and dominance of a particular part of road. With or without children, as long as you are using the rules of the road naturally.
As a cyclist you know that you have to do this every day of the week if you want to get around efficiently, or like the motorist who said earlier maybe you should pull over and let traffic pass you safely (behave like a second class road user) and actually never get anywhere.

I both drive and cycle. In the city i try to cycle as much as i can and ill mostly drive when leaving the city. As a driver i am legally bound up drive safely at all times, especially in urban areas as the speed limits reflect.
As a cyclist i am a bit more care free of the rules that govern us on two wheels, as are most. For example as i was driving through the city up Georges St towards Dame St and turning onto Exchequer St just before the lights. The lights were red.(Not flashing) I came up to them and without actually coming to a full halt proceeded to turn, checking for pedestrians crossing exchequer st whilst doing so. It was clear. However as i turned half way across the oncoming lane i stopped suddenly to see a man with a child in a rear seat on his bicycle shouting and pointing at his baby.

His position was obviously that i should be more aware of his actions because of he had a baby with him. I was a bit on the surprised side of things so i didn't return the abuse but it sprung on me a few minutes later that he had just cycled into my path straight through a red light. And yes, with a baby.
My point being both cyclists and drivers can be a bit a loose with the rules and its about finding the right balance of safety and efficiency for you. Just be as visible and communicative as possible.

Thud

if you had any inkling that they were an agressive driver and going to pass you you should have left them off, yes be assertive on your own but not with the kids in the back.

If its saving time you are worried about then drive, if not factor in a few minutes into your trip time to allow for these sort of incidents which will happen.

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

tomasrojo

Thud wrote: »

if you had any inkling that they were an agressive driver and going to pass you you should have left them off

Probably what I'd have done, but he still didn't do anything wrong.

Thud wrote: »

If its saving time you are worried about then drive

In my experience, this is the worst thing you can do if you want to save time, during the working day anyway.

Thud wrote: »

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

The fallacy of misleading vividness. This wasn't a near-death scenario.

smacl

Thud wrote: »

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

With that mindset, you'd never get involved with any activity with your kids more risky than the odd game of playstation. 'Oops, little Jimmy's after falling off the bike and caved his skull in, whatever will I tell the wife'. I think there's a huge difference between being aware of what could happen, and being constantly afraid of what might happen, where the latter is unhealthy. Yes, if in any doubt always err on the side of caution, but don't let irrational fear mither you, life's too short.

It would be interesting to know if there are any statistics out there for road traffic accidents involving kids being towed. I'm guessing they're few and far between, even given the small number of people using this method of transport. FWIW, I did have a minor spill with my younger girl in tow on the greenway earlier this year, my fault turning too quickly coming out of one of the narrow cattle grids. Nobody died or went to hospital. A few scratches, a teary moment, some boiled sweets, and back off on our way. My wife and other daughter were also cycling with us, and while I picked up some mighty slagging on the way back, it wasn't exactly like a scene out of one of those NI road safety videos where it all ends up in the morgue or funeral parlour.

tomasrojo

I often wonder whether the primary effect of all those grief-and-blood road safety adverts is to make already careful and sensitive people fearful, while having no effect at all on the pig-ignorant or simply overconfident types that generally make these gross errors.

Pity we can't rigorously enforce the points system. Remember how well-behaved everyone was before it became clear that no-one was going to enforce it?

HivemindXX

I'm a commuter. I didn't respond up until now because I didn't have much to add to what people have already said but since someone wanted to know if there was a difference in attitude between commuters, racers and presumably leisure cyclists I figured I'd give my opinion now.

First action, pulling out in to position to turn right when you thought there was an over enthusiastic motorist behind you. Hard to say what I would have done, it depends on a lot of factors which I'd process subconciously at the time. How long to cross to the correct position at my current speed, could the driver pass me on the inside at that point, how fast was the driver approaching from behind, would they have to break (and how much) if I moved out in to the lane. So, I don't know what I would have done. What is clear is that at some point you need to make that maneuver and as someone else said there could be more cars behind the TT, how many do you let pass before you turn.

Second action, the TT overtakes you on the wrong side of the road just short of a junction and apparently crossing a solid white line. Unambiguously bad. Indicates the driver is overly aggressive and could probably stand some compulsory "you are not the centre of the world" training.

Third action, telling you that you shouldn't have done that and implying that cyclists shouldn't be using the road. Unambiguosly bad. Indicates the driver is one of those people who think cyclists are just on the road as a favour from motorists (#include road tax, driving licence, other Clarkson fueled gibberish). This tells me the motorist is an idiot.

Iwannahurl

Oldlegs wrote: »

I may have misinterpreted your outlook, based on the following description you used ...

"I looked over my shoulder and reckoned that the motorist just behind me driving an Audi TT (zero to 100 km/h in just under 6 seconds, I believe) seemed intent on overtaking even on this relatively narrow stretch not far from a junction.

Being a bit Bolshie, and guessing that she might be turning left up ahead ... "

If I were in the same situation with my kids in the trailer, I would have been more inclined to say to myself, "pull in, and wave the her past, someone else down the line will deal with her". Now, on the other hand if I were on my own on the bike, I might be (I bloody well know I would be!) more inclined to exerts my rights as a road user.

You have, of course, only what I say to go on, for better or for worse.

I also said earlier that it was just a short distance from the junction, that there were three cars behind and that I could well have ended up inside a line of left-turning cars, since most vehicles are turning left at this junction.

I have also stated that I would not and did not put my children at risk.

Questions for you: are you a driver who cycles for sport/leisure, or are you a regular cycle commuter?

If you have children, do you transport them by bike, or do they cycle themselves to school or other places?

morana wrote: »

I dont know why you would try rationalise what happened. this is a daily occurrence for most cyclists really you just have to get on with.

I hope that doesnt sound like Iam havin a go at you..far from it. A lot of car drivers see you as an obstacle to go around or drive over .....

Because it's Boards!

And because it's interesting, and possibly enlightening, to get others' perspective.

recedite wrote: »

That would be my reading of it too. Both parties felt they should have priority in being first in the queue at the next junction. Pure one-upmanship. Probably more important is what happened just afterwards... whether you laughed it off, or were the kids left feeling bad; they never like seeing the parents being in an argument.

My 4-year-old loves a good argument!

One-upmanship? I'm not so sure. Assertive cycling is part of formal cycle training, I understand.

I haven't had such formal training but I do have a lifetime of cycling experience, having been a bike commuter on and off since primary school (even during the most lethal time on Irish roads, the 1970s).

I have also held a driver's licence for many years.

In my personal experience (whatever about evidence) the most at-risk cyclists are the most timid and uncertain ones.

The reality in Ireland is that we have to share the road. In that situation, one judgement call is, do I constantly let motorists have their own way or do I stand my ground in certain circumstances?

If I hadn't volunteered the Bolshie bit you would have little to go on in that regard!

CramCycle wrote: »

.. but as most of us know the person in front has priority unless the person behind has blue lights flashing.

A key point, IMO. As I said, the distance to the junction was only 20-30 metres (a matter of seconds), the road was narrow, and I cycle well out of the gutter anyway.

Does a motorist have a superior right to be impatient, one wonders?

tomasrojo wrote: »

I often wonder whether the primary effect of all those grief-and-blood road safety adverts is to make already careful and sensitive people fearful, while having no effect at all on the pig-ignorant or simply overconfident types that generally make these gross errors.

Pity we can't rigorously enforce the points system. Remember how well-behaved everyone was before it became clear that no-one was going to enforce it?

There is no effective enforcement on the roads I travel on regularly. For example, I have never seen a speed check anywhere in the urban area I live in. In 2006 the local residents association asked for speed surveillance on the main 50 km/h residential road which had a chronic speeding problem and we were told that "it would not be an efficient use of Garda resources".

Needless to say it still happens -- a large proportion of vehicles including HGVs routinely travelling at 70 km/h and up -- and no traffic calming was ever implemented. If taking my children out in the trailer in such traffic conditions is in any way negligent or irresponsible then I may as well just give up and stay at home. Or drive, as suggested by more than one poster. The road in question is the only route out of the estate.

coolbeans

Thud wrote: »

if you had any inkling that they were an agressive driver and going to pass you you should have left them off, yes be assertive on your own but not with the kids in the back.

If its saving time you are worried about then drive, if not factor in a few minutes into your trip time to allow for these sort of incidents which will happen.

How would you have explained it to your other half?.... " the kids are in hospital/dead but i was in the right, she shouldn't have passed me and i thought her a lesson"

Complete and utter failure of a post.