7pm & the bus lane

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I rarely cycle home at this time, I normally cycle at about 6pm or 8pm depending on the day.

I met my girlfriend on the way home, I pulled up beside her and continued cycling. She prefers single file and to hug the kerb/parked cars. She believes it's safer as she feels safer.

I cycle out from the kerb and find it's much safer as I have less cars cycling close to me. She often complains of taxis and buses driving too close to her, I now know why they do it.

Well I didn't cycle beside her for long as the cars who are now using the bus lane at this time really really don't like this, especially when I had to dodge a pothole. The first car was driven by an old man, who insisted on using the horn to get me to pull over. I'm not in the middle of the lane and we are not cycling slow. This car passed, so the several others, but they made the point of driving close to me. One other car beeped.

After this my girlfriend was livid with me. This just reinforced her idea of staying at the kerb and cycling in single file.

I have tried to highlight the reasons for cycling side by side and why she should cycle out from the kerb.

The other issue is drivers using the bus lane at 7pm. They become so reckless. Even in single file they came very close to us and they were not driving at the limit, some were touching 50Mph. I also drive this road a lot and witness the same crap in the bus lane.

There's rarely any incidents on my cycles, the odd car driving too close or overtaking you on a little roundabout but it's normally an ok cycle.

hueylewis

Well, those bloody cyclists don't pay road tax, so why do they get to take up space in the bus lane when it's my time to whizz down it to the next red light?

Zyzz

Get rid of the girlfriend.

Problem solved.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

hueylewis wrote: »

Well, those bloody cyclists don't pay road tax, so why do they get to take up space in the bus lane when it's my time to whizz down it to the next red light?

Unfortunately, myself and many other cyclists pay road tax.

Get rid of the GF... i'll work on it. Shouldn't take much to be honest, lol.

cyclic

Cycling 2 abreast at rush hour just because you're entitled is not really showing any respect to folks trying to get home after a day's graft/ shopping /wasting the day. This is just annoying. C'mon, quit being a jerk and let traffic pass you.

Squidgy Black

cyclic wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast at rush hour just because you're entitled is not really showing any respect to folks trying to get home after a day's graft/ shopping /wasting the day. This is just annoying. C'mon, quit being a jerk and let traffic pass you.

Driving in the bus lane after 7 because you're entitled to is not really showing any respect to cyclists trying to get home after a day's graft/shopping/wasting the day. This is just annoying. C'mon, quit being jerks and leave us enough room to feel comfortable on the roads.

cyclic

Eh, riding single file is not too tricky at rush hour. Plus it let's the motorists pass easily. Don't see why this is unsafe for the cyclist. Ps I'm a cyclist.

kenmc

cyclic wrote: »

Eh, riding single file is not too tricky at rush hour. Plus it let's the motorists pass easily. Don't see why this is unsafe for the cyclist. Ps I'm a cyclist.

Easily != Safely.
Q.E.D.

Besides, if she hugs the kerb like he says, and he doesn't, then in reality the two of them side by side take up pretty much the same amount of space as him riding on his own, not hugging the kerb.

Hmmzis

cyclic wrote: »

Eh, riding single file is not too tricky at rush hour. Plus it let's the motorists pass easily. Don't see why this is unsafe for the cyclist...

If you want to overtake, use the other lane (the one that's not the bus lane), if it's not free then don't overtake (your car has brakes, doesn't it?). A squeeze past is very dangerous for the cyclist, there is a very good reason (actually, more than one) why there is a 1.5m recommended distance for overtaking.

cyclic wrote: »

... Ps I'm a cyclist.

Good for you.

hueylewis

Yep, if it's safe to overtake one person, then it's safe to overtake two. If it's unsafe for two then it would similarly be unsafe for one.

cyclic

Ok, at the risk of being labelled a pedant, Huey Lewis- if it's safe for one - it's safe for two. And therefore, if it's safe for two, it's safe for three, and if it's safe for three, it's safe for ....etc, etc. Are we not talking 7 in the evening in our capital. What unclogged lane are you going to overtake in? Just a bit of reality.com. Let's all share the roads in a a bit of peace and consideration for each other. As well as being a cyclist, I also drive a taxi, and in the glorious autumn am trying to get the harvest in and therefore on the road with the tractor in the evening, while also doing a bit of bus driving to make ends meet.

Squidgy Black

cyclic wrote: »

Ok, at the risk of being labelled a pedant, Huey Lewis- if it's safe for one - it's safe for two. And therefore, if it's safe for two, it's safe for three, and if it's safe for three, it's safe for ....etc, etc. Are we not talking 7 in the evening in our capital. What unclogged lane are you going to overtake in? Just a bit of reality.com. Let's all share the roads in a a bit of peace and consideration for each other. As well as being a cyclist, I also drive a taxi, and in the glorious autumn am trying to get the harvest in and therefore on the road with the tractor in the evening, while also doing a bit of bus driving to make ends meet.

Not really, 3 abreast isn't legal.

Zyzz

cyclic wrote: »

Ok, at the risk of being labelled a pedant, Huey Lewis- if it's safe for one - it's safe for two. And therefore, if it's safe for two, it's safe for three, and if it's safe for three, it's safe for ....etc, etc. Are we not talking 7 in the evening in our capital. What unclogged lane are you going to overtake in? Just a bit of reality.com. Let's all share the roads in a a bit of peace and consideration for each other. As well as being a cyclist, I also drive a taxi, and in the glorious autumn am trying to get the harvest in and therefore on the road with the tractor in the evening, while also doing a bit of bus driving to make ends meet.

VONSHIRACH

Cyclists should cycle in single file if there is vehicular traffic behind. I thought everybody knows this.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html#4

Plastik

This is going to get ugly ...

hueylewis

cyclic wrote: »

Ok, at the risk of being labelled a pedant, Huey Lewis- if it's safe for one - it's safe for two. And therefore, if it's safe for two, it's safe for three, and if it's safe for three, it's safe for ....etc, etc. Are we not talking 7 in the evening in our capital. What unclogged lane are you going to overtake in? Just a bit of reality.com. Let's all share the roads in a a bit of peace and consideration for each other. As well as being a cyclist, I also drive a taxi, and in the glorious autumn am trying to get the harvest in and therefore on the road with the tractor in the evening, while also doing a bit of bus driving to make ends meet.

Why would it therefore be safe for three?

Moving swiftly on, I dread to think of the scenario in which you'd attempt to overtake two cyclists in single file, where it would have been unsafe if they were two abreast.

cyclic

Outlining your false logic.

Not really tough to see why passing 2 cyclists abreast is more difficult for a motorist than 2 in single file in a bus lane. Don't know why you dread thinking about this- it's pretty obvious.

Anyway, no big deal.

Cookie_Monster

VONSHIRACH wrote: »

Cyclists should cycle in single file if there is vehicular traffic behind. I thought everybody knows this.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html#4

according to who? A driving school is hardly an unbiased source. Do yourself a favour, look up the actual RTA's where you will in fact not find that.
It's safer to cycle two wide and if that causes traffic a couple of seconds delay so be it.

hueylewis

cyclic wrote: »

Outlining your false logic.

Your false logic, you mean. I didn't say anything about more than two cyclists

cyclic wrote: »

Not really tough to see why passing 2 cyclists abreast is more difficult for a motorist than 2 in single file in a bus lane. Don't know why you dread thinking about this- it's pretty obvious.

I didn't say anything about difficulty either; I'm talking about safety. I'm sure you could squeeze past cyclists in single file more easily than you could two abreast, but then you wouldn't be overtaking safely, would you? You need to leave at least a meter and a half of space between you and the cyclist you're overtaking, so that will inevitably put you somewhere in the lane to the right as you pass. So the lane to the right will need to be clear for you to make the overtake. If the lane to the right is clear, then you'll be able to overtake two cyclists safely as well. If the lane isn't clear, well, you shouldn't be attempting to overtake anyone.

Wild_Dogger

Never is it safer to cycle two a breast !

You frustrate traffic and spur them into making an irrational overtaking manouvre - typical accident scenrio.

It's so easy to show respect and co operate with others to allow safe cycling and safe driving for all.

It is the self righteous knobs going around with go-pro 3 on the helmet , looking for a confrontation that really annoys me.
Posting 300 or 400 confrontations onto their youtube channel ......... and blaming everybody else.

Maybe try cycling down the dual-carraigeway at walking speed 9am in the morning - just because you can........ then report back all those ignorant and impatient drivers that shook fists and beeped horns.

For me - finished cycling a bike after 8 years daily into the city centre and back, no car either with all the traffic jams

Wild_Dogger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

according to who? look up the actual RTA's where you will in fact not find that.
.

You shouldn't need to look up anything .... just give cars room to pass and I'd ask car drivers to give you room to cycle - its simple - black and white.

Room for both - if both co operate

ThisRegard

Well at least this one brought something new into the equation, since when is after 7 pm rush hour ?

Darkglasses

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Never is it safer to cycle two a breast !

Ever gone on a club spin of about 40 or 50?

Cookie_Monster

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Maybe try cycling down the dual-carraigeway at walking speed 9am in the morning - just because you can........ then report back all those ignorant and impatient drivers that shook fists and beeped horns.

the ones who'll be sitting in queues of traffic as you breeze by at a healthy 30kph plus you mean?:pac:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

cyclic wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast at rush hour just because you're entitled is not really showing any respect to folks trying to get home after a day's graft/ shopping /wasting the day. This is just annoying. C'mon, quit being a jerk and let traffic pass you.

??? But I didn't stop traffic from passing me. The traffic just chose to pass me when it suited them and not at the right moment. It wasn't safe for some of these cars to overtake, but they did it anyway.

hueylewis wrote: »

Yep, if it's safe to overtake one person, then it's safe to overtake two. If it's unsafe for two then it would similarly be unsafe for one.

I can't understand this at all, sorry.

VONSHIRACH wrote: »

Cyclists should cycle in single file if there is vehicular traffic behind. I thought everybody knows this.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/pedal-cyclist.html#4

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Never is it safer to cycle two a breast !

You frustrate traffic and spur them into making an irrational overtaking manouvre - typical accident scenrio.

It's so easy to show respect and co operate with others to allow safe cycling and safe driving for all.

It is the self righteous knobs going around with go-pro 3 on the helmet , looking for a confrontation that really annoys me.
Posting 300 or 400 confrontations onto their youtube channel ......... and blaming everybody else.

Maybe try cycling down the dual-carraigeway at walking speed 9am in the morning - just because you can........ then report back all those ignorant and impatient drivers that shook fists and beeped horns.

For me - finished cycling a bike after 8 years daily into the city centre and back, no car either with all the traffic jams

That's your opinion, fortunately it's not correct.

Would purchasing a camera position me into the group of "self righteous knobs looking for a confrontation"?

I was clipped by a car once, but I was unable to take her reg as it happened so fast. This is the exact reason why I would purchase some sort of recording device.

Canis Lupus

Cycling out on the road to the point you impede other traffic is being a dick. (If you're out in the country on a club cycle though its fine).

Cookie_Monster

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Cycling out on the road to the point you impede other traffic is being a dick. (If you're out in the country on a club cycle though its fine).

cycling in to the left enough to the point where you don't puts you in the gutter. Remember a car is supposed to leave 1.5m when overtaking (unfortunately not law yet). You can't leave that gap and remain in lane regardless of where the cyclist is on the road.

Slydice

Wells Noisy Farmhand wrote: »

I cycle out from the kerb and find it's much safer as I have less cars cycling close to me.

Cycle behind her. Stay close enough so that your are not too far behind her. Cycle out from the kerb at the distance you feel safe at. The cars that move out for you will not be able to pull in on her.

Remember that all the time:
- cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers etc can drive dangerously
- cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers etc can be assholes
- cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers etc can and do break the law

The main thing is to go from A to B and:
- not get hurt/killed
- not hurt or kill someone

Don't matter what the law says. No one, regardless of how they are travelling, should think it's ok to hurt or kill someone.

Canis Lupus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

cycling in to the left enough to the point where you don't puts you in the gutter. Remember a car is supposed to leave 1.5m when overtaking (unfortunately not law yet). You can't leave that gap and remain in lane regardless of where the cyclist is on the road.

Yeah but 1.5m is bloody long and impossible to maintain in an urban environment. Just in case you think I'm an angry motorist I'm not, I'm primarily a cyclist :P It's perfectly easy to maintain both a safe distance from the kerb and other traffic whilst not being in the way of faster moving vehicles as I imagine you're already aware of. If that 1.5m was actually enforced city traffic would grind to a halt instantly.

As a cyclist I'd be well annoyed to be held up after a day in work by two people cycling abreast on a city lane toodling along. (having said that, I'm slightly less bothered as in this case it was a buslane whiiiiich is kinda like a bonus lane anyway)

enas

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

It is the self righteous knobs going around with go-pro 3 on the helmet , looking for a confrontation that really annoys me.
Posting 300 or 400 confrontations onto their youtube channel ......... and blaming everybody else.

Can you give me some links to such channels please? I anticipate a long boring day at work, this might bring some excitement (or will it).

hueylewis

Wells Noisy Farmhand wrote: »

I can't understand this at all, sorry.
.

It was directed at those telling people to cycle in single file. If they're in a situation where they can't safely overtake cyclists riding two abreast then they can't safely overtake cyclists in single file.