Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

coolbeans

[quote="Max Power1;85615424"
I had hoped that, as a cycling forum, I would deal with posters, the majority of whom are actually intelligent cyclists as opposed to the mouth breathing idiots that I meet on the roads.[/quote]

Well if you hadn't started your previous posts with such obscenities you'd have had a better response. As it is you come across as a mouth, breathing, road tax paying, arse hole and should an treated as such.

I cycle, I drive, I know how to do both and what's more I know the rules from both perspectives. Your post is characterised by stereotypical ignorance. Well done you.

SpaceTime

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Strange, I drive from Limerick to Cork via Hospital - Ballylanders once a week and will often get stuck behind really slow moving farm traffic for more than 5km at a time. I don't see any drivers roaring abuse at the driver when they finally pass.....

I have !

I was driving through Leitrim and guy in a BMW started flashing and beeping at a tractor. So, the tractor dropped its speed from about 20km/h to about 5km/h for about 30 mins!

He started shouting abuse at the tractor and the farmer simply gave him the finger.

mr spuckler

Max Power1 wrote: »

Patience, when cyclists refuse to move in? Why cycle in the middle of the road obstructing traffic. Driving around the sally gap yesterday, on the roads which are wide enough for 1 car and 1 bike with room to spare - but only if the cyclist cycles on the left of the road and not in the fcuking middle!

Understandably as this is the cycling forum there will be a large group of lycra clad people who agree with the OP and disagree with me.

I'm just glad that there will soon be fixed penalties notices for cyclists soon too. Perhaps that might stop the ridiculous levels of rotr ignorance by cyclists, such as ignoring red lights, cycling on paths, cycling on the road where there is a cycle lane, cycling two abreast (a ridiculous practice) etc etc.

I had hoped that, as a cycling forum, I would deal with posters, the majority of whom are actually intelligent cyclists as opposed to the mouth breathing idiots that I meet on the roads.

just to help you out, i've highlighted the practices which are absolutely fine & in compliance with the rules of the road. most posters here are happy to have reasonable discussions on these topics, you're not approaching it in a very reasonable way however.

Ole Rodrigo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have been in cars with people who will start shouting at cyclists after ten seconds if they do not pull in.
and to safely pull in to allow drivers to pass involves actually stopping the bike in this scenario.

if you are on a two lane road (i.e. one lane each way), and it is not safe for a motorist to enter the other lane to overtake you when you are three foot out, an extra two foot is not going to make the overtaking manouevre safe.

Thats right, but its not always the case - again down to the particular situation. And showing courtesy to motorists is not just the preserve of motorists, cyclists can too without compromising their safety. Maybe then there will be less people driven to road rage as a result.

sumone

Cyclists riding single file is not likely to make it easier to pass them on country roads.

If a cyclist takes up about 2m length on the road (at a guess) 6 cyclists riding 2 abreast will give a group length of 6m. If they ride single file then the group will be 12m long. Finding a stretch of road to safely overtake anything 12m long on county road is going to be a lot harder then trying to get past a 6m long group.

Max Power1 wrote: »

I'm just glad that there will soon be fixed penalties notices for cyclists soon too. Perhaps that might stop the ridiculous levels of rotr ignorance by cyclists, such as ignoring red lights, cycling on paths, cycling on the road where there is a cycle lane, cycling two abreast (a ridiculous practice) etc etc.

I agree totally that all road users should be prosecuted for breaking the law, however not using a cycle lane and riding 2 abreast are both perfectly legal

PerrDub

Max Power1 wrote: »

I'm just glad that there will soon be fixed penalties notices for cyclists soon too. Perhaps that might stop the ridiculous levels of rotr ignorance by cyclists, such as ignoring red lights, cycling on paths, cycling on the road where there is a cycle lane, cycling two abreast (a ridiculous practice) etc etc.

Ah come on now, cycling 2 abreast has been common practice for people on bikes since we had roads... And just because of the massive increase in car/van use doesn't mean this should stop!

However...you will find that most regular "lycra clad" cyclists will move into single file, and as close to the left as safely possible if confronted by larger vehicles approaching from behind..

As has been mentioned on this forum 100's of times, using the road as opposed to "cycle lanes" is sometimes the safer option considering the fact that most of these lanes are broken up, full of glass/pedestrians and parked cars/vans.

Fining people for not cycling on broken up cycle paths is not the answer. Building a network of maintained cycle lanes is. With penalties for driving a car/van/motorbike/bus/truck in them or parking on them.

On country roads such as the Sally Gap, well chances are someone is driving there because they want to get away from the city and enjoy the view, so chill out on the right foot! Breath in the air, take in the view, and wait 30 seconds until the cyclist can safely move in a bit more!

coolbeans

ror_74 wrote: »

Thats right, but its not always the case - again down to the particular situation. And showing courtesy to motorists is not just the preserve of motorists, cyclists can too without compromising their safety. Maybe then there will be less people driven to road rage as a result.

Nobody can be driven to road rage. If you can't control your temper while in control of a vehicle you shouldn't be driving. Driven to road rage? gimme a break. What's next, the wife was late with me dinner twice in a row so I was driven to slap her. Couldn't control myself see, driven to it.

Jawgap

Tim?

Is that yourself........

Max Power1 wrote: »

Patience, when cyclists refuse to move in? Why cycle in the middle of the road obstructing traffic. Driving around the sally gap yesterday, on the roads which are wide enough for 1 car and 1 bike with room to spare - but only if the cyclist cycles on the left of the road and not in the fcuking middle!

Obstructing traffic?!?!?! Cyclists are traffic........you mean "obstructing you!"

Your convenience does not trump any other road user's safety. You need to mature your attitudes.

Max Power1 wrote: »

Understandably as this is the cycling forum there will be a large group of lycra clad people who agree with the OP and disagree with me.

I'm just glad that there will soon be fixed penalties notices for cyclists soon too. Perhaps that might stop the ridiculous levels of rotr ignorance by cyclists, such as ignoring red lights, cycling on paths, cycling on the road where there is a cycle lane, cycling two abreast (a ridiculous practice) etc etc.

I had hoped that, as a cycling forum, I would deal with posters, the majority of whom are actually intelligent cyclists as opposed to the mouth breathing idiots that I meet on the roads.

Fixed penalty notices will apply to three things - none of them related to cycling safely in an appropriate road position.

Compulsory use of cycle lanes went out last October......you see you're getting an education here too......

SpaceTime

The big thing that fixed penalty notices need to apply for is breaking red lights.
I've been almost mowed down by cyclists while crossing pedestrian crossings in Cork and Dublin.

Most of the issues are where cyclists interact with pedestrians rather than with cars.

Ole Rodrigo

coolbeans wrote: »

Nobody can be driven to road rage. If you can't control your temper while in control of a vehicle you shouldn't be driving. Driven to road rage? gimme a break. What's next, the wife was late with me dinner twice in a row so I was driven to slap her. Couldn't control myself see, driven to it.

Well I should have chosen my words more carefully. Of course theres no excuse for road rage, but moralising wont make it disappear either. You have the higher moral ground when you behave competently. And I don't think theres any debate about the need for cyclists to improve their game so that there can be less friction with other road users.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

The big thing that fixed penalty notices need to apply for is breaking red lights.
I've been almost mowed down by cyclists while crossing pedestrian crossings in Cork and Dublin.

Most of the issues are where cyclists interact with pedestrians rather than with cars.

Almost mowed down........

Is this what they cycle in Cork.......

coolbeans

ror_74 wrote: »

Well I should have chosen my words more carefully. Of course theres no excuse for road rage, but moralising wont make it disappear either. You have the higher moral ground when you behave competently. And I don't think theres any debate about the need for cyclists to improve their game so that there can be less friction with other road users.

I know I was I a bit of a knob but it's true, people take their responsibility behind the wheel of a car far too lightly. Well meaning people use the wrong words and then we're in a situation where others think it's ok to threaten a defenceless person with aggression and the use of potentially lethal force. It's not on and the use of language correctly can prevent this flawed logic from spreading unchecked.

ThisRegard

You must remember you're trying to reason with a guy who took his name from a magazine that has photos of cars with plastic bits glued on and questionable ladies draped across the bonnets.

Jawgap

ThisRegard wrote: »

You must remember you're trying to reason with a guy who took his name from a magazine that has photos of cars with plastic bits glued on and questionable ladies draped across the bonnets.

Are you sure it's not this guy

ThisRegard

Mmm, could be. Could also be Homer Simpsons alter ego who got his name a similar way, from a hair dryer.

steamengine

The Rules of the Road are suitably vague when it comes to cycling two abreast. These issues need to be spelt out in black and white so motorists are aware of what cyclists are allowed to do legally.

Example : Two cyclists abreast this morning on the Malahide Road near Tesco Clarehall, heading into town, one of whom is in the cycle lane and the other outside of him on the traffic lane. My understanding is that is perfectly legal now, as one doesn't have to cycle in cycle lanes any longer.

Questions : Can one understand how this looks to be an odd situation to a motorist who might just be held up behind the outer cyclist ?

Why can't cyclists out of courtesy let motorists pass by cycling single breast in the cycle lanes provided ? Two abreast cyclists are no different than tractors, regarding speed and space taken up, and the Rules of the Road does suggest that slow moving traffic does not impede other traffic.

Could we please have an updated Rules of the Road to reflect the interactive situation between motor vehicle drivers and cyclists, as to the law and suggestions as to how both can use the road better in a non confrontational manner ?

Beasty

Max Power1 wrote: »

I had hoped that, as a cycling forum, I would deal with posters, the majority of whom are actually intelligent cyclists as opposed to the mouth breathing idiots that I meet on the roads.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt first time, and simply provided a reasoned response to your post. Now a bit more straightforward response - Quit the trolling

coolbeans wrote: »

As it is you come across as a mouth, breathing, road tax paying, arse hole and should an treated as such.

Cut the insults out - if you have a problem with a post or poster report the post.

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

Beasty

steamengine wrote: »

The Rules of the Road are suitably vague when it comes to cyclists. These issues need to be spelt out in black and white so motorists are aware of what cyclists are allowed to do legally.

Example : Two cyclists abreast this morning on the Malahide Road near Tesco Clarehall, heading into town, one of whom is in the cycle lane and the other outside of him on the traffic lane. My understanding is that is perfectly legal now, as one doesn't have to cycle in cycle lanes any longer.

Questions : Can one understand how this looks to be an odd situation to a motorist who might just be held up behind the outer cyclist ?

There are 2 lanes there - simple enough to overtake

steamengine wrote: »

Why can't cyclists out of courtesy let motorists pass by cycling single breast in the cycle lanes provided ? Two abreast cyclists are no different than tractors, regarding speed and space taken up, and the Rules of the Road does suggest that slow moving traffic does not impede other traffic.

Most cyclists do - if I'm in a small group we would tend to move into single file to allow motor vehicles to pass. If a larger group that may be more difficult to orchestrate but more importantly would make the group twice as long and more difficult for motorists to get past safely.

One further point on "2 abreast" - it maybe adds a metre or so to the distance a vehicle has to move over to overtake. Given you can reasonably expect cyclists to be half a metre or so from the kerb (and more in some circumstances as already outined in this thread), and there is a minimum recommended passing distance of 1.5m, in virtually all cases motorists would expect top move into either an overtaking lane or oncoming lane when overtaking - what does it matter whether they they have to move that extra metre over (particularly as it allows them to get clear of the cyclists quicker)?

steamengine wrote: »

Could we please have an updated Rules of the Road to reflect the interactive situation between motor vehicle drivers and cyclists, as to the law and suggestions as to how both can use the road better in a non confrontational manner ?

That's outside our control;)

PerrDub

steamengine wrote: »

The Rules of the Road are suitably vague when it comes to cyclists. These issues need to be spelt out in black and white so motorists are aware of what cyclists are allowed to do legally.

Example : Two cyclists abreast this morning on the Malahide Road near Tesco Clarehall, heading into town, one of whom is in the cycle lane and the other outside of him on the traffic lane. My understanding is that is perfectly legal now, as one doesn't have to cycle in cycle lanes any longer.

Questions : Can one understand how this looks to be an odd situation to a motorist who might just be held up behind the outer cyclist ?

Why can't cyclists out of courtesy let motorists pass by cycling single breast in the cycle lanes provided ? Two abreast cyclists are no different than tractors, regarding speed and space taken up, and the Rules of the Road does suggest that slow moving traffic does not impede other traffic.

No, I would say you have picked a bad example as outside Tesco Clarehall is a 2 lane dual carraigeway with a bus lane each way, so it's quite unlikely that anyone was being held up..

Though that section of road heading towards the Hilton is dangerous for someone on a bike if you are going straight on towards Malahide as you have cars doing 60kph up the bus lane to turn left onto the N32.
And on the otherside you have cars also flying up the bus lane to hook a sharp left into Tesco's just before the lights.

steamengine

PerrDub wrote: »

No, I would say you have picked a bad example as outside Tesco Clarehall is a 2 lane dual carraigeway with a bus lane each way, so it's quite unlikely that anyone was being held up..

Though that section of road heading towards the Hilton is dangerous for someone on a bike if you are going straight on towards Malahide as you have cars doing 60kph up the bus lane to turn left onto the N32.
And on the otherside you have cars also flying up the bus lane to hook a sharp left into Tesco's just before the lights.

Down past Tesco in the town direction and not the best example ok. Its not the location I'm emphasising but rather the issue of bad interaction between motorists and cyclists and how road rage incidents are sparked off.

On seeing it this morning and wearing my motorists cap, my first thoughts were this guy should move in to the cycle lane. Then I put on my cycling helmet and realised that, no, even though it this guy is cycling alongside his pal in the cycling lane and having a good natter, he's cycling within the law, even if he was hypothetically holding traffic up. This is the nub of the issue and has been for years. It should be spelled out clearly in the Rules of the Road and it isn't. In the meantime most reasonable cyclists will 'single file up', unfortunately not all.

The point I'm making if reasonable people know what is legal and if a little courtesy was shown by all then there would be less of these situations.

steamengine

Beasty wrote: »

Most cyclists do - if I'm in a small group we would tend to move into single file to allow motor vehicles to pass. If a larger group that may be more difficult to orchestrate but more importantly would make the group twice as long and more difficult for motorists to get past safely.

One further point on "2 abreast" - it maybe adds a metre or so to the distance a vehicle has to move over to overtake. Given you can reasonably expect cyclists to be half a metre or so from the kerb (and more in some circumstances as already outined in this thread), and there is a minimum recommended passing distance of 1.5m, in virtually all cases motorists would expect top move into either an overtaking lane or oncoming lane when overtaking - what does it matter whether they they have to move that extra metre over (particularly as it allows them to get clear of the cyclists quicker)?

Unfortunately there are incidences where motorists are unable to overtake large 'blocks' of two abreast cyclists because of consistent uncoming traffic. Frankly these situations can be very frustrating for motorists. I don't know what the answer is but it's high time for a specific reference to it in the Rules of the Road. Then everyone knows where they stand.

-PornStar-

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately there are incidences where motorists are unable to overtake large 'blocks' of two abreast cyclists because of consistent uncoming traffic. Frankly these situations can be very frustrating for motorists. I don't know what the answer is but it's high time for a specific reference to it in the Rules of the Road. Then everyone knows where they stand.

The answer is, wait. You should not be overtaking when there is oncoming traffic. This is one of the reasons cyclists stay away from the curb. To stop dangerous overtaking.

Overtaking should be a mandatory part of the driving test. There are a small minority of drivers out there, who just haven't a clue how to behave around other road users.

drogdub

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately there are incidences where motorists are unable to overtake large 'blocks' of two abreast cyclists because of consistent uncoming traffic. Frankly these situations can be very frustrating for motorists. I don't know what the answer is but it's high time for a specific reference to it in the Rules of the Road. Then everyone knows where they stand.

Apparently from a standing start I wasn't fast enough on to Mary's street in Drogheda. Some B in a kia start beeping me showed my annoyance and his Mrs started shouting at me. Nearly caught up to them, but they turned in to around my area so if I meet them I'll ask them to further explain they're issue. What pissed me off most was I spent the morning with patient motorist waiting for the right time to pass me around country lanes without any pressure.

SpaceTime

I do think though that both drivers and cyclists should avoid bunching up on roads of their likely to be over taken. You need to leave at least three car lengths between you and the vehicle ahead of you. Same practice should apply between bikes / groups of bikes.

A continuous queue ahead makes overtaking very difficult and unnecessarily dangerous.

Forcing cars to remain on the wrong side of the road more then absolutely necessary is very unfair and putting everyone at risk.

I find drivers do it too by driving nearly up to the bumper of the car ahead.

Jawgap

SpaceTime wrote: »

I do think though that both drivers and cyclists should avoid bunching up on roads of their likely to be over taken. You need to leave at least three car lengths between you and the vehicle ahead of you. Same practice should apply between bikes / groups of bikes.

A continuous queue ahead makes overtaking very difficult and unnecessarily dangerous.

Forcing cars to remain on the wrong side of the road more then absolutely necessary is very unfair and putting everyone at risk.

I find drivers do it too by driving nearly up to the bumper of the car ahead.

Cars have to maintain a sensible gap because of the consequences of two one tonne lumps of metal hitting one another.

Drivers or any road users are not compelled to overtake other road users so they are not "forced" to stay on the wrong side of the road. They could just show some patience.

Max Power1

coolbeans wrote: »

Well if you hadn't started your previous posts with such obscenities you'd have had a better response. As it is you come across as a mouth, breathing, road tax paying, arse hole and should an treated as such.

I cycle, I drive, I know how to do both and what's more I know the rules from both perspectives. Your post is characterised by stereotypical ignorance. Well done you.

Well done indeed.
And your (and indeed some others here) have done nothing but re-assure me that my perception of c 90% of cyclists are of the mouth breathing type, this will end my brief, thankfully brief, stay in the cycling forum.

(To answer the other post about my handle, I got it from the simpsons nothing to do with that mag which I do not read)

And so I bid adios, adieu, and go fuck yourselves to the retarded cyclists here which make up most of the cyclists I encounter IRL. Thanks to the nice few who actually seemed interested in a debate. Unfortunately as in life, the niceties of the few are downtrodden by the scumbags.

Max Power1

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately there are incidences where motorists are unable to overtake large 'blocks' of two abreast cyclists because of consistent uncoming traffic. Frankly these situations can be very frustrating for motorists. I don't know what the answer is but it's high time for a specific reference to it in the Rules of the Road. Then everyone knows where they stand.

How about the cyclists stop being obstructive and move the fuck over?

Chips Lovell

Banned

SpaceTime

Jawgap wrote: »

Cars have to maintain a sensible gap because of the consequences of two one tonne lumps of metal hitting one another.

Drivers or any road users are not compelled to overtake other road users so they are not "forced" to stay on the wrong side of the road. They could just show some patience.

Actually, at slow speed they don't. The issue is that other traffic can't overtake a large line of tightly packed traffic.

If you're a slow moving vehicle, causing an obstruction by driving or cycling in a tailgating convoy puts you and other road users in danger.

In not excusing bad and aggressive drivers but there's a need to share the road. Cycling in long groups outside of an organised event is really a bad idea.

Anything beyond about bikes becomes a road obstruction. The same goes for drivers who can't or won't overtake slow moving traffic and instead, sit on its tail creating a long train of traffic. That ends up causing a tailback and then someone will try and pass multiple vehicles and then you're looking at risks of head on collisions

Everyone on the road needs to keep a distance and not get egotistical about someone overtaking them

magicbastarder

SpaceTime wrote: »

On the motorway yesterday, I had the cruise control on at 120km/h sailing along. Guy ahead of me was going at about 110km/h so, I passed him. He then passed me and drifted back down to about 110km/h .. this "dance" went on about 3 times because I bruised the guy's ego!

i dunno if it's an ego thing - i think people generally drive faster without thinknig if there's another car providing a 'reference'; i.e. a stationary (relative to you) point will make your speed seem lower.

the situations most drivers give out about are generally situations where they reckon it's fine, but would end up having to dive to the shoulder - with a cyclist on their inside - if an oncoming car came round the bend.