Is this aggression "normal"? MOD WARNING: read post #219

Boskowski

CramCycle wrote: »

But why if you can't over take two cyclists safely, you can't overtake one, some people just think they can. If they are single file, they are over double the length to overtake, which means a longer clear line of sight.

How is this difficult to comprehend?

You can ease up a little on me man, I don't find it difficult to comprehend at all and I didn't think my post suggested this.
Only saying I can't help but feel annoyed with them and I'm pretty soft tempered where others wouldn't be and I wouldn't ever dream of doing this myself.

You know what they say about golfers putting for pars and dogs chasing cars...

I'm not ever going to argue with a multi ton propelled vehicle and a potentially unhinged river. You can be in the right all day long but thats not going to be any good to you lying in bed with smashed bones.

No Pants

Padkir wrote: »

Too many cyclists have the entitled view that no one should be overtaking them when there is oncoming traffic

I think you'll find that the people most opposed to this are the oncoming traffic.

magicbastarder

Padkir wrote: »

Too many cyclists have the entitled view that no one should be overtaking them when there is oncoming traffic

POTW.

Tenzor07

Boskowski wrote: »

I understand cyclists have to cycle somewhere if they so choose that thats their thing, but Irish country roads are probably the most unsuitable place for this.
Its the one reason why I wouldn't ever dream of cycling into work. I feel it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
Doing this for 'recreational' purposes? No way.

I was with you up until this paragraph....

Yes, Irish country roads are crazy, I mean some small narrow roads have the same speed limits as the M50! But to say they are unsuitable to cycle on is quite incorrect.
In fact most are unsuitable to drive at speed on, and should have a 50kph limit on them.. I just wonder how many cars would stick to that limit... 10%?

Try cycling to work or going for a spin at the weekend, you'll save money and lose weight...

Boskowski

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I was with you up until this paragraph....

Yes, Irish country roads are crazy, I mean some small narrow roads have the same speed limits as the M50! But to say they are unsuitable to cycle on is quite incorrect.
In fact most are unsuitable to drive at speed on, and should have a 50kph limit on them.. I just wonder how many cars would stick to that limit... 10%?

Try cycling to work or going for a spin at the weekend, you'll save money and lose weight...

Agree with you speed limits on those roads are mental.
Wouldn't want to lose any weight tho :pac: the missus thinks I'm too skinny as it stands.

No Pants

johnty56 wrote: »

late middle aged, fully Lycra clad, with all the bells and whistles, and very little apparent spatial awareness who seem to have a serious sense of entitlement

So if they're younger or older, with no lycra and on less expensive bikes (I assume that's what you're referring to here) they're okay?

CramCycle

Boskowski wrote: »

You can ease up a little on me man, I don't find it difficult to comprehend at all and I didn't think my post suggested this.
Only saying I can't help but feel annoyed with them and I'm pretty soft tempered where others wouldn't be and I wouldn't ever dream of doing this myself.

But why be annoyed? The two abreast is for safety, yours and theirs. If you have over twice the distance to make the overtake then you are more likely to meet on coming traffic mid manoeuvre, leaving you with the choice of hammering it, hope for best, pull in and hope for the best or hope the oncoming traffic can slow enough. None are ideal solutions. Cycling abreast clears up any confusion some drivers may have about safe overtakes as they cannot see the potential to take a stupid risk. The overtake is over quicker, means a slightly reduced line of sight is needed.

You know what they say about golfers putting for pars and dogs chasing cars...

They both need training?

I'm not ever going to argue with a multi ton propelled vehicle and a potentially unhinged river. You can be in the right all day long but thats not going to be any good to you lying in bed with smashed bones.

I rarely have to argue with drivers, I do worry the few times I see it on our roads though, and there are some in all road user groups, who think that hitting a person or forcing them off the road is acceptable response for a perceived slight. The way society should respond to such behaviour is to accept it?

Lusk_Doyle

First world problems.

johnty56

No Pants wrote: »

So if they're younger or older, with no lycra and on less expensive bikes (I assume that's what you're referring to here) they're okay?

No, I have a problem with anybody of any age that looks as if they are not in full control of the means of transport they are using... and especially if they are on a road that would be best avoided by same. I have lost count of the number of times I have thought that a cyclist was going to fall off their bike in front of me, or have seen them wobble dangerously.

That goes for car/van/truck drivers too. I never assume that someone driving a car indicating that they intend to take the first exit at a roundabout for example, will actually do so. Driving in Ireland, it is best to assume that all other road users are complete f#ckwits, and give them all the space possible whilst getting where you need to go.


I have no problem at all with cyclists. My opinion is that it is one of these them vs us arguments that keeps people from thinking about the bigger picture.

mrcheez

colossus-x wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and I don't drive. I've never cycled with another person. Like the cinema I'd rather go on my own : ) Anyway I was wondering why do ye cycle 2 abreast? Is it to enjoy the pleasure of each others company and have a conversation? To tell you the truth it doesn't seem like a very sensible thing to do for a number of reasons.

What is particularly dangerous are cycling 2-abreast on narrow 2-way cycle lanes, for example the bike lane along the coast in Clontarf-Sutton. I don't understand why people insist on cycling 2-abreast on these routes and I can't count the number of times I've almost ended up in a collision because some guy wouldn't move.

Myself and my gf cycle this route all the time and insist on remaining in single file to allow other faster bikes pass. We are still able to communicate without the necessity to be up beside each other and ignorantly taking up 75% of the path.

Lumen

mrcheez wrote: »

What is particularly dangerous are cycling 2-abreast on narrow 2-way cycle lanes, for example the bike lane along the coast in Clontarf-Sutton.

Cycling single file on that is dangerous enough, the tracks are barely wider than handlebar width. And the outbound one is conveniently bounded by a low wall, perfectly positioned to spew a crashing rider onto the road into oncoming traffic. And this on a stretch of exposed coastline where there are frequently high winds.

Which moron designed that?

mrcheez

I'm mainly talking about the Raheny - Clontarf stretch. After Raheny, heading to Sutton, you can avoid collisions by encroaching on the pedestrian path if you have to... the lane on the wall-side is so riddled with weeds/grates/dips/glass as to essentially make it unusable.

ThisRegard

johnty56 wrote: »

by a particular type of cyclist- late middle aged, fully Lycra clad, with all the bells and whistles,

They're not very Euro if they leave their bells on are they ?

No Pants wrote: »

So if they're younger or older, with no lycra and on less expensive bikes (I assume that's what you're referring to here) they're okay?

I more worried about what constitutes middle aged these days ?

MugMugs

I am a motorist. I drive in excess of 30,000 miles a year.

I've recently picked up Mountain biking and even more so road biking. I am riding rural roads around my area lapping my town and stretching it further to surrounding towns and I have to say, the drivers I am sharing the roads with are scaring the living daylights out of me. I've been overtaken by cars who are hugging the ditch on blind corners nearly taking me with them.

For the extra some twenty seconds that these people are saving by doing what they do they're putting me in serious danger. I was coming down a hill on Saturday evening and doing about 50km/h when a doddery old geezer in a jeep pulls out some six feet in front of me. I went around and overtook him and when he caught up with me he was screaming and shouting at the window at me.

I really don't understand where this agression comes from. I always try to facilitiate any bike be it motor or pedal when I am driving because at the end of the day, they're a lot more vunerable than me.

magicbastarder

louis CK on driving (audio is NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8062QEFk5g

tunney

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

I like the cyclist who ride 2 abreast but when a car comes go to single file to let car through and then go back to 2 abreast.,wish all would do this.

How long to over take 30 metres? How long to overtake 15 meters?

If its not safe to overtake two cyclists its not safe to overtake one.

Turnstyle

tunney wrote: »

How long to over take 30 metres? How long to overtake 15 meters?

If its not safe to overtake two cyclists its not safe to overtake one.

Incorrect in certain cases, I have often being left stuck behind groups of cyclists on country roads who are cycling two or three abreast for long periods... in order to pass them on a long enough straight would mean I would have to drive up up on top of the opposite ditch.. if they moved to single file I could pass safely with the required 1.5 mtrs clearance

magicbastarder

you're talking about single track roads, or roads where the cyclists are over the white line?

Jawgap

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm sure it has been discussed to death, it has to be a contentious issue.

I can follow your line of argument but I find it a hard one to chew on.

Two abreast on roads where you're effectively holding up traffic thats 3, 4 or 5 times faster than you is not going to be a very safe thing to do in any case.

Traffic is not being held up.

Traffic is defined as vehicles moving on a public highway.

The road traffic legislation defines a bike as a vehicle.

Therefore if you are on the road in a mechanically propelled vehicle (feel free to use the Garda pronunciation:)) and there are bikes in front of you, then you are IN traffic not being held up.

Boskowski wrote: »

Every time I bump into a group of cyclists however its seldom two abreast, its often more like 3 or more and changing and weaving and whatnot and I just can't help but feel annoyed by them.
Now I wouldn't ever dream of doing anything unsafe or threaten someone by my driving or stuff like that, but I will admit they annoy me. And I'm far from being someone with a temper and I'm very much aware of how dangerous a weapon my 2 ton propelled vehicle really is. But thats me. I imagine some of the more short fused motorists out there will be very much tempted to 'teach you'. I think cycling on such roads is basically suicidal.

If you choose to be annoyed don't blame anyone except yourself.

Boskowski wrote: »

I understand cyclists have to cycle somewhere if they so choose that thats their thing, but Irish country roads are probably the most unsuitable place for this.
Its the one reason why I wouldn't ever dream of cycling into work. I feel it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
Doing this for 'recreational' purposes? No way.

ah well, there goes Failte Ireland's cycling strategy......

TonyStark

Armelodie wrote: »

Average speed of a bikes may be 25-30kph. But you have to accept that the average speed of a car is NOT 25-30kph.

Just pull in to single file, it'll only take you 32 seconds of your life and the important chat can go proceed. What's the big deal?

If there were 2 people on the road walking their 2 dogs having a chat (at 3-5kph) and they walked on ignoring you for a few KM not letting you pass would you still take the same view?

Doubt it..

Equally the driver should show some patience. I mean it's not like they will be delayed to the tune of 5 minutes for every cyclist they encounter.

I think the issue cyclists have is being in single file invites the car behind to overtake into oncoming traffic. The car will avoid a head on collision at any cost. So really the cyclist, being the lowest common denominator in this is the mostly likely party in this that will be put into mortal danger.

The issue is not that cyclists "taking up the lane" but more the absent skill on the motorists part to safely overtake slower moving traffic.

I mean if you look at the "average" motorist... one could argue they can barely control their vehicles. I would bet you the old "biting point" balance is a reason a lot of them fail to yield at roundabouts and run stop signs. At least when a cyclist runs a red light you know its a conscious thing, if a car does it I immediately think they just couldn't stop.

Don't get me started on spatial awareness.

Pinch Flat

Most drivers who don't cycle fail to see the reasons for cycling 2 abreast, so we hear words like suicidal and dangerous to describe cycling - a leisure pursuit enjoyed by millions. If the roads are perceived as dangerous (ironically in a lot of circumstances it is fast and irresponsible motorists who are the primary cause this danger), then you have to ask yourself why. Yes some cyclists put them selves in danger, but cars need to slow down and overtake a group if what it is - fellow humans out enjoying the roads. Yes you'll come across the odd ass hat, but this is not unique to cyclists.

So a group of 20 lads heads out on a Sunday spin. Ive cycled in such groups for a while now. As ever, it is common courtesy that is normally offered and reciprocated. So if we're on a narrow road, we may elect to single up - however this can cause situations that are dangerous, as the motorists now have to pass twice the length of the group. Some will hold fire until a safe opportunity arises, some don't and will pass a group on double white lines, blind corners and going over blind bridges / dips on the road.

Drivers can be impatient - as well as seeing a group as an inconvenience on the road, the odd one will overtake the group them turn left - causing the entire group to brake. Or misjudge the speed and length of the group, pulling in sharply as a car comes the other way. Or sometimes try to hook left around a car turning right - potentially causing a squeeze points for cyclists. Not a nice situation to be on on a bike.

All that aside I've rarely seen open aggression and abide on the roads - it's is in my experience rare and cyclists and motorists generally act civil.

Padkir

magicbastarder wrote: »

what roads are you using?
the lanes on the M50 are 3m (10 foot wide), which is why it's 100km/h - you need 3.5m lanes to be able to allow 120km/h - and that's 11.5 foot wide; your 15 foot wide lanes are not the sort of lanes people generally have trouble with.

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

Plenty of national roads around the country have wider lanes than the average motorway lane. Maybe in the cities my point is invalid as there generally wouldn't be wider than normal lanes but it is commonplace on national routes.

Padkir

No Pants wrote: »

I think you'll find that the people most opposed to this are the oncoming traffic.

Why can no-one accept the point that it's possible to safely overtake a single cyclist without affecting oncoming traffic? I'm not talking about going halfway into the other lane to pass them out or in any way affecting the oncoming traffic. I'm talking about having your outside wheel on the white line as you are passing the cyclist.

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

Therefore, safe to pass 1 cyclist but can't pass 2 cycling abreast. I don't see what's so difficult to understand this. Yet, cyclists on this thread seem to think it would be unsafe for a car to pass them on this type of road and so advocate cycling 2 abreast to stop this. That is infuriating and makes drivers more pissed off when they get stuck behind them.

ThisRegard

Padkir wrote: »

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

I have, 3 times.

Pinch Flat

Yeah, seen it a few times. Guy heading southbound on last Sunday afternoon. Just at the N81 junction. Madness in the extreme.

Padkir

ThisRegard wrote: »

I have, 3 times.

I have seen 1 or 2 in my time also, but at least they have the cop on to be in the hard shoulder as far as possible.

Off point though, the point I wanted to make is that using M50 or motorway lane widths in a discussion about overtaking cyclists is irrelevant as they shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

07Lapierre

Padkir wrote: »

Why can no-one accept the point that it's possible to safely overtake a single cyclist without affecting oncoming traffic? I'm not talking about going halfway into the other lane to pass them out or in any way affecting the oncoming traffic. I'm talking about having your outside wheel on the white line as you are passing the cyclist.

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

Therefore, safe to pass 1 cyclist but can't pass 2 cycling abreast. I don't see what's so difficult to understand this. Yet, cyclists on this thread seem to think it would be unsafe for a car to pass them on this type of road and so advocate cycling 2 abreast to stop this. That is infuriating and makes drivers more pissed off when they get stuck behind them.

As a cyclist I agree with you. I think its called "Common Sense"..I really wish more "Road Users" regardless of their mode of transport would use it. It would make the roads safer for everyone.

Jawgap

Padkir wrote: »

Well I would hope I would not come across a cyclist on the M50 or other motorway...

.....

That would be illegal and I think that's the type of incident the Guards would be quick enough to respond to, if it's reported.

Turnstyle

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're talking about single track roads, or roads where the cyclists are over the white line?

rural roads where there normally would not be a white dividing line

ford2600

[QUOTE=Padkir;My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider..[/QUOTE]

Just checked a few roads I have measured over the years.

Lane width on a sample of 5 different country roads, varied between 10-14ft.

Allowing bike to ride 3ft from gutter, 2ft for bike/rider and 5ft clearance leaving it impossible on any of those roads to overtake without going onto wrong side of road on a typical 5'6" wide car.

Requiring cyclist to ride closer to ditch than 3ft leaves him no room for manouvre in event of an obstacle/road hazard/driver emerging on left etc.

5ft clearance is standard in many European countries