Yaaah! We're Number 1....

Pinch Flat

.....on the list of things that worry motorists*

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/watch-out-the-five-activities-you-say-worry-you-most-on-our-roads-34210457.html

Funnily, no mention of drink driving, unqualified drivers, speeding, inability to use roundabouts, rampant red light breaking.....
















*It's in the Indo, so to be taken with a pinch of salt

Lumen

This seems very reasonable.

Indo wrote:

Top of the drivers' list of complaints is cyclists travelling two abreast and would we do something about it to stop them.

It's not about taking sides but drivers really do need to appreciate that cyclists are entitled to use the road, just as much as they are. Drivers don't have any exclusive rights to this space.

It's a public road, not a 'for drivers use only' route. We all share it and we have to treat each other with courtesy and respect. Cyclists are entitled by law to cycle two abreast.

From my own experience, the times when we drivers would just wish they would ride single file, and let us overtake, are precisely the times we shouldn't do it.

Because it's usually on the crest of some dead-ground, or the lead up to a bend with a solid white line running down the middle of the road.

Pinch Flat

Lumen wrote: »

This seems very reasonable.

Yes, reasonable ok. It's an insight into the motorists mindset though - cycling 2 abreast = "holding me up". We've fostered an entire generation who think that cyclists 2 abreast on a road is their Number 1 concern when it comes to Road Safety.

I was at a function Friday week last and got chatting to a few people over a beer - inevitably, the conversation came to hobbies.

I stated that I like to cycle as a past time, commuting and a bit of weekend cycling with the odd sportive thrown in. The first words out of people's mouths "as so you'rr one of the fellas that holds me up in the roads around Enniskerry every Saturday and Sunday morning". When I enquired as to what the exact rush / urgency could be, there was an eerie silence......

godtabh

Lumen wrote: »

This seems very reasonable.

I was at a meeting today and was told that the IIT, NTA and Dublin City Council are investigating transport corridors. Think a QBC for buses and cycles. No cars allowed. This route may stretch from say Clonskeagh to Swords. People then filter off when they need to get to where they are going.

Very interesting idea. Cars will be the no priority on these routes.

tigerboon

godtabh wrote: »

I was at a meeting today and was told that the IIT, NTA and Dublin City Council are investigating transport corridors. Think a QBC for buses and cycles. No cars allowed. This route may stretch from say Clonskeagh to Swords. People then filter off when they need to get to where they are going.

Very interesting idea. Cars will be the no priority on these routes.

I remember watching one of the French races a couple of years ago and one of the cities had a tunnel for pedestrians, cyclists and buses only. Took half the time to get into the centre by bike than car.

buffalo

Our Road Safety Authority expert

There's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. I like how he/she refers to 'we drivers'. Speaks volumes about the RSA - although, as Lumen pointed out, there's some reasonableness in there.

Beasty

Doesn't the road traffic legislation refer to cyclists as "drivers" in places?

stecleary

Nothing like a bit of "journalism" that the writer wont even put their name too

Eamonnator

Beasty wrote: »

Doesn't the road traffic legislation refer to cyclists as "drivers" in places?

The article makes a clear distinction between cyclists and drivers


"Of course, for every story a driver tells us about the bad behaviour of a cyclist, there's a similar one from a cyclist about how a driver nearly 'ran me off the road'."

And

"The topic that's exercising drivers most these days is the behaviour of cyclists."

godtabh

Read the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets. Its the LA's new bible for roads designs. Some of it is very good and forces cars to be more aware of other road users through design.

We are moving in the right direction but it will probably be another generation or two before we see a shift in attitude

Cookie_Monster

At least there seems to be some awareness of fog lights

With all the multitude of crazy / stupid / dangerous things that go on on the roads I'm amazed cyclists make it in there at all.

godtabh

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At least there seems to be some awareness of fog lights

With all the multitude of crazy / stupid / dangerous things that go on on the roads I'm amazed cyclists make it in there at all.

I still say people are idiots. That the problem right there

mcgratheoin

stecleary wrote: »

Nothing like a bit of "journalism" that the writer wont even put their name too

In fairness, it's just someone from the RSA listing the top 5 complaints that they are contacted about - I fail to see the shoddy journalism (this time). It's more worrying that drivers think they should complain to the RSA about cyclists riding two abreast than that the Indo should report it.

tomasrojo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

It's more worrying that drivers think they should complain to the RSA about cyclists riding two abreast than that the Indo should report it.

I suspect it's just people letting off steam, and pretending to themselves that it's a valuable public service.

check_six

Indo:

That is, cars with only one working head light. This is another of the big bugbears that members of the public have. It's quite scary to come across these cars at night.

At a distance they look like motorcyclists. So you can imagine the consequences if a driver tried to overtake a vehicle, while mistakenly thinking that the oncoming light in the distance was a motorcyclist.

This is all kinds of terrifying.
The attitude here seems to be:
-The vehicle coming towards me is a car, I will not overtake now as I would put myself and them in danger.
or
-The vehicle coming towards me is not a car, I will overtake now as I will only put them in danger.

There only seems to be "consequences" if you have a head on collision with a car. They imply that a head on collision with a motorbike can be shrugged off. :eek:

tomasrojo

It is a strange attitude.

I presume it's harder to tell how far away a car is if it has only one working headlight. But as with most "road safety" issues, the simplest solution is just to drive carefully and slowly. Can't tell how far away something is? Don't drive straight towards it until you know how far away it is. Having trouble seeing pedestrians on a rainy and windy night? Slow down so you have time to react. The RSA's Utopia where they all wear Tron suits is still distant.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The RSA's Utopia where they all wear Tron suits is still distant.

If they gave out those instead of flappy hi-vis vests, I would definitely wear one.

ford2600

The assumption of priority for motorised vehicles is pretty deeply embedded in the typical Irish mindset. Two simple examples I regularly encounter.

* Local supermarket is lidl, which has no marking up until recently, just a flexible paved space for cars and pedestrians. On walking from car towards shop or from one line of parking space to another almost the majority of drivers assume right of way over pedestrians. Some may "allow" pedestrians across in a courteous act but most drivers assume it's their right.
* I live in a large village which has some lovely coastal walks, all accessed by narrow roads within 50km/h speed limit. The last action by most drivers(who are nearly always in excess of limit, not to mind an appropiate speed,) is a braking/yield action but a steering input with no speed reduction. There is no demographic more likely than the other to act in this way, it's across all ages and both genders.

As an aside I don't wear hi vis at night but my back up cycling light, 330 lumens is the business for getting a little coutesy

_davidsmith_

So legit question from a motorist, from being on boards i tend to know the attidue of the motorist and that of the cyclists, and know a few on each side let the whole lot down.

But my question is this, with every entitlment that a cyclist has to be on the road what is the point in insisting on cycling two a breast on roads that have traffic on them?

For instance the road that goes from malahide to portmarnock, i understand the "what is the rush" that is often asked about by cyclists, but in all fairness whats the hassle in slowing a tiny bit going in behind your partner and letting the few cars pass, then pulling back out?

I know there will be some of you tempted to troll and jump down my throat but all you will get from me is a thank on your post and no rise to it.

Beasty

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

So legit question from a motorist, from being on boards i tend to know the attidue of the motorist and that of the cyclists, and know a few on each side let the whole lot down.

Have you done a search of the forum? Seriously this has been done to death (and yes there are plenty of good reasons if you did care to do a little research)

I would also, in mod mode, make comment about your "troll" reference. Starting this discussion again in this forum certainly begs a question over your own intent.

buffalo

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

whats the hassle in slowing a tiny bit going in behind your partner and letting the few cars pass, then pulling back out?

What's the hassle with the drivers waiting until a safe point to overtake?

_davidsmith_

buffalo wrote: »

What's the hassle with the drivers waiting until a safe point to overtake?

Fair point, i would personally feel its safer not to have to overtake 2 bikes side by side as opposed to 2 one on front of the other. Personal opinion not saying its gospel.

mcgratheoin

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Fair point, i would personally feel its safer not to have to overtake 2 bikes side by side as opposed to 2 one on front of the other. Personal opinion not saying its gospel.

If you don't have the room or opportunity to safely overtake 2 bikes side by side, then you should maybe rethink whether or not you should be overtaking one single bike in the same situation.

buffalo

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Fair point, i would personally feel its safer not to have to overtake 2 bikes side by side as opposed to 2 one on front of the other. Personal opinion not saying its gospel.

Aye, that's the thing. You feel it is, but it's not. So you'll wait until it's definitely safe before overtaking two abreast.

Whereas if there were two in a row, you'd be tempted to squeeze by - even if not definitely safe. And who would suffer for any miscalculations or panicked actions? Not the person in the big metal box.

Hopefully that answers all your questions.

NeedMoreGears

I hope this doesn't jump down anyone's throath....

I cycle that road a lot. Generally, if it is not safe to pass two-abreast then it isn't with one abreast. On that road the primary cause of inability to safely pass would be on-coming traffic. Squeezing past one cyclist in that situation is not safe - cycling two abreast eliminates a potential decision by the motor vehicle driver to take such a chance. If naything goes wrong, the cyclist will suffer.

Having said that I'd agree that is reasonable and indeed couteous to single out where it is safe to pass if motor traffic has been building up. I find this tends to be the case on narrower roads where the passing vehicle would be completely on the other side of the road when overtaking and singling out is necessary to allow a reasonable gap between the cyclist and the passing vehicle.

_davidsmith_

So its the safety aspect to discourage drivers from dangerously overtaking you, i didnt know that.

Fian

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Fair point, i would personally feel its safer not to have to overtake 2 bikes side by side as opposed to 2 one on front of the other. Personal opinion not saying its gospel.

As pointed out this topic has been done to death repeatedly on this forum - but in a nutshell where it is unsafe to overtake two cyclists it is unsafe to "squeeze past" one. If cyclists are two abreast you have to wait until the road is clear ahead to overtake them, if you try to overtake a single cyclist and a car comes against you the normal instinctive reaction is to squeeze back left and potentially take out the cyclist.

Most cyclists, who put in distances on the road, have encountered near misses like this. those near misses are scary and they inevitably generate reluctance to expose themselves to that risk again.

For the same reason you will see cyclists who are alone sometimes move out into the lane to discourage someone from overtaking them dangerously. Ultimately if it goes wrong the cyclist is more at risk than an impatient driver who is trying to pass them.

Depends on the road of course, you will inevitably find there are some people who are riding two abreast when it would be safer and more courteous to pull into single file, but they stand on their entitlement to cycle two abreast (which as noted they are legally entitled to do).

Just like you will sometimes come behind a tractor or slow moving car who does not pull into a hard shoulder to let traffic past them, which again they are perfectly entitled to do. It is basically the same principle - the slow vehicle can pull in and it is nice if they do, but they have no obligation to do so.

Edit: I took a phone call while typing this post so a few people had already answered before i posted it up, but meh i will leave it there anyway.

_davidsmith_

Fian wrote: »

As pointed out this topic has been done to death repeatedly on this forum - but in a nutshell where it is unsafe to overtake two cyclists it is unsafe to "squeeze past" one. If cyclists are two abreast you have to wait until the road is clear ahead to overtake them, if you try to overtake a single cyclist and a car comes against you the normal instinctive reaction is to squeeze back left and potentially take out the cyclist.

Most cyclists, who put in distances on the road, have encountered near misses like this. those near misses are scary and they inevitably generate reluctance to expose themselves to that risk again.

For the same reason you will see cyclists who are alone sometimes move out into the lane to discourage someone from overtaking them dangerously. Ultimately if it goes wrong the cyclist is more at risk than an impatient driver who is trying to pass them.

Depends on the road of course, you will inevitably find there are some people who are riding two abreast when it would be safer and more courteous to pull into single file, but they stand on their entitlement to cycle two abreast (which as noted they are legally entitled to do).

Just like you will sometimes come behind a tractor or slow moving car who does not pull into a hard shoulder to let traffic past them, which again they are perfectly entitled to do. It is basically the same principle - the slow vehicle can pull in and it is nice if they do, but they have no obligation to do so.

Edit: I took a phone call while typing this post so a few people had already answered before i posted it up, but meh i will leave it there anyway.

Thanks for the post, as i said above i didnt know it, and makes sense when I think about it.

And i appreciate you taking the time to clarify it as opposed to just saying its been done to death and having a whinge.

Pinch Flat

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

So legit question from a motorist, from being on boards i tend to know the attidue of the motorist and that of the cyclists, and know a few on each side let the whole lot down.

This is true, plenty of morons on 2 and 4 wheels. It's the minority that give the majority of road users a bad name.

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

But my question is this, with every entitlement that a cyclist has to be on the road what is the point in insisting on cycling two a breast on roads that have traffic on them?

Firstly, cyclists are equal road users - it's not about 'entitlement'. This is enshrined many moons ago in the Vienna Convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law

and reflected in our road traffic legislation that came from that ion the 1960's. Cycling 2 abreats has been formally recognized as a legal right for the past 50 or so years.

Cyclists are traffic - this is one of the key points that causes a lot of the issues where they arise. Motorists see cycling as "holding up" traffic - it's not a case of
cyclists being some sort of alien body or inconvenience on the roads -w e are as part of the roads as cars, buses, trucks etc and no vehicle had priority over another (unless it's an emergency vehicle, of course).

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

For instance the road that goes from malahide to portmarnock, i understand the "what is the rush" that is often asked about by cyclists, but in all fairness whats the hassle in slowing a tiny bit going in behind your partner and letting the few cars pass, then pulling back out?

You really need to cycle in a group to get an insight into this. Sure, in a group on narrow country road, we'll "single up" to let cars behind pass - we've no interest in frustrating or 'holding up' motorists.

What we ask in return is that cars over taking a group do so safely and responsibly - sometime there's such faux urgency that cars accelerate on blind spots, hills etc where they can't see the road ahead - then pull in suddenly. We had our group taken down around this time last year in such circumstances and we've had a few close calls in the interim. Encouraging safe overtaking - by making your road presence greater - is far more beneficial to the cyclist. It is us who will come off worse in the scenario

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

I know there will be some of you tempted to troll and jump down my throat but all you will get from me is a thank on your post and no rise to it.

As with all these things it's good to debate them sensible and try to understand each others viewpoint - as a cyclist and a motorist, perhaps I can see both sides easier - if more people cycled, they would get an insight into the challenges of being a vulnerable road user.

JBokeh

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

So its the safety aspect to discourage drivers from dangerously overtaking you, i didnt know that.

I'm a bit of a nervous cyclist on the road despite having been doing it since a was small. Current technique is to cycle two abreast until a car is after coming up behind us, and then move single file, that way the car is doing the same speed as us when they start overtaking, and if they do have to abandon ship during the overtake, they'll be doing so at 30Ks and not 90, plus a close pass by a car not much faster isn't nearly as scary as one that is absolutely bombing.

Another plus of doing that is that whiney drivers don't go crying to the RSA and Joe Duffy about the cyclists that they were caught behind for ages, and you don't have to cycle with a car bearing down on you. The RSA or the road craft cycling lot wouldn't be impressed with what I do, but it works for me, and in my view it would avoid articles like this even being written

When driving I don't see moving in as an invite to overtake, it's more of a courtesy, similar to the little hop people do at a zebra crossing

_davidsmith_

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This is true, plenty of morons on 2 and 4 wheels. It's the minority that give the majority of road users a bad name.



Firstly, cyclists are equal road users - it's not about 'entitlement'. This is enshrined many moons ago in the Vienna Convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law

and reflected in our road traffic legislation that came from that ion the 1960's. Cycling 2 abreats has been formally recognized as a legal right for the past 50 or so years.

Cyclists are traffic - this is one of the key points that causes a lot of the issues where they arise. Motorists see cycling as "holding up" traffic - it's not a case of
cyclists being some sort of alien body or inconvenience on the roads -w e are as part of the roads as cars, buses, trucks etc and no vehicle had priority over another (unless it's an emergency vehicle, of course).



You really need to cycle in a group to get an insight into this. Sure, in a group on narrow country road, we'll "single up" to let cars behind pass - we've no interest in frustrating or 'holding up' motorists.

What we ask in return is that cars over taking a group do so safely and responsibly - sometime there's such faux urgency that cars accelerate on blind spots, hills etc where they can't see the road ahead - then pull in suddenly. We had our group taken down around this time last year in such circumstances and we've had a few close calls in the interim. Encouraging safe overtaking - by making your road presence greater - is far more beneficial to the cyclist. It is us who will come off worse in the scenario



As with all these things it's good to debate them sensible and try to understand each others viewpoint - as a cyclist and a motorist, perhaps I can see both sides easier - if more people cycled, they would get an insight into the challenges of being a vulnerable road user.

Great post, well said.

And my bad use of the word entitlement, was to try and say i understand that we are equal road users.

stecleary

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

For instance the road that goes from malahide to portmarnock, i understand the "what is the rush" that is often asked about by cyclists, but in all fairness whats the hassle in slowing a tiny bit going in behind your partner and letting the few cars pass, then pulling back out?

Theres a very good reason I double up or take the lane if I'm on my own on that road.
There's a solid white line down the middle for most of it. I don't fancy ending up an other statistic after being squeezed out during an overtake that by law shouldn't have happened

DirkVoodoo

God, I can't wait until the Indo gets a paywall, then whenever I accidentally click on one of their articles I'll be spared from reading that awful garbage.

nilhg

Can't believe tractors/ag machinery didn't make it into the top five in that article.

Just while there is a discussion on passing cyclists in inappropriate places you wouldn't believe some of the situations I've been passed in by cars while driving a tractor, and let me tell you there is no way they are going to push me out of the way if things go wrong for them, some people seem to not alone have no regard for the safety of others who use the road but no concept of how fast things can go wrong and how bad it can be when it does. You'd wonder how most of them ever got a licence.

check_six

check_six wrote: »

Indo:

This is all kinds of terrifying.
The attitude here seems to be:
-The vehicle coming towards me is a car, I will not overtake now as I would put myself and them in danger.
or
-The vehicle coming towards me is not a car, I will overtake now as I will only put them in danger.

There only seems to be "consequences" if you have a head on collision with a car. They imply that a head on collision with a motorbike can be shrugged off. :eek:

They hose right off

Pinch Flat

Pinch Flat wrote: »

.....on the list of things that worry motorists*

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/watch-out-the-five-activities-you-say-worry-you-most-on-our-roads-34210457.html

Funnily, no mention of drink driving, unqualified drivers, speeding, inability to use roundabouts, rampant red light breaking.....




*It's in the Indo, so to be taken with a pinch of salt

It is a list of "Five Things"

To include also yours would be a different list

Pinch Flat

Deleted User wrote: »

It is a list of "Five Things"

To include also yours would be a different list

My point is that cyclists two abreast are more of a concern (according to the RSA's poll) than some of the more serious safety concerns. Personally, I would be more concerned about the consequences of drink driving, for example, than meeting cyclists travelling two abreast - in itself perfectly legal. But for some reason, 50 odd years after our Road Traffic Act came into being, a large cohort of drivers obviously fail to grasp this..

Carawaystick

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

So its the safety aspect to discourage drivers from dangerously overtaking you, i didnt know that.

Another point is it makes a group of cyclists shorter.
If you've 6 cyclists, 2abreast is like a jeep and trailer length

6inarow is as long as a artic truck