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

No Pants

KnotABother wrote: »

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.

And how would cyclists having reg plates stop this? The lack of a registration isn't the problem, it's the lack of law enforcement.

Cars have reg plates, yet cars can still be observed breaking red lights. I'm interested in how you believe this will change anything.

buffalo

mathepac wrote: »

I, like other road-users, have the right to proceed on my way unhindered by self-appointed safety enforcers.

This, coming from the person who stated that they tried to direct two other road users how to behave 'safely' so that they could overtake?

Do you see how this statement applies far more to the rights of the two cyclists to use the road, unhindered by a motorist blowing their horn at them, and directing them to move over?

Vizzy

seamus wrote: »

You're right. If a vehicle is in the middle of an overtaking manouver, it would be very illegal and stupid for a cyclist to change position to block them.

But a cyclist does not have to move over to allow following to traffic to overtake, unless it is safe to do so. As you well know with 15,000km under your belt yearly, many L-roads in this country barely have enough room for two cars to pass eachother without rubbing the hedge on either side, so providing a safe place for a car to overtake requires care and planning. If you just move over as soon as you hear a car, chances are the idiot will just attempt an overtake without properly evaluating the conditions.

Thus it is not only legal, but best practice for the cyclist to maintain a position which prevents vehicles from overtaking until they reach a place in the road where the cyclist feels it would be safe for following traffic to overtake.

So, would you recommend that the two cyclists, cycling abreast totally legally, should occupy the entire left lane (even if they don't require it)to mitigate against dangerous overtaking ?
If so, would this apply to Regional and National Roads as well ?

buffalo

PS can someone PM me the video? I seem to have missed it.

Days 298

crosstownk wrote: »

But your video would be conclusive. Why the reluctance to post the video?

Probably because he knows even if he drove like a saint some people have decided already and just need any video to crucify him with.

seamus

mathepac wrote: »

That's an unfortunately typical school-yard response which should have no place in a discussion about a road-safety matter.

What?
If a neutral 3rd party was to appraise the incident, like me, they would look for the initial trigger. That initial trigger was you beeping and pointing to the left hand side of the road, basically saying, "Get out of the way".

As I say later in the thread I accept responsibility for my actions but others need to accept responsibilty for their actions or reactions.

Absolutely. Of course, these two guys aren't here, so there's not much we can do about the latter.

If I flash my lights and gesture to another driver that I am ceding right of way and that it's OK to move out from the kerb or from a junction for example, would you see that in another light or would I still be issuing directions or making demands of other road users? I know what the ROTR has to say in the matter but I've seen Garda drivers & motor-cyclists respond positively to the invitation.

For a start, that's a different argument. You are telling (or attempting to tell) other traffic what you plan on doing, you're not telling them what to do.

Beeping and gesturing to the two cyclists does not give them any indication on what you plan on doing. OK, it does say, "I want to overtake", but that's assumed, even without your beeping and pointing. What it primarily says is, "You are in my way, get out of it". Do you beep and point every time you overtake another vehicle?

I see, so in your opinion it's perfectly OK for them to make road safety decisions for me by blocking the road and preventing me overtaking,

Yes, if they don't feel you are in full possession of the details of the situation. And also because your actions don't operate in a vacuum. If you make a mistake, they will suffer far worse consequences than you will.
They are in front and therefore have a clearer view of the road ahead. They also sit higher and have no blind spots so have a better overall view of what's going on.
However, the latter is largely irrelevant, as I would consider it acceptable (and legal) for any vehicle to deliberately hold their road position, where it would be unsafe for that following traffic to execute an overtaking manouver.
You use the term "blocking" the road, when you know that term is incorrect. "Blocking" implies an obligation to move, or that they should not be present on the road. No vehicle is required to move to allow following traffic to pass if it unsafe to do so. That's the law.

Motorists, experienced defensive drivers of long-standing know that if some is determined to over take, your responsibility is limited to staying as close to the nearside as you can so the maneuver can be executed as safely as possible.

Correct, but again, that's not the issue here. You weren't determined to overtake. If you had been determined to overtake, the cyclists would have taken appropriate action, and most importantly they would have had room to take appropriate action because they didn't move over and cede that space to you.

ThisRegard

Days 298 wrote: »

Probably because he knows even if he drove like a saint some people have decided already and just need any video to crucify him with.

He had the chance to post it in his first post.

ashleey

I haven't made my mind up. Post the video and I can try? Please?

furiousox

mathepac wrote: »

...I, like other road-users, have the right to proceed on my way unhindered by self-appointed safety enforcers.

Oh, the irony....:D

seamus

Vizzy wrote: »

So, would you recommend that the two cyclists, cycling abreast totally legally, should occupy the entire left lane (even if they don't require it)to mitigate against dangerous overtaking ?

Yes, where it is either unsafe for the cyclists to cycle on the left (due to poor road surface or whatever),and/or where there is insufficient space to accommodate 1.5m between the cyclists and any overtaking vehicles.

If so, would this apply to Regional and National Roads as well ?

Theoretically. But give me an example of such a road where both of the above conditions would be true. N & R roads typically have 2.5-3m wide lanes and a wide hard shoulder, providing ample room for both cyclist(s) and overtaking vehicles.

minterno

vid,vid,vid

mathepac

John_Rambo wrote: »

No vid yet, we have to assume Mathepac is spoofing. ....

You can assume all you like. The whole point of my post was to ask about registration numbers on bikes to hold idiots to account.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Scary thing is, looks like he made up a story ...

It may look to you like a made up story but so what? Opinions have a value depending on their source.

John_Rambo wrote: »

.. I'm cringing so much my ears are meeting at the back of my head now.

The look suits you very well

morana

@mathepac Will you post the video for ****s sake? Whats your problem posting it? Never mind your high viz bollocks just put it up on youtube and we can see exactly what happened. If you cant do it pm me and I will do it for you.

It seems to me that you just come over here to the cycling forum to look for a row or made up a situation which didnt occur!

morana

I have seen vids of Kardashian in the buff quicker!

gbob

As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car diver and coach driver i'd like to believe I have a fair and balanced approach and the ability to see all sides of this debate. First point is that all road users are primarily responsible for their own safety, and it stands to reason that the most vulnerable must be the most cautious, cause they certainly have the most to lose. From the description given by the OP i'd suggest that certainly wasn't the case. Second point is this, yes the RTA permits cyclists to ride two abreast when safe to do so, cyclists will always scream that at you, but what they don't quote is the full sentence "except where to do so would impede following traffic".. so if you're going to quote rules and reg's, it's a good idea to know what they are.



EDIT; I stand corrected by Inquitus, cyclists are not permitted to ride MORE than two abreast where it would impede following traffic.

07Lapierre

gbob wrote: »

As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car diver and coach driver i'd like to believe I have a fair and balanced approach and the ability to see all sides of this debate. First point is that all road users are primarily responsible for their own safety, and it stands to reason that the most vulnerable must be the most cautious, cause they certainly have the most to lose. From the description given by the OP i'd suggest that certainly wasn't the case. Second point is this, yes the RTA permits cyclists to ride two abreast when safe to do so, cyclists will always scream that at you, but what they don't quote is the full sentence "except where to do so would impede following traffic".. so if you're going to quote rules and reg's, it's a good idea to know what they are.

+1....there were at least 2 plonkers on the road that day.

morana

but for all the motorist/non-cyclists over here just think for a moment what it would be like to kill a cyclist while driving somewhere.

A father, husband,mother, son,daughter....it just isnt worth it. so what if you are a few seconds held up even a few mins its not worth it.

John_Rambo

mathepac wrote: »

It may look to you like a made up story but so what?

Are you saying you did make the story up?

PLUG71

KnotABother wrote: »

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.

What a load of sh1t imo of course:rolleyes:

mathepac

Beasty wrote: »

... 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 ...

Let us not get confused between "minimum recommendations" and "legal requirements". I can choose to ignore a minimum recommendation and still overtake legally.

Beasty wrote: »

... 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 ...

I believe the lack of lights, safety equipment, reflectors and tyhe manner of cycling on that road at that time are important indicative of a state of mind clearly demonstrted in the thread. All of the lights, hi-viz vests, reflectors, helmets are recommended in the ROTR for cyclists and the manner of riding, single file, two-abreast needs to be adjusted to suit prevailing circumstances. Blocking traffic by deliberately cycling two-abreast where safety dictates otherwise is illegal, if that is what they were attempting to do (it seemed like it to me)

So again the unbiased opinion here is that if a motorist ignores a single recommendation, he is driving illegally, but if cyclists ignore a series of recommendations and break the law by apparently blocking the progress of traffic, that's OK because they are cyclists.

The balance and impartiality is great to see.

gbob

morana wrote: »

but for all the motorist/non-cyclists over here just think for a moment what it would be like to kill a cyclist while driving somewhere.

A father, husband,mother, son,daughter....it just isnt worth it. so what if you are a few seconds held up even a few mins its not worth it.

I couldn't agree more, but that also applies to the cyclist who thinks to himself whilst laying in his hospital bed "why didn't I just keep in to the left and allow that car to pass safely".

Inquitus

gbob wrote: »

ts will always scream that at you, but what they don't quote is the full sentence "except where to do so would impede following traffic".. so if you're going to quote rules and reg's, it's a good idea to know what they are.

indeed it is a good idea to know what they are

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Fundamentally different to your quotation of same.

mathepac

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?

Can I recommend this web-site to you and the (14 and counting!!!) posters who thanked you? It's scary to think you might even be let out behind the wheel of a car some day.

morana

gbob wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, but that also applies to the cyclist who thinks to himself whilst laying in his hospital bed "why didn't I just keep in to the left and allow that car to pass safely".

eh i dont really agree with that...allow!?! As a motorist when I coming from behind a slower moving cyclist, motor cyclist etc. I make sure I pass safely

Anyway I see we get no vid ..so it never happened as John Rambo alluded to earlier.

Chips Lovell

I decided some time ago that the best policy when dealing with road-rage type motorists is to just ignore them. Every time I've actually responded and talked to them it never ends well. No matter how reasonable you try to be, there's just no talking to them. I'm sure they're still cursing me when blowing the horn behind me, but on balance it's less aggravation.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

PS can someone PM me the video? I seem to have missed it.

The first rule of video club is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT VIDEO CLUB!

furiousox

mathepac wrote: »

Let us not get confused between "minimum recommendations" and "legal requirements". I can choose to ignore a minimum recommendation and still overtake legally.
I believe the lack of lights, safety equipment, reflectors and tyhe manner of cycling on that road at that time are important indicative of a state of mind clearly demonstrted in the thread. All of the lights, hi-viz vests, reflectors, helmets are recommended in the ROTR for cyclists and the manner of riding, single file, two-abreast needs to be adjusted to suit prevailing circumstances. Blocking traffic by deliberately cycling two-abreast where safety dictates otherwise is illegal, if that is what they were attempting to do (it seemed like it to me)

So again the unbiased opinion here is that if a motorist ignores a single recommendation, he is driving illegally, but if cyclists ignore a series of recommendations and break the law by apparently blocking the progress of traffic, that's OK because they are cyclists.

The balance and impartiality is great to see.

Yeah.
Are you going to post the video?

mathepac

AltAccount wrote: »

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

Some are legal requirements, some are recommendations for cyclists from the RSA's ROTR. Ignoring recommendations made by the RSA for cyclist safety speaks volumes about the attitudes of riders when taking to the roads.

Lusk_Doyle

morana wrote: »

but for all the motorist/non-cyclists over here just think for a moment what it would be like to kill a cyclist while driving somewhere.

A father, husband,mother, son,daughter....it just isnt worth it. so what if you are a few seconds held up even a few mins its not worth it.

Exactly. Think of the poor child whose mother was killed on Friday in balbriggan when she was knocked down while out walking with the child. We are all people with others who love and depend on us. Nobody has any more right to a path or road than the next person. Calm down, slow down, chill out and stop inciting hatred.

Tenzor07

mathepac wrote: »

I believe the lack of lights, safety equipment, reflectors..All of the lights, hi-viz vests, reflectors, helmets are recommended in the ROTR for cyclists and the manner of riding, single file, two-abreast needs to be adjusted to suit prevailing circumstances. Blocking traffic by deliberately cycling two-abreast where safety dictates otherwise is illegal, if that is what they were attempting to do (it seemed like it to me)

Would all the "safety equipment required" for this dangerous pastime(cycling) have prevented this situation? Doubt it!

As for Blocking traffic, they were traffic!

If you're so concerned with safety you would have slowed down, waited patiently for the cyclists to move into single file and then picked a suitably safe point to pass them.. Instead you came right up behind them beeping, which would irritate/scare the majority of people..

So..either post up the video or bow out of this thread..lesson learned!