Cyclist behaviour on country roads; reg numbers for sports bikes? Mod Note post #18

mathepac

Earlier in the week I was travelling between Ardconey and Borrisokane on my way to a funeral.

On the narrowest part of that road, which has a continuous white line and lots of dips that impede visibility to on-coming traffic, I came across two lycra-clad idiots cycling two-abreast. It was a dull miserable morning but our two heroes had no hi-viz tabards, no reflectors or lights on the bikes and only one cyclist had a helmet.

The car in front of me overtook them by crossing the white line; fortunately, there was no on-coming traffic. I beeped the horn briefly to alert them to my presence. The outside cyclist looked back so I held up an index finger and gestured to the nearside of the car, the best I could do on the spur of the moment to convey "single file please, I want to overtake without endangering any of us".

The outside cyclist drifted across in front of my car onto the wrong side of the road, and gestured for me to move between the two bikes. I gave more than a short beep in response, and rolled my window down to enquire politely as to his stupidly dangerous antics. Quick as a flash your man grabbed the door-frame and allowed himself to be towed by my car as if he was on the Col de Torini. I now had eejit No 1 attached to my car uninvited and eejit No 2 wobbling dangerously ahead of me observing the conversation between me and eejit No 1.

I was afraid to stop the car, accelerate or make any move that might result in eejit No 1 becoming more closely acquainted with the Co Tipperary road-scape or the underside of my car, so while he droned on about cycling two-abreast being safe according to the "rue-elles of da ro-ahd which you-ahse should re-ahd”, I asked him to take his hand off my car as I was closing the window.

Eejit No 1 said he'd report the incident to the Guards. I told him to make sure to get my reg no correct so I could pass on the SD card from the dash-cam. At that he released his grip on my door-frame and drifted off behind me.

Try as I might I cannot make out any identifying brands on the lycra or the bikes. This is partly due to where the dash-cam is positioned just above the disc-holder on the lower left corner of the windscreen, which is out of the way of the sweep of the wiper-blades.

If the bikes had reg nos I'd have had no problem tracing these dangerous clowns but without them I'm at nothing unfortunately.

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

couerdelion

mathepac wrote: »

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

No

rollingscone

mathepac wrote: »

Earlier in the week I was travelling between Ardconey and Borrisokane on my way to a funeral.

On the narrowest part of that road, which has a continuous white line and lots of dips that impede visibility to on-coming traffic, I came across two lycra-clad idiots cycling two-abreast. It was a dull miserable morning but our two heroes had no hi-viz tabards, no reflectors or lights on the bikes and only one cyclist had a helmet.

The car in front of me overtook them by crossing the white line; fortunately, there was no on-coming traffic. I beeped the horn briefly to alert them to my presence. The outside cyclist looked back so I held up an index finger and gestured to the nearside of the car, the best I could do on the spur of the moment to convey "single file please, I want to overtake without endangering any of us".

The outside cyclist drifted across in front of my car onto the wrong side of the road, and gestured for me to move between the two bikes. I gave more than a short beep in response, and rolled my window down to enquire politely as to his stupidly dangerous antics. Quick as a flash your man grabbed the door-frame and allowed himself to be towed by my car as if he was on the Col de Torini. I now had eejit No 1 attached to my car uninvited and eejit No 2 wobbling dangerously ahead of me observing the conversation between me and eejit No 1.

I was afraid to stop the car, accelerate or make any move that might result in eejit No 1 becoming more closely acquainted with the Co Tipperary road-scape or the underside of my car, so while he droned on about cycling two-abreast being safe according to the "rue-elles of da ro-ahd which you-ahse should re-ahd”, I asked him to take his hand off my car as I was closing the window.

Eejit No 1 said he'd report the incident to the Guards. I told him to make sure to get my reg no correct so I could pass on the SD card from the dash-cam. At that he released his grip on my door-frame and drifted off behind me.

Try as I might I cannot make out any identifying brands on the lycra or the bikes. This is partly due to where the dash-cam is positioned just above the disc-holder on the lower left corner of the windscreen, which is out of the way of the sweep of the wiper-blades.

If the bikes had reg nos I'd have had no problem tracing these dangerous clowns but without them I'm at nothing unfortunately.

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

Sorry what was your special right to the road?

How did they demonstrate
Idiocy? Was it by legally riding two abreast which makes it less likely that someone in a car will attempt a dangerously close overtake?

Why were you driving so close as to create a hazardous situation?

Does it not occur to you that by doing this in your car you were being unintentionally threatening and the cyclists response was defensive because of this?

el tel

Narrowest part of road you say? So you couldn't wait until somewhere wider but decided to engage with them where clearly not really appropriate? Come on, show us the dash cam footage so we can have an autopsy

happytramp

What are the odds that after a few well made points that we will all reach an amicable agreement about who was right and who was wrong here?

Chazz Michael Michaels

No, no. You can't reg bikes. That would make cyclists accountable for their actions. No, no, no....

Mugser

You were on your way to a funeral; so you should appreciate how fragile life is.
Really and truly, would it have really mattered if you were a bit late?
Never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to putting others at risk using there tonne-odd hunk of steel to gain but a few seconds down the road.

Tenzor07

mathepac wrote: »

Earlier in the week I was travelling between Ardconey and Borrisokane

This road was it?

07Lapierre

I blame the road myself, obviously too narrow!

RustyNut

Maby it just me but what I read there is "I was in a hurry when I came upon someone else legitimately using the road! instead of waiting untill a safe place to pass I got all pissy and started blowing the horn which just p1ssed off the other road users leading to ........"

projectgtr

So you have a video? Post it up and let's see what really happened

seamus

mathepac wrote: »

The outside cyclist looked back so I held up an index finger and gestured to the nearside of the car, the best I could do on the spur of the moment to convey "single file please, I want to overtake without endangering any of us".

You do not have the authority to issue directions or demands to other road users, so the first mistake was yours and likely only served to create aggravation. In any honest appraisal of the incident, "You started it".

The outside cyclist drifted across in front of my car onto the wrong side of the road, and gestured for me to move between the two bikes. I gave more than a short beep in response, and rolled my window down to enquire politely as to his stupidly dangerous antics.

Why he did that, I don't know, he's clearly an idiot. By the same logic as above, he does not have the authority to issue such directions, and most certainly you should have not responded since overtaking another vehicle on the left is not permitted in the given circumstances.

The correct response would be to continue to hang back and wait for a safe place to overtake. Or failing that, ring the Gardai and make a report. They're not going fast enough to disappear, so they can be stopped by a local Garda car.
Cyclists don't want you sitting behind them any more than you want to be there, it's irritating. If they are not riding single file to give you room to overtake, it's usually because there is no room to overtake safely, even in single file. This most often occurs on winding L-roads.

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

It's a solution looking for a problem. The only difference in the above scenario is that it would have made it more convenient for you to wait until you got home to make the report, rather than make the report at the time of the incident. Doesn't seem like a good enough reason to set up a major quango and a list of unenforceable laws.

Registration plates on bicycles has been a costly and pointless exercise anywhere it's been done.

MrCreosote

It's a thundering disgrace!

Put up the footage and we can have that chancer disqualified for holding onto the team car! It's time to have this stamped out. Did you even pretend to adjust his derailleur?

mathepac

Tenzor07 wrote: »

This road was it? ...

Ah, sorry my detailed description wasn't detailed enough for you "... On the narrowest part of that road, which has a continuous white line and lots of dips that impede visibility to on-coming traffic... " A continuous white line has no breaks in it, unlike the broken white lines on the road in your picture, and dips that restrict visibility doesn't equate with that flat stretch of road vanishing to the horizon.

Troll much?

Cee-Jay-Cee

OP you clearly are not a cyclist and have no tolerance of them.

You were clearly in the wrong. You exhibited a form of road rage and believe that because you were in a car you have right of way. If you came upon a tractor or even another car driving at 15kph would you have demonstrated the same intolerance?

Cyclists are legally permitted to cycle two abreast.

I come across idiots like you all the time on country roads.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Mugser wrote: »

You were on your way to a funeral; so you should appreciate how fragile life is.
Really and truly, would it have really mattered if you were a bit late?
Never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to putting others at risk using there tonne-odd hunk of steel to gain but a few seconds down the road.

Bikes now weigh a tone-odd?
The only people putting anyone at risk in this situation were the cyclists.Glas you had a dash cam op to scupper these idiots ideas of a false claim to the Gardai.

Darkglasses

I'm going to say pre-emptively that this is not a forum to make generalizing rants about road behaviour, motorist or cyclist.

coolbeans

You say there was a white line unbroken on the road. I'm assuming that you wanted to overtake the cyclists without crossing line cos doing so would be illegal. And dangerous. That would of course require the cyclists to move to single file. You'd have then proceeded to overtake while not crossing line whilst squeezing the cyclists to the very edge of the road. To do soyou'd not have left a safe space for the cyclist, about a metre, but then, hey..what does it matter as long as you'd have passed. You should have just waited. The only legal and safe solution.

Your blather about high vis and lights and helmets is irrelevant. Unless they were cycling at night they were breakingno laws while you had the intention of doing so.

Fire up the video and prove us wrong.

Tenzor07

rollingscone

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Bikes now weigh a tone-odd?
The only people putting anyone at risk in this situation were the cyclists.Glas you had a dash cam op to scupper these idiots ideas of a false claim to the Gardai.

Based on what rational argument?

Edit: let me add that most cyclists on this forum are motorists too and are accustomed to driving responsibly.

Captain Scarlet

As a motorist and cyclist, I´m intrigued by this thread; what type of "continuous white line" was on the road? The kind that means "no overtaking", perhaps?

disco1

Op..
Maybe not the best place to post about cyclist behavior..

Beasty

Captain Scarlet wrote: »

As a motorist and cyclist, I´m intrigued by this thread; what type of "continuous white line" was on the road? The kind that means "no overtaking", perhaps?

A continous white line does not mean "no overtaking" - it means you must keep to the left of it

I have no idea of the width of the road in question but given the OP indicated it was the "narrowest part of the road" and the minimum recommended overtaking clearance for bicycles is 1.5m, I would be surprised if he could legally overtake whether the cyclists were 2 abreast or in single file

As already stated the references to hi-viz, helmets etc are totally irrelevant, and cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal and woudl appear to have been sensible in the circumstances if it discouraged the driver from underating a dangerous overtaking manouver

The one thing I would agree with the OP is the sheer stupidity of a cyclist that actually made a manouver towards the centre of the road to allow him to grab onto the car - that is extremely dangerous and I can understand any driver panicking over what to do in such a situation to minimise the risk of an accident

AltAccount

Interesting how there's so much more focus on matthepac's impatience rather than the cycling grabbing the door frame of a moving car...

mathepac

rollingscone wrote: »

Sorry ..

Thanks for apologising for your post up front, it took some of the idiotic sting out of the content.

rollingscone wrote: »

... what was your special right to the road? ...

I don't remember claiming any special rights, just ordinary ones for myself and other road-users.

rollingscone wrote: »

...
How did they demonstrate
Idiocy? ...

How can I count the ways? Re-reading my post I see :

1. Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line
2. No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights
3. No hi-viz tabards or vests
4. One rider had no helmet
5. One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road
6. He gave no hand-signals of his intentions
7. He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road
8. He grabbed hold of my car uninvited
9. He allowed himself to be towed by my car
10. Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards

That's a nice even number, a ten for the partnership in idiocy.

rollingscone wrote: »

... Was it by legally riding two abreast which makes it less likely that someone in a car will attempt a dangerously close overtake? ...

Doing waht's legal isn't always waht's safe which is why I adapt to the prevailing conditions and surrounding idiots by driving defensively

rollingscone wrote: »

... Why were you driving so close as to create a hazardous situation? ...

How closely was I driving to the two mindless lycra-clad eejits?

rollingscone wrote: »

... Does it not occur to you that by doing this in your car you were being unintentionally threatening and the cyclists response was defensive because of this?

Doing what precisely and in particular in my car? Warning them of my approach? Not stopping, accelerating or turning the car while superman had hold of it? Not overtaking until there was only one eejit in front of me?

Eejit No 1 responded exactly like the eejit he is by doing waht he did. He cycled dangerously, illegally and without any care or consideration for other road-users, including his companion and me.

Arrow.

Looks like the OP was just looking for a bit of common courtesy...something a lot of cyclists lack...in Ireland anyway.

AltAccount

mathepac wrote: »

Thanks for apologising for your post up front, it took some of the idiotic sting out of the content.
I don't remember claiming any special rights, just ordinary ones for myself and other road-users.
How can I count the ways? Re-reading my post I see :

1. Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line
2. No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights
3. No hi-viz tabards or vests
4. One rider had no helmet
5. One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road
6. He gave no hand-signals of his intentions
7. He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road
8. He grabbed hold of my car uninvited
9. He allowed himself to be towed by my car
10. Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards

That's a nice even number, a ten for the partnership in idiocy.
Doing waht's legal isn't always waht's safe which is why I adapt to the prevailing conditions and surrounding idiots by driving defensively
How closely was I driving to the two mindless lycra-clad eejits?

Doing what precisely and in particular in my car? Warning them of my approach? Not stopping, accelerating or turning the car while superman had hold of it? Not overtaking until there was only one eejit in front of me?

Eejit No 1 responded exactly like the eejit he is by doing waht he did. He cycled dangerously, illegally and without any care or consideration for other road-users, including his companion and me.

I count 5 reasonable complaints, and the other 5 are misunderstandings of what's actually required of cyclists

T-Maxx

Video or GTFO

Inquitus

Arrow. wrote: »

Looks like the OP was just looking for a bit of common courtesy...something a lot of cyclists lack...in Ireland anyway.

Looks more like the OP doesn't respect the the rules of the road and started attempting to intimidate the cyclists by driving close behind honking his horn because he didn't have the patience to wait for a safe overtaking opportunity.

What followed was idiocy from the cyclists, but obviously a consequence of what had gone before. No one covering themselves in glory here.

Plastik

Sounds like the cyclists were just looking for a bit of common courtesy ... something a lot of drivers lack ... in Ireland anyway.

The horn of a car is a dangerous thing. There is nothing that gets peoples backs up as much be they cyclists, pedestrians, or motorists. Would you have beeped at another car to warn them that you were going to overtake? I doubt it.

projectgtr

Just post the bloody video, no arguing then. The video won't lie so get it up. By not posting it I'd say things didn't happen exactly as you say tbh

seamus

AltAccount wrote: »

Interesting how there's so much more focus on matthepac's impatience rather than the cycling grabbing the door frame of a moving car...

Because it seems pretty clear and universally agreed that the guy is a moron, and since he's not here to discuss his actions, there's not much else to discuss about it.

Beasty

Looking at your 10 points of "idiocy"

1. Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line - Perfectly acceptable and legal
2. No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights - Perfectly acceptable and legal
3. No hi-viz tabards or vests - Perfectly acceptable and legal
4. One rider had no helmet - Perfectly acceptable and legal
5. One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road - illegal/unacceptable
6. He gave no hand-signals of his intentions - unacceptable
7. He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road illegal/unacceptable
8. He grabbed hold of my car uninvited - illegal/unacceptable
9. He allowed himself to be towed by my car - illegal/unacceptable
10. Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards - Perfectly acceptable and legal and to be encouraged - cyclists should check behind them particularly in a situation like this

So that leaves us with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 that are unacceptable/illegal. You have tried to dress it up almost as 5 different examples of "idiocy", but they could equally be seen as part of the same idiotic manouver by the cyclist

Pinch Flat

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

In saying that, a picture (or in this case a video) paints a thousand words. So put it up and see the situation as it unfolded.

Plastik

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

ThisRegard

T-Maxx wrote: »

Video or GTFO

He's been asked a few times, I can't handle the anticipation.

Darkglasses

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

The concern would be that a driver would pass you in the same lane, rather than give a safe amount of space. Also when it's more than 2, there's a more serious problem that the line become quite long.

Cee-Jay-Cee

1. Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line.
   
   Your view as a motorist was possibly restricted. A cyclist sits higher and can see more.
   
2. No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights
   
   It was daytime and you seen them so they weren't that obscured. Hiviz is not obligatory.
   
3. No hi-viz tabards or vests
   
   See above.
   
4. One rider had no helmet
   
   Not obligatory. Some cyclist choose not to wear one. You never mentioned it earlier and it is completely irrelevant to your rant.
   
5. One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road.
   
   Because of your impatience. They wouldn't have done it if you'd stayed back and waited for a safe place to pass.
   
   
6. He gave no hand-signals of his intentions.
   
   So what?
   
7. He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road
   
   Like above, because of a situation you created.
   
8. He grabbed hold of my car uninvited
   
   As above.
   
9. He allowed himself to be towed by my car
   
   As above.
   
10. Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards
    
    You are there eejit with your childish name calling. Learn the rules of the road and learn a bit of patience.

Pinch Flat

Plastik wrote: »

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

Eh no as a cyclist you can't obstruct vehicles trying to pass. And I'm coming from the point of view of someone who cycles the guts of 10,000 km annually.

mathepac

RustyNut wrote: »

Maby it just me but what I read there is "I was in a hurry when I came upon someone else legitimately using the road! instead of waiting untill a safe place to pass I got all pissy and started blowing the horn which just p1ssed off the other road users leading to ........"

Naw it's just you and those like you. I'm mature enough to accept the consequences of my own actions and to expect others to be responsible for theirs. Old Newton's laws have no bearing on human interactions, not on cosmic forces or sub-atomic particles either.

Otherwise we'd all be like the wife-beater in the TV ad (UTV I think) "Now look at what you made me do."

Pinch Flat

Darkglasses wrote: »

The concern would be that a driver would pass you in the same lane, rather than give a safe amount of space. Also when it's more than 2, there's a more serious problem that the line become quite long.

Yeah point taken but I this case it was 2 cyclists.

Beasty

What we don't know is whether doubling up would allowed safe overtaking or encouraged risky overtaking - it depends entirely on the road conditions and cyclists will often "take the road" to discourage dangerous/illegal overtaking

ThisRegard

mathepac wrote: »

Naw it's just you and those like you. I'm mature enough to accept the consequences of my own actions and to expect others to be responsible for theirs. Old Newton's laws have no bearing on human interactions, not on cosmic forces or sub-atomic particles either.

Otherwise we'd all be like the wife-beater in the TV ad (UTV I think) "Now look at what you made me do."

So show us the video, it'll put an end to this debate.

coolbeans

The OP should have been patient and obeyedd the rules of the road. Everything escalated from his actions leading to an outcome where none covered themselves in glory.

Lumen

Where's the video? Is it here yet? I want to see the video. Where's the video?

mathepac

ThisRegard wrote: »

So show us the video, it'll put an end to this debate.

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

tacklemore

There's only one way this will end!

Plastik

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Eh no as a cyclist you can't obstruct vehicles trying to pass. And I'm coming from the point of view of someone who cycles the guts of 10,000 km annually.

They were not obstructing anybody - apart from the messing that followed. But from what we can tell they were simply traveling two abreast. This is perfectly within the law. It is something that is also plastered all over the RSA ads on the TV. They do not have to single out. It might be more courteous to do so on occasion, but that is it.

And seeing as we're willy waving, I'm coming from the point of view of someone that cycles the guts of 15,000 km anually.

coolbeans

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

Having a video and not showing it when challenged upon your points makes one think that you have something to hide. Or not? Who knows?? It's simple really. Shouldn't need to explain it. You'd ask the same yourself if the shoes were on the other foot. It's all we'resaying ...like :-)

laraghrider

There are a lot of people on here asking to see the video. If the encounter was as bad as the OP says and I assume it was then I also assume it's been reported to the gardai? So maybe posting a video on a public forum for a pending investigation is not the best thing to do.

ThisRegard

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

To see it there would have been any benefit had such a ridiculous idea already been implemented or if it's just a knee jerk reaction.