Cyclists on a Backroad

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 01:20PM

gramar wrote: »

a simple license that demonstrates that the cyclist has a sufficient knowledge of the rules of the road.

I would say the majority of us already have such a thing, strangely called a driving licence.

The Bishop Basher · 08-04-2013 01:24PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I would say the majority of us already have such a thing, strangely called a driving licence.

And what about the many who don't ? Should they all be exempt from demonstrating a competent knowledge of the rules of the road ? If so, why ?

seamus · 08-04-2013 01:26PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

its that attitude you get from a small amount of motorists and large amount of the cyclists (just like the "i know my rights" consumer brigade) that just irritates you and makes you care that little bit less about them each time they do it.

So you would prefer that when a big ignorant rant about cyclists/motorists appears on boards, that the ignorance goes unchallenged? That is, your issue is with people having the audacity to use facts to correct other people? "How dare you post facts, I have a right to my opinion"? That kind of thing?

As a motorcyclist I'm also a bit shocked that you would fail to give an inch to a vulnerable road user. As arguably the most vulnerable road user, motorcyclists should know better than anyone the value of accounting and allowing for the mistakes of other road users.

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 01:28PM

Swanner wrote: »

And what about the many who don't ? Should they all be exempt from demonstrating a competent knowledge of the rules of the road ? If so, why ?

Yes. Just because.

desertcircus · 08-04-2013 01:29PM

Swanner wrote: »

And what about the many who don't ? Should they all be exempt from demonstrating a competent knowledge of the rules of the road ? If so, why ?

Because they're twenty times lighter and move at a quarter of the pace, and thus are vastly less dangerous. The public health benefits of creating as few barriers to cycling as possible massively outweigh any annoyance caused, while cars are potentially a health negative and constitute a serious danger in the wrong hands.

glic71rods46t0 · 08-04-2013 01:32PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yes. Just because.

I take it you are in that category of cyclist who arent allowed to have a licence because they are too young? Your reply was borderline retarded - and by that I mean it is retarded but borderline vegetable!

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:32PM

the worst a cyclist can do to a driver is delay them a slight bit whereas the worst a driver can do to a cyclist is far worse, a bit of cop on patience and good manners would go along way among some people

hoodwinked · 08-04-2013 01:33PM

seamus wrote: »

So you would prefer that when a big ignorant rant about cyclists appears on boards, that the ignorance goes unchallenged. That is, your issue is with people having the audacity to use facts to correct other people?

As a motorcyclist I'm also a bit shocked that you would fail to give an inch to a vulnerable road user. As arguably the most vulnerable road user, motorcyclists should know better than anyone the value of accounting and allowing for the mistakes of other road users.

no, but you can challenge ignorance with facts and not do it in the manner cyclists here do,

i have often posted (even in the R&R forum) correcting the motor tax/road tax debate (it grinds my gears when people call it road tax)

i have also defended cyclists when people give out about two abreast,

BUT in my personal run ins with lycra-clad cyclists both on boards and in real life, i have yet to meet one, just one without that "its my right" mentality...

as for the failing to give an inch, i meant i would be more likely to leave a cyclist have equal rights to the road, they can sit behind me in the middle of the lane and wait for the red light to go green just like the rest of the road users.

however i would probably (can't say because it hasn't happened yet) move my car to leave a gap big enough for a non-lycra clad cyclist or motorcyclist to pass me by to go to the top of the queue.

obviously i would never break the rules of the road to do so or do anything dangerous, im just saying id be less inclined to be nice considering the attitudes i have gotten so far.

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 01:35PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

I take it you are in that category of cyclist who arent allowed to have a licence because they are too young? Your reply was borderline retarded - and by that I mean it is retarded but borderline vegetable!

Just keeping with the general tone of this thread. You of all people should know there's no place for reasoned debate in the topic you have an unhealthy obsession with

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:36PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

no, but you can challenge ignorance with facts and not do it in the manner cyclists here do,

i have often posted (even in the R&R forum) correcting the motor tax/road tax debate (it grinds my gears when people call it road tax)

i have also defended cyclists when people give out about two abreast,

BUT in my personal run ins with lycra-clad cyclists both on boards and in real life, i have yet to meet one, just one without that "its my right" mentality...

as for the failing to give an inch, i meant i would be more likely to leave a cyclist have equal rights to the road, they can sit behind me in the middle of the lane and wait for the red light to go green just like the rest of the road users.

however i would probably (can't say because it hasn't happened yet) move my car to leave a gap big enough for a non-lycra clad cyclist or motorcyclist to pass me by to go to the top of the queue.

obviously i would never break the rules of the road to do so or do anything dangerous, im just saying id be less inclined to be nice considering the attitudes i have gotten so far.

but isnt it within a cyclists rights to be on the road?

the lycra shorts are just there to protect your ass over long distance fyi, its not a specific group that wear them

carltonleon · 08-04-2013 01:37PM

Goodness me what a thread.

I am both a cyclist (yes Lycra Clad) and a driver and I mostly cycle back roads as they have the best hills and are generally quieter.
I tend to go for my cycle early 7.30am/8am so as to avoid the traffic.

I tend to find if you are courteous to drivers then they are courteous to you on a bike. I will always pull in to the side where possible to allow cars to pass safely, it just means that I slow down slightly on the bike for a few seconds but then I do not have to worry about the car behind me and then speed up. I often get a courteous acknowledgement from the car by way of it's Hazard Lights after it has passed me.
Where I cannot pull in to the side of the road because of either unsafe surface or lying water etc I try to acknowledge the car behind me with a hand signal thanking them for their patience as they are overtaking me safely. I just tend to find this works for me.

When cycling in a group we tend to call 'car' and then go single file where appropriate and if the surface allows.

There are arsehole drivers and arsehole cyclists and that is the simple fact, but the more courteous drivers and cyclists we get then the better for us all.

This thread reminds me of the Public Sector v Private Sector debate, filled with annoyance on both sides.

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 01:38PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

BUT in my personal run ins with lycra-clad cyclists both on boards and in real life, i have yet to meet one, just one without that "its my right" mentality...

At what stage do you become lycra clad ? I just checked and most of my gear has only a small percentage of lyrca or elastine, the rest is usually polyester or sometimes even mostly wool.

glic71rods46t0 · 08-04-2013 01:38PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Because they're twenty times lighter and move at a quarter of the pace, and thus are vastly less dangerous. The public health benefits of creating as few barriers to cycling as possible massively outweigh any annoyance caused, while cars are potentially a health negative and constitute a serious danger in the wrong hands.

Having the privilege of using our road network puts obligations on all users - quit justifying ignorance of the rules by trying to create a hierarchy of destruction.
A kid can walk out onto a road and cause an artic driver to swerve and cause a massive amount of destruction - you don't have to be in control of a vehicle and yet be the cause of serious injury, death or destruction - the child example can be substituted with adult pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user. Cyclists disobeying the rules of the road are extremely dangerous self righteous little pricks!

seamus · 08-04-2013 01:39PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

BUT in my personal run ins with cyclists both on boards and in real life, i have yet to meet one, just one without that "its my right" mentality...
...
obviously i would never break the rules of the road to do so or do anything dangerous, im just saying id be less inclined to be nice considering the attitudes i have gotten so far.

I'm curious to know what these "run-ins" have been. And why you think that an incident with one person is a reason to show less courtesy to a whole non-contiguous group of other people who have no affiliation with that one person.

If I have a run-in with another vehicle (whether I'm driving or cycling), I don't suddenly decide, "That's it! I'm done with these car bastards". Likewise, when another cyclist does something stupid, I don't decide that all cyclists have any connection to this guy and need to be treated any less decently.

This is the rather unique thing that cyclists get. One slight by a single cyclist on another road user is suddenly a reason for a vendetta against all cyclists. Even motorcyclists don't get that.

Fencer who posted earlier on is a perfect example of this. One day a few years ago, a guy cycled into his parked car and then had an argument about who was at fault. Since that day, Fencer has made it his life's work to abuse all cyclists whenever he can.

What's that about? Why this inability to separate one cyclist's actions or even a group of cyclist's actions, from all cyclists? You say you're going to show less courtesy to cyclists from now on. Why? What are you hoping to achieve? Do you think that your discourteousness will result in better or worse experiences on the road for you? What slight has that random cyclist ever done against you to deserve less respect from you?

Why is the simple act of riding a bike seen by some as a reason to be disrespected?

Knasher · 08-04-2013 01:39PM

Swanner wrote: »

1) That's irrelevant to the point I was making

You have no point. You simply ranted at cyclists and then asked them to have "a bit of courtesy and cop on".

Swanner wrote: »

2) The cycling forum is full of anti motorist threads started by cyclists.

I checked the first five pages without coming across one of these numerous anti motorist threads. Mostly stuff about routes or equipment. I'm sure they are there somewhere, just as I'm sure there are anti cyclist threads in the motoring forum. But this is AH not the motoring or cycling forum

Swanner wrote: »

3) Cyclists always show up in droves to these threads in AH to remind the rest of us about their rights as cyclists.

Yes to remind people that we have a right to use the road. Because you have people who post things like this:

El Spearo wrote: »

because next week im going straight through the first cyclist who annoys me :P

And while I'm sure that the OP was joking, it doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who feel justified in putting cyclists in danger. Personally I've had people throw stuff out of their window while passing me and once somebody (a passenger obviously) reached out of their car and grabbed at me while passing (in the city, so they weren't going that fast). Even then I don't resort to generalizations about how all motorists are disrespectful, or dangerous, or malicious, because I know they aren't.

Swanner wrote: »

Lads, we know. But the antagonistic style of communication so many of you seem to adopt really doesn't help your cause.

And back to my original point, which was that these antagonistic threads are (as far as I've seen) never started by cyclists. They simply show up to defend themselves when people are ranting that they shouldn't be even allowed on the road.

hoodwinked · 08-04-2013 01:40PM

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

but isnt it within a cyclists rights to be on the road?

the lycra is shorts are just there to protect your ass over long distance fyi, its not a specific group that wear them

see that right there, you don't have to point out your rights all the time,

i worked in retail, and believe me the people who were like

"i know my rights im entitled to....." were the ones detested the most for a reason (usually because they are wrong most of the time) so why do you people do that????? :eek:

commuter cyclists generally aren't dressed in lycra,
'amateur/professional ill dress for a bike' types would to me be the group that wear them.

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:40PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

Having the privilege of using our road network puts obligations on all users - quit justifying ignorance of the rules by trying to create a hierarchy of destruction.
A kid can walk out onto a road and cause an artic driver to swerve and cause a massive amount of destruction - you don't have to be in control of a vehicle and yet be the cause of serious injury, death or destruction - the child example can be substituted with adult pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user. Cyclists disobeying the rules of the road are extremely dangerous self righteous little pricks!

the same could be said of people who drive over the speed limit, break the rules in cars

Jawgap · 08-04-2013 01:42PM

Swanner wrote: »

1) That's irrelevant to the point I was making

2) The cycling forum is full of anti motorist threads started by cyclists.

......

Maybe you could link to a few of them......

Swanner wrote: »

And what about the many who don't ? Should they all be exempt from demonstrating a competent knowledge of the rules of the road ? If so, why ?

Yes because the consequences of a driver cocking up are qunatitatively and qualitatively severe.

Secondly, there's the question of proportionality - the last thing we need is yet another quango to implement a law that will, in all probability not be enforced.

Speaking as a cyclist and motorist, I agree all road users should respect the road traffic law, the rules of the road and display a bit of common courtesy - whether it's travelling in single file, when safe to do so, or waiting to overtake when safe to do so.

There are plenty of laws to govern cyclist behaviour, the problem is the lack of enforcement and, again, speaking as a cyclist, I'm looking forward to when fixed penalty notices for cyclists breaching road traffic legislation are brought in- and if the offending cyclist, when stopped by the Guard, can't produce id, confiscate the bike and charge them storage until he / she does produce the right id and pays to get the bike back.

A few weeks of the Guards dishing out fixed penalty notices will curb the excesses of those who think the rules don't apply to them because they're on a bike.

glic71rods46t0 · 08-04-2013 01:42PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Just keeping with the general tone of this thread. You of all people should know there's no place for reasoned debate in the topic you have an unhealthy obsession with

You don't know anything about me. I have engaged in reasoned debate with a crowd of crackpots. You are having a go at anyone and everyone in here that doesn't agree with your worldview and your pedantry could be regarded as a sign of unhealthy obsession:D

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:46PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

see that right there, you don't have to point out your rights all the time,

i worked in retail, and believe me the people who were like

"i know my rights im entitled to....." were the ones detested the most for a reason (usually because they are wrong most of the time) so why do you people do that????? :eek:

commuter cyclists generally aren't dressed in lycra,
'amateur/professional ill dress for a bike' types would to me be the group that wear them.

its a drivers right to use the road

i dont get what your getting at, i dont go around yelling at people that its my right to be on the road, i just bring it up because other people (you) do

the reason commuters (not all because i know many who do) dont wear lycra is mostly due to the distance they have to travel, 20 km would be grand without padded shorts, doing upwards of 60 km without shorts becomes very painful

Unregistered. · 08-04-2013 01:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing wrong with travelling or hanging around in a group obviously, but to take up the entire pavement or road and knowingly inconvenience tons of other people, when you could go single file instead even for just a minute to let people walk / drive past is just ridiculous.

That's completely the wrong attitude IMO. Pulling in or leaving room only gives the over-taker a false sense of security. If you want to over take a group of cyclists which are takingup the road then use your own judgement and over take as you would overtake a car or a bus. That should not be a problem!

The Bishop Basher · 08-04-2013 01:46PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Because they're twenty times lighter and move at a quarter of the pace, and thus are vastly less dangerous. The public health benefits of creating as few barriers to cycling as possible massively outweigh any annoyance caused, while cars are potentially a health negative and constitute a serious danger in the wrong hands.

So why do I need a license for a moped ? They're twenty times lighter, move at quarter of the pace and thus are vastly less dangerous.

If you're on your vehicle, on the road, interacting with cars, motorbikes, buses, lorries etc. you should have to demonstrate a knowledge of the ROTR. No exceptions. You mightn't think you're a danger but what if a car swerves to miss you and hits a pedestrian. What if you pull out without indicating forcing a car into a bus ? Or the one that all cyclists seem to to forget, what if I hit and kill you. I have to live with that for the rest of my life.

A basic test for all road users makes perfectly good sense and I have yet to see one rational argument that genuinely refutes that fact.

Jawgap · 08-04-2013 01:49PM

Btw, 'we' are winning :P

Number of newly licensed cars falls 14.1%

-v-

Cycling moves up a gear to ride high on a wave of popularity

Close to 200,000 bikes have now been bought under the bike-to-work scheme since it was launched at the start of 2009 and, if we assume that each of these bikes cost €500, that means there is €100 million worth of new bikes on our roads.

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:49PM

Swanner wrote: »

So why do I need a license for a moped ? They're twenty times lighter, move at quarter of the pace and thus are vastly less dangerous.

If you're on your vehicle, on the road, interacting with cars, motorbikes, buses, lorries etc. you should have to demonstrate a knowledge of the ROTR. No exceptions. You mightn't think you're a danger but what if a car swerves to miss you and hits a pedestrian. What if you pull out without indicating forcing a car into a bus ? Or the one that all cyclists seem to to forget, what if I hit and kill you. I have to live with that for the rest of my life.

A basic test for all road users makes perfectly good sense and I have yet to see one rational argument that genuinely refutes that fact.

and still a much more dangerous contraption to a man on a bike

glic71rods46t0 · 08-04-2013 01:52PM

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

the same could be said of people who drive over the speed limit, break the rules in cars

and that is your only observation on my post

hoodwinked · 08-04-2013 01:53PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe you could link to a few of them......

Yes because the consequences of a driver cocking up are qunatitatively and qualitatively severe.

actually they can be severe if you take a look at the crash in Cork making the news today as an example. i'd rather there were no cocking up from either side tbh

seamus wrote: »

I'm curious to know what these "run-ins" have been. And why you think that an incident with one person is a reason to show less courtesy to a whole non-contiguous group of other people who have no affiliation with that one person.

If I have a run-in with another vehicle (whether I'm driving or cycling), I don't suddenly decide, "That's it! I'm done with these car bastards". Likewise, when another cyclist does something stupid, I don't decide that all cyclists have any connection to this guy and need to be treated any less decently.

This is the rather unique thing that cyclists get. One slight by a single cyclist on another road user is suddenly a reason for a vendetta against all cyclists. Even motorcyclists don't get that.

Fencer who posted earlier on is a perfect example of this. One day a few years ago, a guy cycled into his parked car and then had an argument about who was at fault. Since that day, Fencer has made it his life's work to abuse all cyclists whenever he can.

What's that about? Why this inability to separate one cyclist's actions or even a group of cyclist's actions, from all cyclists? You say you're going to show less courtesy to cyclists from now on. Why? What are you hoping to achieve? Do you think that your discourteousness will result in better or worse experiences on the road for you? What slight has that random cyclist ever done against you to deserve less respect from you?

Why is the simple act of riding a bike seen by some as a reason to be disrespected?

seriously? it wasn't one run in or a few, every cyclist i personally have come across so far has displayed the same attitude that you see on cyclists posts here on boards, or they were breaking the rules of the road in some way (running red lights, traveling three or four abreast...etc)

hence yes it has coloured my view on cyclists when not one to rebutt the veiw point i have was there until this post:

carltonleon wrote: »

Goodness me what a thread.

I am both a cyclist (yes Lycra Clad) and a driver and I mostly cycle back roads as they have the best hills and are generally quieter.
I tend to go for my cycle early 7.30am/8am so as to avoid the traffic.

I tend to find if you are courteous to drivers then they are courteous to you on a bike. I will always pull in to the side where possible to allow cars to pass safely, it just means that I slow down slightly on the bike for a few seconds but then I do not have to worry about the car behind me and then speed up. I often get a courteous acknowledgement from the car by way of it's Hazard Lights after it has passed me.
Where I cannot pull in to the side of the road because of either unsafe surface or lying water etc I try to acknowledge the car behind me with a hand signal thanking them for their patience as they are overtaking me safely. I just tend to find this works for me.

When cycling in a group we tend to call 'car' and then go single file where appropriate and if the surface allows.

There are arsehole drivers and arsehole cyclists and that is the simple fact, but the more courteous drivers and cyclists we get then the better for us all.

This thread reminds me of the Public Sector v Private Sector debate, filled with annoyance on both sides.

if this poster was behaving like he says he does on a road i would love to come across him, as i would probably act favourably to him, aka pulling in as far as i can safely do to let him pass me in slow moving traffic..etc he seems to not display the attitude i was referring to.

08-04-2013 01:53PM

Swanner wrote: »

I have yet to see one rational argument that genuinely refutes that fact.

You have seen several, you're just choosing to ignore them as part of your obvious confirmation bias.

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 01:55PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

You don't know anything about me. I have engaged in reasoned debate with a crowd of crackpots. You are having a go at anyone and everyone in here that doesn't agree with your worldview and your pedantry could be regarded as a sign of unhealthy obsession:D

I know that starting a cyclist/motorist thread on boards.ie is the equivalent of reciting nellA miT Red Rum in a mirror.

Sauve · 08-04-2013 01:56PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

every cyclist i personally have come across so far has displayed the same attitude that you see on cyclists posts here on boards, or they were breaking the rules of the road in some way (running red lights, traveling three or four abreast...etc)

Ah come on!

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 01:57PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

and that is your only observation on my post

and what happens if a driver pulls into a hard shoulder right in front of me on my bike doing 50kmh (happened many a time) making me swerve into the path of traffic coming from behind causing them to cause an accident, you could go down that line of thought all day long

Cyclists on a Backroad

Comments