Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Journalism and cycling

1…113114116118119…331

Comments

  • #3452
    andy69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭andy69


    Tombo2001 wrote: »

    HEADLINE - Appeal for cyclists not to ride two abreast

    An appeal for cyclists to avoid travelling two abreast on rural roads in Westmeath has gone out from the quarterly Joint Policing Committee meeting, held in Mullingar.

    http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/01/24/4151147-appeal-for-cyclists-not-to-ride-two-abreast/

    OK, so if I was the journalist at that review meeting, my newspaper would have read something like this...
    (this took me ages!) :D

    38996350245_b9322faa7e_z.jpg


  • #3453
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,600 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    minikin wrote: »
    What led you to ask that question, I’ve a nice mountain bike, thanks.
    I wouldn’t assume or accuse you of not driving because we may have differing opinions on the matter.

    That means nothing, could be sitting in the shed rusting for all we know!

    Cycling two abreast is legal, it's good safety practice and should be no issue to any responsible motorist.
    It also means the motorist intending to overtake the cyclists would slow down, move out to give at least 1.5m overtaking distance, and not pass the cyclists at speed and as close as if they were a traffic cone, which is standard practice in Ireland..


  • #3454
    Corca Baiscinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭Corca Baiscinn


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Poll on the Journo... head straight for the comments... Red lights..Tax.. Insurance... License.. NCT... Ban.. Pay.. Helmets.. Hi-Vis.. Body Armour.. Guns..


    http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-cycling-2-3815791-Jan2018/

    Glad you read them so we don't have to;)


  • #3455
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    Corca Baiscinn wrote: »
    Glad you read them so we don't have to;)

    Journal.ie comments are scientifically proven to cause a drop of 5 IQ points per comment read. :pac:


  • #3456
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    minikin wrote: »
    I understand the effect driving at speed has, thanks, I said it was a red herring because he said ‘I would rather x than to be overtaken ‘at speed’. It was a straw man introduced unnecessarily. Might as well have said i’d Rather x that to be overtaken by a car with 1m long spikes for hubcaps.

    Do we agree that the more lateral distance between a cyclist and a car (overtaking or oncoming) the better?

    It has to be done at speed or it would not be overtaking. I certainly would not me going at 20kmph to be overtaken by a car doing 21kmph, I'd prefer it was done by someone at 30kmph or simply not at all.

    To give a better example on a narrow country road. You are driving and there is just about enough room for you and another car side by side. Would you prefer to have a car overtake you in this scenario or would you prefer to pass a car travelling in the opposite direction. I know what I would prefer and I could gauge what alot of drivers that i know would prefer. Or are you implying there is no difference?


  • Advertisement
  • #3457
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    That means nothing, could be sitting in the shed rusting for all we know!

    1. Cycling two abreast is legal,
    2. it's good safety practice and should be no issue to any responsible motorist.

    3. It also means the motorist intending to overtake the cyclists would slow down, move out to give at least 1.5m overtaking distance, and not pass the cyclists at speed and as close as if they were a traffic cone, which is standard practice in Ireland..

    "That means nothing, could be sitting in the shed rusting for all we know!"
    How do I prove otherwise??? This is nuts and a very combative attitude... road safety for all requires co-operation from all road users - not a 'us v them' approach.

    1. I know

    2. Debatable

    3. Are you trying to argue with the reality of physics here?
    My contention from the start on here is that on a road with lanes that are 2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast... as it would not allow motorists to leave a 1.5m gap... that's all.
    Here's why... total width of the road = 5m. Giving each cyclist a width of 1m... two abreast would be 2m... leaving 3m space to overtake... the average car is just over 2m wide... leaving less than 1m lateral space between an overtaking car and the outside cyclist. (My point is cars can't make themselves narrower but cyclists can cycle single file)


  • #3458
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    minikin wrote: »
    My contention from the start on here is that on a road with lanes that are 2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast.
    Are there many roads that narrow which actually permit passing?

    This road is the narrowest sort of "main road" I can think of near me, and has a continuous white line when it gets to the narrow sections. I suppose many country roads/lanes would be very narrow

    https://goo.gl/maps/eTjhuvRn24C2

    The proposed law is 1m if less than 50km/h


  • #3459
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,600 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    minikin wrote: »
    2.5m wide cyclists should not cycle two abreast... as it would not allow motorists to leave a 1.5m gap... that's all.

    Yes they should, if the approaching motorist does not have enough room to make a safe overtake then wait until there is enough space.

    Under 50kph then 1m distance is the minimum.

    All cyclists should cycle at least 0.75m from the kerb/side of the road.

    If you cycled you would know that the closer the cyclist is to the side of the road when in single file, the closer the passing motor vehicle will pass you, sometimes close enough that you get the draft off there wing mirror past your ear.

    What would you do if there was a horse and rider, which would be require more room for a safe overtake? Do you suggest the horse should go on a diet in order to give the 1.5m space?


  • #3460
    Annie get your Run
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,831 ✭✭✭Annie get your Run


    rubadub wrote: »
    Are there many roads that narrow which actually permit passing?

    This road is the narrowest sort of "main road" I can think of near me, and has a continuous white line when it gets to the narrow sections. I suppose many country roads/lanes would be very narrow

    https://goo.gl/maps/eTjhuvRn24C2

    The proposed law is 1m if less than 50km/h

    Unfortunately many motorists don't understand that a continuous white line means no overtaking :rolleyes:. When I'm driving, and I stay behind a person on a bike where there's a continuous white line, I get blasted out of if by cars behind to overtake and have on occasion been overtaken (along with the cyclist!).

    Another ridiculous discussion about why VRU should get out of the way of the important people with their powerful engines. :mad:


  • #3461
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,782 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    minikin wrote: »
    Here's why... total width of the road = 5m. Giving each cyclist a width of 1m... two abreast would be 2m... leaving 3m space to overtake... the average car is just over 2m wide... leaving less than 1m lateral space between an overtaking car and the outside cyclist. (My point is cars can't make themselves narrower but cyclists can cycle single file)
    You're over estimating width of a cyclist, and underestimating how much a group would tighten up on such circumstances imo. My experience of group riding would be tighter than that anyway, before the "tighten up" call tbh.

    More likely 0.3m from kerb* + 0.45m cyclist width** + 0.5m gap (I'd expect to be tighter) + 0.45m cyclist = 1.7m. That'd give the average car the 1.5m to overtake*** on the 5m. More than enough that they're not going to be reported should mpdl come into play anyway.

    * In such circumstances
    ** width not girth - handlebars generally around 40cm, matching shoulder width.
    *** those that can judge the width of their car.


  • Advertisement
  • #3462
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Yes they should, if the approaching motorist does not have enough room to make a safe overtake then wait until there is enough space.

    Under 50kph then 1m distance is the minimum.

    All cyclists should cycle at least 0.75m from the kerb/side of the road.

    If you cycled you would know that the closer the cyclist is to the side of the road when in single file, the closer the passing motor vehicle will pass you, sometimes close enough that you get the draft off there wing mirror past your ear.

    What would you do if there was a horse and rider, which would be require more room for a safe overtake? Do you suggest the horse should go on a diet in order to give the 1.5m space?

    <snip > MOD WARNING: Attack the post not the poster.


    My commute includes a 5km stretch of narrow country road to a village that is an extremely popular route for cyclists, horse riders (several stables in the area) but is also an extremely busy road for motorists (some of whom believe it to be mondello) and large trucks (quarry nearby).

    I walk this road, cycle this road but more regularly drive on this road.

    People behave stupidly - mostly other motorists.
    BUT some cyclists are not behaving in their own best interests given that they know there are loons driving about the place. Cycling two abreast in shaded country lanes where the surface isn't the best, requiring evasive manoeuvres to avoid potholes (heavy trucks wrecking the road).

    But then again, what would I know... I'm only someone with an alternative point of view.

    2zxpb3n.jpg


  • #3463
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

    Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

    both.bmp


  • #3464
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    minikin wrote: »
    <snip > MOD WARNING: Attack the post not the poster.


    My commute includes a 5km stretch of narrow country road to a village that is an extremely popular route for cyclists, horse riders (several stables in the area) but is also an extremely busy road for motorists (some of whom believe it to be mondello) and large trucks (quarry nearby).

    I walk this road, cycle this road but more regularly drive on this road.

    People behave stupidly - mostly other motorists.
    BUT some cyclists are not behaving in their own best interests given that they know there are loons driving about the place. Cycling two abreast in shaded country lanes where the surface isn't the best, requiring evasive manoeuvres to avoid potholes (heavy trucks wrecking the road).

    But then again, what would I know... I'm only someone with an alternative point of view.

    2zxpb3n.jpg

    I see nothing wrong in that photo?


  • #3465
    Kav0777
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Kav0777


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

    Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

    both.bmp

    Yeah, but you have to ask was there trees along the side of the road where they are riding two abreast in that diagram, and was the sun out?


  • #3466
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    FYI, this conversation has been had many times before, so it's worth reading the forum a bit before commenting further.

    Long story short, groups cycle two abreast because it's safer than single file.

    both.bmp

    I agree, where the road is wide enough to accommodate.
    In rural areas, some roads aren't wide enough to accommodate.
    Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility - cyclists must (in their own interests) also behave responsibly and adapt their formation to suit road width / conditions. Is that unreasonable?

    2jg8kmu.jpg


  • #3467
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I see nothing wrong in that photo?

    I do, that's not a country lane!

    newattachment.php?do=manageattach&p=


  • #3468
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    It's not unreasonable at all. That's why groups of cyclists cycle two abreast. They're taking responsibility for their own safety.


  • #3469
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    minikin wrote: »
    I agree, where the road is wide enough to accommodate.
    In rural areas, some roads aren't wide enough to accommodate.
    Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility - cyclists must (in their own interests) also behave responsibly and adapt their formation to suit road width / conditions. Is that unreasonable?

    2jg8kmu.jpg

    Motorists are being asked to take “some” responsibility. Roads are there for all, not just cars.


  • #3470
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I see nothing wrong in that photo?

    None so blind as those who will not see...

    Can you clearly see two cyclists?
    Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)


  • #3471
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    minikin wrote: »
    None so blind as those who will not see...

    Can you clearly see two cyclists?
    Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)

    Yes I see them and yes I would see them when I’m driving. I’d then slow down and when it’s safe, id overtake them.


  • Advertisement
  • #3472
    robyntmorton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,263 ✭✭✭robyntmorton


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    It's not unreasonable at all. That's why groups of cyclists cycle two abreast. They're taking responsibility for their own safety.

    This. In the first photo posted, I see no problem with cycling two abreast, as it is taking control of the situation, and preventing an overtake in a position where it would be unsafe to do so. Singling out (if required) in a position where it is then safe to overtake is not holding others up, but cyclists being responsible for their own safety on the road by controlling the lane where required.

    To be honest even when cycling solo on some of those kinds of roads, I would do the same thing.


  • #3473
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Motorists are being asked to take “some” responsibility. Roads are there for all, not just cars.

    Where have I said otherwise? That image shows the difference between sensible cyclists and those who may be less so. You can clearly see those in hi-vis, even though they're much further away than those in black.

    As for the behaviour of the motorist entering my lane rather than waiting to overtake the cyclists... nuts.


  • #3474
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    minikin wrote: »
    None so blind as those who will not see...

    Can you clearly see two cyclists?
    Now, would you see them clearly if driving at 60km/h or 70km/h or 80km/h (the limit on that road) or if you're a nob driving at 120km/h (which I've seen spas doing on that road)

    Are you claiming that an inattentive driver would be more likely to see them if they were cycling in single file? How?


  • #3475
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭minikin


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Are you claiming that an inattentive driver would be more likely to see them if they were cycling in single file? How?

    No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.
    If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.

    Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

    I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.


  • #3476
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,428 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    minikin wrote: »
    No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.

    Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

    I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.

    There’s resistance to the notion that RTA’s involving cyclists is due to the cyclists not being visible. There are many other factors.... speed and inattentive drivers at the top of the list.


  • #3477
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    minikin wrote: »
    No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing.
    If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.

    Look, I get the message, there's resistance to change attitudes on here. Some feel very defensive about an "outsider" coming on here offering an alternative opinion. (even in the face of reality / physics).

    I'll leave it there so, keep safe on the roads folks.


    People are not being defensive, they're disagreeing with you based on their experience and knowledge. That's how discussion forums operate.

    Any further discussion of high viz can go into the High Viz thread here:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88491882

    I would advise you do a search on the forum, the topics you are bringing up have been covered extensively, and some have their own megathreads.

    Check out the charter here, which includes a list of mega threads you con contribute to if you so wish:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056113049


  • #3478
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,600 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Journo again, http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-guide-dogs-shared-space-traffic-3812268-Jan2018/

    Ban the cyclists! :(


  • #3479
    Grassey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    minikin wrote:
    No, but they might be more likely to see them if the cyclists didn't think it was a great idea to camouflage themselves by not wearing reflective clothing. If they were in single file it would allow the motorist more space to safely overtake when permitted to do so.


    I've always found (while driving) that those yellowish high vis tops on cyclists camouflage extremely well to gaps in hedgerows on sunny days. Orange ones blend into urban lighting.

    I might ask RSA to just hand out pink vests for everyone.


  • #3480
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,816 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Journo again, http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-guide-dogs-shared-space-traffic-3812268-Jan2018/

    Ban the cyclists! :(
    there's a 99pi podcast about shared spaces, and again the issues for people with sight problems and other disabilities is mentioned as the main achilles heel.

    edit: i misremembered, it was a youtube video made for vox by 99pi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8


  • Advertisement
  • #3481
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    minikin wrote: »
    Motorists are being asked to take sole responsibility

    The person overtaking is responsible, regardless of what they are overtaking.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement