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

ThisRegard

mathepac wrote: »

(appropriate use of lights and horn)
.

The last thing any cyclist wants is a car comong from behind and beeping.

Lumen

KnotABother wrote: »

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.

There are loads of previous threads discussing this issue. The objection isn't people not wanting to get caught, the objection is that the idea is completely unworkable in practice.

Possible your "core feel" is something that comes from yourself, not the thread.

Cyclists are no different from anyone else, they're the same bunch of morons that drive cars. There are reasons cyclists break different rules than drivers, but they have nothing to do with innate nature of the cyclist.

John_Rambo

Mathepac, you're going to have to put the video up if you want to be taken seriously. Being honest, the longer you refuse, the more you looking like a spoofer and I'm beginning to cringe. Go on, stick it up before my ears meet at the back of my head.




Do you have a pic of your shed too?

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

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

Diarmuid wrote: »

Is the video up yet?

zindicato wrote: »

video?????

Rude Tube 10:30 tonight.

coolbeans

Vidéo yet? btw, a horn is not to be used to make others get out of your way. You didn't use the horn, you misused it. Yeah, so there. More of it...

Chips Lovell

So you want all bikes to be registered because someone held on to your car while talking to you? That sounds reasonable.

Raam

No one needs a reg to be held accountable for their actions.

Days 298

Pedestrians must walk in single file on rural roads (according to the theory test).
Courtesy should be contagious. They should have gone in single file to allow him pass then gone back to two abreast. The cyclist in this situation seem to be looking for trouble. The driver OP wanted to get past a quickly and as safe as possible. He could have just barged past with no warning like someone could well do. Tractors normally do their best to let you past when safe to do so, cyclists should be no different really. Or is it really a car vs bicycle mentality? Cant we all just get along, cyclist allow cars to pass when safe and motorist keep back until there is adequate clearance to overtake....

rizzodun

KnotABother wrote: »

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.

That sort of statement is why there is such animosity between drivers and cyclists,

In short, how would a reg system for bikes be managed?
Would it only be road bikes? I have both a road bike and mountain bike, do I register both? Do I register my kids bikes seeing as they do, from time to time, cycle on a public road?
What about the amount of people who regularly switch and sell bikes?
What system is used to make sure the registration matches the bike in question?

It'll never happen, not because cyclists oppose it, but because it will prove too costly to manage, unless they tax cyclists, which would be counter productive seeing that as a nation we should be encouraging more people onto bikes in built up areas to ease our struggling city infrastructure.

They whole 'tar with one brush' approach to cyclists annoys me, like that audi driver who cut me up when I was coming home last week, or the woman in her people carrier who forced her way into my lane without indicating yesterday nearly forcing me into the curb, I was in my car both time by the way :rolleyes:

NBar

I drive for a living and cycle as well and maybe its because I do both that I have a tolerance but the OP was rushing for a funeral, maybe he/she should have left on time and then wouldnt need to be frustrated by other road users. As for the two cyclists, you have done no favours for other cyclists and I pity the next cyclist the OP meets.

As everone has already posted, show us the video clip and let us all make further judgement

Plastik

The OP says it was the narrowest part of the road. It was quite possibly not the safest place to single out. Why would you assume that it was?

Days 298 wrote: »

Pedestrians must walk in single file on rural roads (according to the theory test).
Courtesy should be contagious. They should have gone in single file to allow him pass then gone back to two abreast. The cyclist in this situation seem to be looking for trouble. The driver OP wanted to get past a quickly and as safe as possible. He could have just barged past with no warning like someone could well do. Tractors normally do their best to let you past when safe to do so, cyclists should be no different really. Or is it really a car vs bicycle mentality? Cant we all just get along, cyclist allow cars to pass when safe and motorist keep back until there is adequate clearance to overtake....

KnotABother

Lumen wrote: »

There are loads of previous threads discussing this issue. The objection isn't people not wanting to get caught, the objection is that the idea is completely unworkable in practice.

Possible your "core feel" is something that comes from yourself, not the thread.

Cyclists are no different from anyone else, they're the same bunch of morons that drive cars. There are reasons cyclists break different rules than drivers, but they have nothing to do with innate nature of the cyclist.

It's in no way unworkable. I have a car and a licence and my car is registered and insured. If I break the law people can take my reg and report me, just like people can with cyclists if they were registered. If there was a level of accountability and the threat of repercussions for breaking lights or cycling dangerously the perhaps some of these cyclists would not cause issues or be killed!

I'm not saying motorists are saints...just that they are held accountable and can be caught for breaking the law easier than cyclists. I'm just tired of morons on bikes gesturing at motorists who have to slam on the brakes when a cyclist sails through a junction and cycles on with no fear of punishment.

ThisRegard

rizzodun wrote: »

That sort of statement is why there is such animosity between drivers and cyclists,

Most of us are both, no wonder there's so much self loathing on this forum.

Lusk_Doyle

This thread is TOO entertaining. I'm cracking a bottle of red open and settling down for the show! I hear Jared Leto is to play the Owl like mute cyclist in the movie.

Raam

How big/wide do these reg plates need to be? Do we need them on the front and back or what?

mathepac

Beasty wrote: »

... However your "story" of what happened has simply raised questions over your own behaviour and the extent you prompted the reaction from the cyclists.

My story is my report of what happened and I posted here as the two concerned were togged out as tour-de-tipperary-nord wannabees, so Motors or After Hours seemed inappropriate.

If I had simply asked the question should bikes be registered, inevitably the question would have been, "Why do you want bikes registered, and what has it got to do with you, you motorist you?" so I chose to post my experience first, then ask the question. I apologise if that seems illogical and inappropriate.

As for the question being asked before repeatedly, I fail to see the problem or the relevance of your comment. Try a search based on topics like "What tyres do I get for my BMW?", "What laptop is the best?", "How do I connect my laptop to the TV?", "What car should I buy?", "Can someone check the parts list for my next PC build?", "What printer uses the cheapest ink?" "What bike tyres do I use for city cycling in winter?" If questions were not repeated on boards.ie, the site would reduced enormously, as would the number of posters and visitors, thus reducing its value as a platform to commercial users.

Lusk_Doyle

Raam wrote: »

How big/wide do these reg plates need to be? Do we need them on the front and back or what?

Yellow reg *punches cyclist next to him* tax!

John_Rambo

Are you going to put up the video or did you make up the story?

Lusk_Doyle

mathepac wrote: »

My story is my report of what happened and I posted here as the two concerned were togged out as tour-de-tipperary-nord wannabees, so Motors or After Hours seemed inappropriate.

If I had simply asked the question should bikes be registered, inevitably the question would have been, "Why do you want bikes registered, and what has it got to do with you, you motorist you?" so I chose to post my experience first, then ask the question. I apologise if that seems illogical and inappropriate.

As for the question being asked before repeatedly, I fail to see the problem or the relevance of your comment. Try a search based on topics like "What tyres do I get for my BMW?", "What laptop is the best?", "How do I connect my laptop to the TV?", "What car should I buy?", "Can someone check the parts list for my next PC build?", "What printer uses the cheapest ink?" "What bike tyres do I use for city cycling in winter?" If questions were not repeated on boards.ie, the site would reduced enormously, as would the number of posters and visitors, thus reducing its value as a platform to commercial users.

Ok. Can we see the video now?

porsche959

ThisRegard wrote: »

Most of us are both, no wonder there's so much self loathing on this forum.

Yes, most are both. But I do suspect that the tax write-offs available in recent years has encouraged into the cycling fraternity some rather strange people, green fanatics with a hatred of cars and car-drivers.

rollingscone

Beasty wrote: »

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

Overtaking on a continuous white line is not permitted except in case of egress or emergencies. It's in the rules of the road.

coolbeans

This is a spoof!

Raam

What is this video which we are all not watching? I thought I saw it mentioned in a few posts.

deandean

@OP, tune in Lyric FM on your car radio.
and listen to it while driving.
It is quite good at calming the aggro-monster within.

ThisRegard

porsche959 wrote: »

Yes, most are both. But I do suspect that the tax write-offs available in recent years has encouraged into the cycling fraternity some rather strange people, green fanatics with a hatred of cars and car-drivers.

Sigh, don't know where to even start with that. Surely your bizarre theory implies that such people would already have bikes, and are hardly the sportive riding types in the secret video.

cython

rollingscone wrote: »

Overtaking on a continuous white line is not permitted except in case of egress or emergencies. It's in the rules of the road.

Actually as per the PDF available (site has been getting updated for absolutely ages), on page 67, a continuous white line only means "All traffic must keep to the left of the line (except in an emergency or for access)." Therefore overtaking is permitted if it can be achieved without crossing the line.

Now whether this can be done safely without crossing is another question, one which might be advised were the video available.......

Pinch Flat

Plastik wrote: »

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.

Well I'd single out in this situation. Impatient drivers will more than likely cause a more serious situation with dangerous overtaking. Not trying to have a willy swinging contest, just trying to get across that considerate road use by all road users is a good thing.

buffalo

I'm new to the thread - can someone link me to the video?

Days 298

cython wrote: »

Actually as per the PDF available (site has been getting updated for absolutely ages), on page 67, a continuous white line only means "All traffic must keep to the left of the line (except in an emergency or for access)." Therefore overtaking is permitted if it can be achieved without crossing the line.

Now whether this can be done safely without crossing is another question.

Well would you rather car drivers squeeze past toeing a white line or give clearance if they see a clear road ahead?

Inquitus

buffalo wrote: »

I'm new to the thread - can someone link me to the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ