Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

mrcheez

Mycroft H wrote: »

Ahh I'm glad you got the obligatory 'I'm a cyclist too' bit in.

Nothing wrong with bring considerate; its all good and it keeps everyone happy. But really? Who is forcing you to overtake into oncoming traffic? Who has their foot on the accelerator? Sounds a bit daft if you think your being forced out?

Secondly the very reason that most people tend to keep out from the kerb/verge is because it's safer; you can discorouge dodgy overtake manoeuvres on narrow blind bends for example. Your always more visible at crowded junctions and not stuck in the verge where ones eye can miss you. Lastly and there are plenty more reasons; you avoid all the crap and rubbish that gets thrown into the verge; gravel, stones, bottles, cans etc. I could go on and on here. Its defensive and safe cycling.

Bizarre you completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying anything about defensive cycling, or keeping off the kerb, of course you keep off the edge.
My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

A crow got caught in the air scoop on the car and caused the engine to overheat and seize, Ban all Crows! :pac:

A typical non topical reply, was the crow on a cycle, no, didn't think so

endacl

mrcheez wrote: »

Bizarre you completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying anything about defensive cycling, or keeping off the kerb, of course you keep off the edge.
My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

How would a car fit down a road designed to accommodate only one cyclist-width?!?

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This is safer than single file as cars are less likely to just pass by unthinkingly.

Unthinkingly. I call it being more decisive (as long as there is the requisite 1.5 meters of clearance between the motorist and the cyclist and there is no oncoming traffic).

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You need to leave at least 1.5m when overtaking so should pretty much be giving a single cyclist the same space as two wide.

When it is two abreast, the motorist ends up completely on the other side of the road. How is this safe?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You weren't stuck behind them, you were in traffic

When cycling two abreast, anyone behind you who wishes to pass out are essentially stuck and needlessly so. This holds particularly true when there are cars coming the other way.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Because it's not as safe

Not safe for what exactly?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how do you decide its perfectly adequate?

To me, there isn't anything wrong with it in terms of the condition of it.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

For a start it's not even on road which means lack of priority at junctions, it may not even follow the road after a point and just meters up the road from your link there is a bus stop right in the middle of it.

The problem with cycling two abreast on that stretch of road is that motorists wishing to overtake end up on the other side of the road in the process. Also, if you are going straight ahead, it isn't unreasonable to expect cyclists to take to the cycle lane. The fact that a bus stop is in the way is down to bad road design as the cycle lane should go around the bus stop. As such, I can understand why a cyclist would take to the road.

Like it or not, segregation is often the better option. That way, bicycles, cars and pedestrians are not in each others way. In other words, cyclists would have their own space, cars would have theirs and so on. Mixing them all in tighter spaces or having shared use car and bicycle roads is just daft. They are largely different modes of transport and shouldn't be mixed.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Or you could should those cyclists a bit of consideration. they are just another road user after all.

To be fair to the OP, it would be quite hard to show consideration to a road user (or two for that matter) who are knowingly holding you up. Consideration goes both ways, not just one.

Should a cyclist show consideration to a motorist who is holding them up?

My answer: Absolutely not!

endacl

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

When it is two abreast, the motorist ends up completely on the other side of the road. How is this safe?

Safer surely, than overtaking a car that can match your speed? You'd still be 'completely on the other side of the road'?

Overtaking a pair of cyclists doing 20-30kmph is a safer and easier than overtaking a car doing 60.

No Pants

mrcheez wrote: »

My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

Where is this road that's only wide enough for one cyclist to use? The average footpath could probably fit two.

RobbieTheRobber

CramCycle wrote: »

I suppose that's the better question, anyone have any stats on accidents caused by cyclists versus other road vehicles, what percentage are minor, what % are lethal etc. I obey the law while on my bike, I find it is far safer compared to not (IMO) but what is the impact of, according to some, all cyclists acting with complete disregard.

I had a search and the only stats specifically related to cyclist accidents are here
http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/
and here
http://www.herald.ie/lifestyle/the-terrifying-road-toll-on-cyclists-28005426.html
and they both reference the same dublin city council report( which i couldnt find in my cursory search).

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.
The more serious a crash, the more likely it was to involve a vehicle turning left, according to the report.

Tenzor07

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

If you hit a pedestrian while cycling at city speeds, i.e. quite low, chances are you will come off worse than the pedestrian.. who can just walk off or else boot you while you're sprawled on the ground! :rolleyes:

Hit a pedestrian whilst driving at or above the city centre 30kph speed and they will end up in hospital for a week!

desertcircus

That's an aspect that's virtually never considered by people who are convinced cyclists are reckless lunatics: if I do something ill-advised when thrashing along at 35kph (I'm not a very fast cyclist), then I'm going to end up hitting either a car (enormous heaps of pain) or the road surface (sliding on tarmac at over thirty kilometres an hour wearing a single layer of skintight lycra). If cyclists were genuinely taking big risks, we'd be dying on a daily basis - we have almost nothing protecting us, and so our decision-making tends to be a lot more aware of risk than a lot of drivers would assume. Being genuinely reckless on a bike means you're quite likely to be hospitalised in days.

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If you hit a pedestrian while cycling at city speeds, i.e. quite low, chances are you will come off worse than the pedestrian.. who can just walk off or else boot you while you're sprawled on the ground! :rolleyes:

Hit a pedestrian whilst driving at or above the city centre 30kph speed and they will end up in hospital for a week!

But therein lies the problem, many cyclists have no idea how fast or slow they are going, just that they are faster than such'n'such a road user or slower than such'n'such a road user. Your idea of city speeds being low is probably different from a pedestrians idea or even mine

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

A typical non topical reply, was the crow on a cycle, no, didn't think so

Don't be so sure.......

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just the one

Fair enough, I have had a taxi run a red and drive off leaving me on the ground, I have been left hooked me on a no left turn junction, I lost consciousness and another lady left hooked me in traffic because she was in a rush to her sister at the theatre. Total cost to me, ongoing.

I make mistakes but none that have harmed anyone, and all of these accidents were serious for me but I don't blame all women or taxis because to do so would be ridiculous. I would happily hand over 2000 to make the permanent pain in my neck to go away. You had one accident, wasn't fair but the grudge you hold against all cyclist is in no way deserved. Sorry for the bad luck but let the hate go.

We're not all the same, you survived, other than mental anguish, nothing permanent, for your own sake, let it go.

Spook_ie

desertcircus wrote: »

That's an aspect that's virtually never considered by people who are convinced cyclists are reckless lunatics: if I do something ill-advised when thrashing along at 35kph (I'm not a very fast cyclist), then I'm going to end up hitting either a car (enormous heaps of pain) or the road surface (sliding on tarmac at over thirty kilometres an hour wearing a single layer of skintight lycra). If cyclists were genuinely taking big risks, we'd be dying on a daily basis - we have almost nothing protecting us, and so our decision-making tends to be a lot more aware of risk than a lot of drivers would assume. Being genuinely reckless on a bike means you're quite likely to be hospitalised in days.

Someone being reckless on a cycle doesn't ultimately transfer into pain, injury or death for that person but often for someone entirley innocent getting caught up in the results of someone's reckless cycling, it does

RobbieTheRobber

Spook_ie wrote: »

Someone being reckless on a cycle doesn't ultimately transfer into pain, injury or death for that person but often for someone entirley innocent getting caught up in the results of someone's reckless cycling, it does

What?

Are you saying that cyclists cause other road users to injure other road users?

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

But therein lies the problem, many cyclists have no idea how fast or slow they are going, just that they are faster than such'n'such a road user or slower than such'n'such a road user. Your idea of city speeds being low is probably different from a pedestrians idea or even mine

Huh? "slower than such'n'such faster than such'n'such"

I know precisely how fast/slow I go on a bicycle... it's not like measuring the speed of light here, it's pretty simple!

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Fair enough, I have had a taxi run a red and drive off leaving me on the ground, I have been left hooked me on a no left turn junction, I lost consciousness and another lady left hooked me in traffic because she was in a rush to her sister at the theatre. Total cost to me, ongoing.

I make mistakes but none that have harmed anyone, and all of these accidents were serious for me but I don't blame all women or taxis because to do so would be ridiculous. I would happily hand over 2000 to make the permanent pain in my neck to go away. You had one accident, wasn't fair but the grudge you hold against all cyclist is in no way deserved. Sorry for the bad luck but let the hate go.

We're not all the same, you survived, other than mental anguish, nothing permanent, for your own sake, let it go.

I see no reason to let it go, it serves as a reminder that no matter how good a driver I am there's always the chance that some pillock will endanger himself and me by failing to follow simple traffic law.

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Huh? "slower than such'n'such faster than such'n'such"

I know precisely how fast/slow I go on a bicycle... it's not like measuring the speed of light here, it's pretty simple!

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

I'd like to know myself! :rolleyes:

Cycle speed limits... on a human powered machine we call that, the wind.. or an uphill!

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

Your not banned from looking.

oflahero

Get a massage, Spook. Or go on a long, relaxing holiday. Every day on my bike I encounter at least one red-breaking driver, plenty of mobile-phone users and on average weekly, one going the wrong way up a one-way street. I've learned to let it go and accept that a small proportion of all road users are cockmunchers.

greenman09

Looks like someone was overtaken by a Cyclist again

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

I see no reason to let it go, it serves as a reminder that no matter how good a driver I am there's always the chance that some pillock will endanger himself and me by failing to follow simple traffic law.

But your constant tirade against cyclist implies you think none of us obey the law, we are all reckless and this constant narrative is hurtful to the majority of us (born out by the stats) that do take care because of your simplistic view that we are all the same. You lost 2000, it's a large sum but it's not worth all the hate. Why is it focused on cyclists? I'd be more worried about the lorry or bus not obeying the law. Take a deep breath, and get your priorities in order.

eeeee

wrt40 wrote: »

The discussion is about cyclists. Just because there are bad drivers doesn't give cyclists the right to be arse holes on the road.

I am one of those plain clothes cyclists and I get by just fine by being courteous to all other people: cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, animals etc

Just try it out. Eveyone is a winner, everyone will be happy, everyone will have a good day and nothing bad will ever come of it.

The northern Irish ad has it spot on, you know the one where the driver and the cyclist have a "no please, you go first...no I insist you go first" moment, the cyclist gives the driver the thumbs up and he responds with a warm smile and a nod.

Get home, take your lycra off and tell the wife you had a lovely cycle.

I cycle in both Lycra and plain clothes, and I can confidently assert that my attire has no effect on my legality as a road user! I am a legal cyclist in both kinds of gear.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just because you have paid a tax to use ONE vehicle on a road does not give you the right to use a second vehicle based on having paid that tax.

Try running a second motor car on the road on the assumption that you've paid tax already on the car in the driveway and see how far it gets you in the excuse department.

Yes we have all agreed it's not road tax because it's called motor tax but you are still required to have the tax paid and displayed before you can even leave the vehicle on a public road for a year without so much as starting the motor, therefore it is a defacto road tax.

Speak of the devil and he should appear.

I do pay motor tax on 2 cars by the way.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tenzor07

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

--> Insert group of road users here eh?

ezra_pound

mrcheez wrote: »

Bizarre you completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying anything about defensive cycling, or keeping off the kerb, of course you keep off the edge.
My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

You Clearly don't have a clue about safe cycling.

Also what the hell is a car doing trying to drive on a road designed for only one bike width?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tenzor07

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow really? Get away with Murder eh?

I believe the rules of the road apply to all road users..?

John_C

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow really? Get away with Murder eh?

Have we forgotten already?
Gardaí appeal for witnesses to cycle-by shooting