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

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.

coolbeans

laraghrider wrote: »

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.

To hell with that. There will be no investigation. Post up da vij

Beasty

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the post was the 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?

The opening post is attempting to spout some moral outrage on the back of claims over the behaviour of the cyclists in question to support your desire for such identifying information. Of course posters are going to question what exactly happened, particularly when you claim to have such evidence

If you simply want the views of those who frequent the forum on that specific question a quick search would have delivered the answer as we have gone through this numerous times. However your "story" of what happened has simply raised questions over your own behaviour and the extent you prompted the reaction from the cyclists.

el tel

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?

Then was your question about identifying cyclists accompanied by a self-incriminating ramble about an experience you claim to have had?

Couldn't you have simply asked "Should (or how can) cyclists be made identifiable?"

[And in which case you might have done a search first and seen that this ridiculous question has been asked a multitude of times already]

coolbeans

laraghrider wrote: »

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.

To hell with that. There will be no investigation. Post up da vij-oh and be done with it. Otherwise this will end as another thread of pointless speculation

mathepac

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.

Let me see now, in your obviously unbiased opinion I put other road-users at risk by:

1. not overtaking over a continuous white centre-line
2. slowing down so I was following the cyclists at a safe distance
3. ensuring other road-users were aware of my presence (appropriate use of lights and horn)
4. not maneuvering, turning or stopping my car suddenly when the idiot cyclist grabbed hold of it
5. warning him in advance I was closing the window
6. overtaking a single cyclist by indicating properly and not crossing the centre-line

What of the question I asked - Should bikes be registered like other road vehicles so their riders can be held accountable for their actions?

I'll hazard a guess and say I think you'd answer with a resounding "NO", in your unbiased opinion of course.

Beasty

Guys, these threads inevitably seem to get quite heated. Can you all please keep it civil as cards will be handed out for any posts that are abusive towards any other posters

Any questions, PM me - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

looksee

Its perfectly legal for a car to do 40kph to the extreme right of the carriageway (ie just inside the white line), that doesn't mean its courteous, or reasonable or conducive to happy road users.

Diarmuid

Is the video up yet?

KnotABother

One point the OP makes is very valid. I have agreed for a long time that cyclists should have to carry reg plates. I am a city driver and I can say that I very rarely see a cyclist stop at a red light. In fact many times I see them sail through busy junctions on a red without looking or entering the footpath and nearly striking pedestrians. Almost every day I see them glide across pedestrian crossings when there is a cycle lane and even a box there for them.
Others turn with no signal with little or no knowledge of proper road positioning.

Cyclists are quick enough to have a go at drivers but rarely see the affect they have when they intimidate pedestrians.

The core feel I get reading this thread is that cyclist oppose regs or ID numbers for their bikes because they know they will be caught breaking the law pretty much every day.

zindicato

video?????