Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Jester252

JRant wrote: »

The drivers anger management issues caused the incident.

If you think attacking somebody for blowing a crappy horn and waving a hand at you is reason enough, I'm glad to say you are most certainly in a minority.

Now if the cyclist had one of these bad boys on his bike you might have a case m'lurd.

Sigh
The cyclist blew is horn after the overtaken had occurred to show his displeasure with it. The van driver has serious road rage that was set off due to this. The guy should be banned from driving and locked up because he's a danger on the roads. However this wouldn't have happen in the first place if the cyclist had not blown his horn and just left it.
What part are you failing to see?

Jawgap

DoozerT6 wrote: »

I haven't read the other 49 pages of this thread so sorry if this has been asked before (and it's a genuine query, not really a complaint!) but why do cyclists not use the lovely bike lanes that are provided throughout so much of the cities now? Instead they cycle on the road or bus lane when there is a perfectly good cycle lane 5 feet to their left!! I can only imagine it's because pedestrians/joggers end up in the bike lane...anybody shed any light? It can be quite annoying when you're stuck behind someone cycling slowly along, in the road, with the empty bike lane within arms reach of them.....

Well for a start, cyclists are no longer obliged to use cycle lanes. Also cycle lanes in Ireland are pretty crap - usually poorly designed and rarely properly maintained to the point of being dangerous.

There are some good stretches, but they are very few and very far between.

False 9 wrote: »

It is. Sure isn't that how you pass a driving test? Rolleyes don't make it not so.

The driving test is about your ability to control a machine - it is about motor (no pun intended) skills - it's in no way a test of your driving ability .

RE Road Tax - there's no such tax. There's motor tax which I (and a lot of cyclists) pay, as do a lot of non-cyclists and habitual pedestrians.

dan1895

On the state of cycle lanes the one through Ballymun has parking spaces marked in it.

JRant

Jester252 wrote: »

Sigh
The cyclist blew is horn after the overtaken had occurred to show his displeasure with it. The van driver has serious road rage that was set off due to this. The guy should be banned from driving and locked up because he's a danger on the roads. However this wouldn't have happen in the first place if the cyclist had not blown his horn and just left it.
What part are you failing to see?

If you look at what you've written here there is a breakdown in logic.

First: Unless the cyclist has eyes in the back of his head or is able to see into the future, he can only beep after the overtake. I sure as hell wouldn't take my hands of the handlebars with a car/van that close.

Second: So you agree the guy is a bit of a head the ball and has no place on the road, that's a good thing.

Third: You are engaging in victim blaming if you think he is anyway culpable for what happened. There is no excuse for what happened, even if the cyclist had of done something wrong it is no reason to be being physically assaulted.

The sole reason for this incident is that one individual thought he was auditioning for Falling Down - Part II - "Revenge of the White Van Man", while another individual was trying to cycle from point A to be B.

JRant

Jawgap wrote: »

Well for a start, cyclists are no longer obliged to use cycle lanes. Also cycle lanes in Ireland are pretty crap - usually poorly designed and rarely properly maintained to the point of being dangerous.

There are some good stretches, but they are very few and very far between.



The driving test is about your ability to control a machine - it is about motor (no pun intended) skills - it's in no way a test of your driving ability .

RE Road Tax - there's no such tax. There's motor tax which I (and a lot of cyclists) pay, as do a lot of non-cyclists and habitual pedestrians.

A good friend of mine was very much in the "why don't you use the cycle lane" brigade, used to continually give out about cyclist not using them.
Recently he got purchased a bike through the cycle to work scheme (which I think has been a great success), within 2 days of cycling on the roads he had completely changed his tune. He realised fairly quickly that cycling in most of the lanes provided or right beside the curb on the road was a bad idea and has changed his outlook on cyclist using the roads.

Gongoozler

I would've been in the 'why can't they use cycle lanes' group too, before I started cycling around the city and realised the majority of the time they're pretty useless. Take for example, St Stephens green: If you're cycling from the east side, up to the north, onto Dawson st, there is a cycle lane there, all lovely and shiny, but how do you propose a cyclist uses this for this route? You can use it, but then once you get to the north of the green at some point you have to cross a wide ass road to get to the lane for Dawson St. I've been beeped at, presumably for not using the cycle lane there, but well I'll continue to not use it as I'd be creating a danger for myself and others if I was to attempt that crossing over every time.

O Connell St has cycle lanes. All great in theory except almost completely useless. Going north, you nearly always get cut off at the luas tracks by a taxi turning left. Half or more don't even bother indicating to go that way and just cut out in front of you. Going south is a fricking nightmare with the amount of buses pulling in in the way.

JRant

Gongoozler wrote: »

I would've been in the 'why can't they use cycle lanes' group too, before I started cycling around the city and realised the majority of the time they're pretty useless. Take for example, St Stephens green: If you're cycling from the east side, up to the north, onto Dawson st, there is a cycle lane there, all lovely and shiny, but how do you propose a cyclist uses this for this route? You can use it, but then once you get to the north of the green at some point you have to cross a wide ass road to get to the lane for Dawson St. I've been beeped at, presumably for not using the cycle lane there, but well I'll continue to not use it as I'd be creating a danger for myself and others if I was to attempt that crossing over every time.

O Connell St has cycle lanes. All great in theory except almost completely useless. Going north, you nearly always get cut off at the luas tracks by a taxi turning left. Half or more don't even bother indicating to go that way and just cut out in front of you. Going south is a fricking nightmare with the amount of buses pulling in in the way.

I cycle O'Connell street every day and your spot on, it can be quite tricky to navigate. I find that if you take up the primary position, ie 'take the lane', it's a lot safer than sticking to the left. The speed limit is 30km/hr here, although you wouldn't think it most of the time, and your not going to be holding any one up.

Jester252

JRant wrote: »

If you look at what you've written here there is a breakdown in logic.

First: Unless the cyclist has eyes in the back of his head or is able to see into the future, he can only beep after the overtake. I sure as hell wouldn't take my hands of the handlebars with a car/van that close.

Second: So you agree the guy is a bit of a head the ball and has no place on the road, that's a good thing.

Third: You are engaging in victim blaming if you think he is anyway culpable for what happened. There is no excuse for what happened, even if the cyclist had of done something wrong it is no reason to be being physically assaulted.

The sole reason for this incident is that one individual thought he was auditioning for Falling Down - Part II - "Revenge of the White Van Man", while another individual was trying to cycle from point A to be B.

:rolleyes:

The cyclist knew he was being overtaken. He looked around and saw the van so its not a case of the van coming out of nowhere.
He blew is horn after the van had finished overtaken which is improper use of a horn.
Why did he have to blow his horn and why do it after the van had finish overtaken?
The van driver is 100% in the wrong on this no doubt but the cyclist is not 100% innocence. He blew his horn to show displeasure at the van driver. He did not have to blow his horn in the first place. He respond to the van driver who happen to have road rage and assaulted the poor guy.
Its important to remember that actions have consequences.

JRant

Jester252 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The cyclist knew he was being overtaken. He looked around and saw the van so its not a case of the van coming out of nowhere.
He blew is horn after the van had finished overtaken which is improper use of a horn.
Why did he have to blow his horn and why do it after the van had finish overtaken?
The van driver is 100% in the wrong on this no doubt but the cyclist is not 100% innocence. He blew his horn to show displeasure at the van driver. He did not have to blow his horn in the first place. He respond to the van driver who happen to have road rage and assaulted the poor guy.
Its important to remember that actions have consequences.

He may have looked over his shoulder but I can guarantee that he didn't expect to be overtaken so closely. I can only assume that he blew his horn as a warning to the driver that he was to close when overtaking. Perfectly reasonable behaviour in my book.

I don't understand the bold section above though. If you administer 100% of the blame to the driver than the cyclist is 0% in the wrong or am I missing something here?

Jester252

JRant wrote: »

He may have looked over his shoulder but I can guarantee that he didn't expect to be overtaken so closely. I can only assume that he blew his horn as a warning to the driver that he was to close when overtaking. Perfectly reasonable behaviour in my book.

I don't understand the bold section above though. If you administer 100% of the blame to the driver than the cyclist is 0% in the wrong or am I missing something here?

Why was he not prepared to be overtaken if he knew it was occurring?
Why did he not beep the horn when being overtaken?
Why did he do it afterwards?
Why gesture towards the driver afterwards?

The driver and the cyclist are not the same. The drivers actions are 100% wrong but the cyclist is not 100% clean either.
The cyclist was not just a random guy the van driver decided to deck. His actions put him in that position and actions have consequences.

JRant

Jester252 wrote: »

Why was he not prepared to be overtaken if he knew it was occurring?
Why did he not beep the horn when being overtaken?
Why did he do it afterwards?
Why gesture towards the driver afterwards?

The driver and the cyclist are not the same. The drivers actions are 100% wrong but the cyclist is not 100% clean either.
The cyclist was not just a random guy the van driver decided to deck. His actions put him in that position and actions have consequences.

i: There's is no way to prepare yourself when being overtaken that closely.
ii: He did the sensible thing by keeping his hands on the bars till it was safe to beep the horn.
iii: See answer ii above.
iv: He waved his hand at the driver, so what? It's a nothing gesture.

The cyclist was just some random bloke who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Jester252

JRant wrote: »

i: There's is no way to prepare yourself when being overtaken that closely.
ii: He did the sensible thing by keeping his hands on the bars till it was safe to beep the horn.
iii: See answer ii above.
iv: He waved his hand at the driver, so what? It's a nothing gesture.

The cyclist was just some random bloke who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

i: You shouldn't be on the roads if you can't prepare for an overtake.
ii:That didn't stop him from taking his hands of before and after the horn is meant as a warning device not a displeasure device.
iv:To you its a nothing gesture but what is it the Mr. Road Rage who you are giving it to?
Are you trying to say that the van driver just attacked him for no reason and just random assault?

:rolleyes:

This could have been avoided if either one of them just walked away.

kylith

Why was he not prepared to be overtaken if he knew it was occurring?
There is nothing you can do to prepare for being overtaken dangerously closely. If you have any suggestions I'd be interested to hear them.
Why did he not beep the horn when being overtaken?
When you are being overtaken dangerously closely it is incredibly risky to remove a hand from the bars as if you were to hit a pothole you would not have full control of the bike and would risk winding up under the wheels of the car overtaking.
Why did he do it afterwards?
To say "I say, chap, you overtook very close to me and scared me. Be more careful in future"
Why gesture towards the driver afterwards?
Out of exasperation, I'll wager. Have you never thrown your arms up in frustration? Have you never made any kind of gesture of annoyance whilst driving?

Knasher

Jester252 wrote: »

ii:That didn't stop him from taking his hands of before and after the horn is meant as a warning device not a displeasure device.

Blowing your horn is a reasonable response when somebodies actions put you in danger on the road. It may not be the correct response, but it is a reasonable one. A horn is also not meant to be used to tell a car sitting in traffic that a light has changed to green, but honestly if you were sitting in traffic and the car in front of you made no indication of moving, are you really telling me you wouldn't give a light beep of your horn? It may not be the correct use, but it is a pretty reasonable one.

I can honestly say I've never encountered a group of people who take using a horn so seriously. I would be almost surprised if you didn't have some sort of safety switch added to your car just in case you accidentally bump it and it misfires. Wouldn't want somebody coming over and assaulting you if you bumped off it in a parking lot.

JRant

Jester252 wrote: »

i: You shouldn't be on the roads if you can't prepare for an overtake.
ii:That didn't stop him from taking his hands of before and after the horn is meant as a warning device not a displeasure device.
iv:To you its a nothing gesture but what is it the Mr. Road Rage who you are giving it to?
Are you trying to say that the van driver just attacked him for no reason and just random assault?

:rolleyes:

This could have been avoided if either one of them just walked away.

Ah here, your posts are just deliberately obtuse.

So a cyclist who is overtaken at a close distance shouldn't be on the road?
Do tell where it says that you need to be prepared for an overtake. Most days I have hundreds of cars overtake me while cycling around the city and it still scares the bejaysus out of me when a vehicle gets that close.

He used the horn to warn the driver that he was to close to him, hence he used it in an appropriate manner.

Again the bold section is a real hoot. You have seen the video I take it?
If that's not a random assault then I don't know what is.
Your post seems to indicate the cyclist had it coming.
van man - "your honour, he waved at me, I had to defend my masculinity, actions have reactions"
The judge - "Case dismissed so"
hahaha, you've given me a good laugh this morning, cheers.

Ush1

Knasher wrote: »

Blowing your horn is a reasonable response when somebodies actions put you in danger on the road. It may not be the correct response, but it is a reasonable one. A horn is also not meant to be used to tell a car sitting in traffic that a light has changed to green, but honestly if you were sitting in traffic and the car in front of you made no indication of moving, are you really telling me you wouldn't give a light beep of your horn? It may not be the correct use, but it is a pretty reasonable one.

I can honestly say I've never encountered a group of people who take using a horn so seriously. I would be almost surprised if you didn't have some sort of safety switch added to your car just in case you accidentally bump it and it misfires. Wouldn't want somebody coming over and assaulting you for attacking them after all.

But why would you expect their reaction to be good?

Anytime I see people get beeped at on the roads it's almost always followed by "Oh f*ck off" or giving them the finger. Is that a reasonable response? Because in my experience it's the norm.

Ray Palmer

kylith wrote: »

Why gesture towards the driver afterwards?
Out of exasperation, I'll wager. Have you never thrown your arms up in frustration? Have you never made any kind of gesture of annoyance whilst driving?

I agree with this. The gesture was in no way offensive and one of exasperation. Going on about doing it after the act is plainly ridiculous. He couldn't have known the driver was going to do it until it was done.

Ray Palmer

Ush1 wrote: »

But why would you expect their reaction to be good?

Anytime I see people get beeped at on the roads it's almost always followed by "Oh f*ck off" or giving them the finger. Is that a reasonable response? Because in my experience it's the norm.

The normal response I see is an apology for doing the wrong thing. I do see people get angry too but much smaller amount and I consider those people to have a problem with anger.

So anger is not reasonable response and it is not the norm from my experience. Are you saying everybody on the road assumes they are in the right all the time?

Ush1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The normal response I see is an apology for doing the wrong thing. I do see people get angry too but much smaller amount and I consider those people to have a problem with anger.

So anger is not reasonable response and it is not the norm from my experience. Are you saying everybody on the road assumes they are in the right all the time?

On Irish roads?? Yes, most definitely!

I mainly drive in Dublin and Cork and apologies are on short supply, as I said, most people I have seen in the years I have driving react badly when beeped at even if they know they aren't in the right(usually they don't care).

Sure the phrase "road rage" is in common parlance, why's that you reckon? Aggressive little animals are humans.

Knasher

Ush1 wrote: »

But why would you expect their reaction to be good?

Anytime I see people get beeped at on the roads it's almost always followed by "Oh f*ck off" or giving them the finger. Is that a reasonable response? Because in my experience it's the norm.

It depends. If I'm driving and I hear somebody beep, my initial reaction would be to wonder if I am the person being beeped at. If I am then I wonder why. If it obvious why I'm being beeped at and I'm in the wrong then I will feel embarrassed and apologize in some way, probably just a guilty looking wave. If I'm not in the wrong then I'll probably tell them to fuck off. Conversely I would consider all of these to be reasonable reactions in response if I am the one beeping.

At no point will I stop my car in the middle of the road and get out of it to assault somebody. This is in no way a reasonable response to being beeped at.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

In the bookies yesterday I was walking behind some guy who was reading the racing form pinned on the wall (as you do) and just as I was almost past him, he suddenly decides to turn and run to the betting window. Well, I don't need to tell you the chaos that ensued but he pushed right up against me and the betting docket I was holding was crumpled beyond use. He said he was sorry but that was no use to me as I had to go and write out the bet again. I told him not to worry about it but inside I was miffed.

I noticed also that he creased up part of his shirt in the collision also but anyway, nobody was hurt really but I just wish people would pay more attention to their surroundings when out in public. Spacial awareness skills are important and our parents don't sit us down every Saturday mornings in the summer and teach us societal skills for nothing. We are to implement them, that's the point. Had a lucky escape this time, but I might not be so lucky the next time.

Ray Palmer

Ush1 wrote: »

On Irish roads?? Yes, most definitely!

I mainly drive in Dublin and Cork and apologies are on short supply, as I said, most people I have seen in the years I have driving react badly when beeped at even if they know they aren't in the right(usually they don't care).

Sure the phrase "road rage" is in common parlance, why's that you reckon? Aggressive little animals are humans.

So you think it is both common and reasonable to flip out if somebody beeps at you?

I certainly see people beep on a regular basis. Common reaction is apology, then ignoring it and last anger but it is relatively uncommon. That is city and suburban cycling and driving in Dublin.

If you point to the use of phrases of words as an indication to how common something is you are seriously deluded. There are lots of phrases and words used commonly that are both wrong and not common. "Alien abduction" is pretty common too but I don't think it happen and is not common. It really isn't a viable argument.

Ush1

Knasher wrote: »

It depends. If I'm driving and I hear somebody beep, my initial reaction would be to wonder if I am the person being beeped at. If I am then I wonder why. If it obvious why I'm being beeped at and I'm in the wrong then I will feel embarrassed and apologize in some way, probably just a guilty looking wave. If I'm not in the wrong then I'll probably tell them to fuck off. Conversely I would consider all of these to be reasonable reactions in response if I am the one beeping.

At no point will I stop my car in the middle of the road and get out of it to assault somebody. This is in no way a reasonable response to being beeped at.

Well some people might think they ain't in the wrong for better or worse. I'm not saying it's reasonable, by the way, is telling someone to f*ck off when they've beeped you in the wrong reasonable? Could see how an altercation could easily start.

Ush1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you think it is both common and reasonable to flip out if somebody beeps at you?

I certainly see people beep on a regular basis. Common reaction is apology, then ignoring it and last anger but it is relatively uncommon. That is city and suburban cycling and driving in Dublin.

If you point to the use of phrases of words as an indication to how common something is you are seriously deluded. There are lots of phrases and words used commonly that are both wrong and not common. "Alien abduction" is pretty common too but I don't think it happen and is not common. It really isn't a viable argument.

Yes, I do think it's common for people to react badly to being beeped at. No, I don't think flipping out is a reasonable response, I do think it's reasonable to expect a negative reaction when beeping at someone, whether you the beeper think you're right or otherwise.

So you're saying much like alien abduction, road rage doesn't exist? Honestly you're the one that sounds deluded to me:

http://www.dublinpeople.com/article.php?id=1703

NEARLY 40 per cent of Irish drivers admit to shouting or getting angry behind the wheel on a weekly basis – with a very angry 11.5 per cent admitting to daily bouts of road rage.
These worrying statistics are the findings of a recent study carried out among Irish drivers, which also revealed around 13 per cent of motorists have got out of their car to confront another driver.
The Continental Tyres report also found that nearly one in three road users ‘expect’ to experience aggressive or intimidating driving whilst out in the car.

Jester252

JRant wrote: »

Ah here, your posts are just deliberately obtuse.

So a cyclist who is overtaken at a close distance shouldn't be on the road?
Do tell where it says that you need to be prepared for an overtake. Most days I have hundreds of cars overtake me while cycling around the city and it still scares the bejaysus out of me when a vehicle gets that close.

He used the horn to warn the driver that he was to close to him, hence he used it in an appropriate manner.

Again the bold section is a real hoot. You have seen the video I take it?
If that's not a random assault then I don't know what is.
Your post seems to indicate the cyclist had it coming.
van man - "your honour, he waved at me, I had to defend my masculinity, actions have reactions"
The judge - "Case dismissed so"
hahaha, you've given me a good laugh this morning, cheers.

sigh

The cyclist put himself in that position. He did not have to blow his horn after the van had overtaken to show his displeasure with the van driver.
It wasn't a random assaults as the cyclist aided in the creation of the event. The van driver only when after him after he blew his horn. He didn't attack him before it.
The van driver action are wrong I'm not defending him.
However
Personal responsibly is something people need
Actions have consequences plan and simple. Am I innocent if I ran out in front of traffic when I knew it was there?

Ray Palmer

Ush1 wrote: »

Well some people might think they ain't in the wrong for better or worse. I'm not saying it's reasonable, by the way, is telling someone to f*ck off when they've beeped you in the wrong reasonable? Could see how an altercation could easily start.

I don't think the beep will be the thing to set it all off. I think the bad tempered lunatic doesn't need much if any provocation. I have seen drivers in punch ups with out a single horn been beeped.
Getting angry and losing control of yourself by definition is not reasonable.

Ush1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't think the beep will be the thing to set it all off. I think the bad tempered lunatic doesn't need much if any provocation. I have seen drivers in punch ups with out a single horn been beeped.
Getting angry and losing control of yourself by definition is not reasonable.

I don't agree at all. I think had that cyclist not beeped or gestured at the car, the guy in the car would not have got out.

Hang on, you've seen punch ups yet you said road rage is like alien abduction i.e. doesn't exist?

JRant

Jester252 wrote: »

sigh

The cyclist put himself in that position. He did not have to blow his horn after the van had overtaken to show his displeasure with the van driver.
It wasn't a random assaults as the cyclist aided in the creation of the event. The van driver only when after him after he blew his horn. He didn't attack him before it.
The van driver action are wrong I'm not defending him.
However
Personal responsibly is something people need
Actions have consequences plan and simple. Am I innocent if I ran out in front of traffic when I knew it was there?

The cyclist was going about his business pedalling down the road, some lunatic overtook him to closely and then proceeded to thump the sh*te out of him because he blew his horn at him.

Give over would ya, imagine that was someone close to you that it happened to. I'm sure you'd be quick to tell them it was their own fault, personal responsibility, blah, blah, blah.

If you stick your finger in a socket does it still count as a shock?
If my auntie had balls she's be my uncle.
If.......

JRant

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't agree at all. I think had that cyclist not beeped or gestured at the car, the guy in the car would not have got out.

Hang on, you've seen punch ups yet you said road rage is like alien abduction i.e. doesn't exist?

Ah, that must be why the Pope mobile has the bullet proof glass. It's not to keep bullets out at all, just all those irate people that he's gesturing at. The nerve of him waving that hand at everyone around.

You're engaging in victim blaming here, no two ways about it. That driver needs some serious help managing his anger issues, end of story. Beeping a horn at somebody is not an open invitation to receive the slaps.

I'd imagine that most people would have been genuinely been terrified in that situation.

runawaybishop

Jester252 wrote: »

sigh

The cyclist put himself in that position. He did not have to blow his horn after the van had overtaken to show his displeasure with the van driver.

Incorrect, he appropriately warned the van driver that his manoeuvre was dangerous.