Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 03:21PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

the point was, i suppose, to indicate his displeasure at van man's fancy driving...

Knasher wrote: »

People beep all the time to admonish others for taking illegal or dangerous actions. More than once I've seen somebody beep at a pedestrian crossing the road, without making any effort to slow down or anything like that. I often see people beeping at somebody they know, just to get their attention and wave. Occasionally I hear people in a wedding procession going absolutely nuts on their horns. People are pretty liberal on what they will beep at.

So the cyclist began the aggression by voicing his displeasure?

There was no need for it and it's not the purpose of a horn(along with the other things you've listed).

What the driver did was wrong also but the cyclist is not totally innocent there.

Ray Palmer · 29-04-2013 03:26PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So the cyclist began the aggression by voicing his displeasure?

There was no need for it and it's not the purpose of a horn(along with the other things you've listed).

What the driver did was wrong also but the cyclist is not totally innocent there.

The driver did the aggressive act first by driving they way he did.

The cyclist was well within his rights to beep his horn at the driver for driving so recklessly.

Cyclist was completely innocent and within the law. He should bring a civil case against the driver.

kylith · 29-04-2013 03:26PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So the cyclist began the aggression by voicing his displeasure?

There was no need for it and it's not the purpose of a horn(along with the other things you've listed).

What the driver did was wrong also but the cyclist is not totally innocent there.

If someone cut you off when you were driving, and you beeped your horn to indicate your displeasure, would you expect them to pull up in front of you, chase you, and beat you? Do you think that that would be a reasonable response?

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 03:28PM

kylith wrote: »

If someone cut you off when you were driving, and you beeped your horn to indicate your displeasure, would you expect them to pull up in front of you, chase you, and beat you? Do you think that that would be a reasonable response?

Happens all the time but I never beep my horn, can't remember the last time I have to be honest.

If I beep my horn to indicate displeasure I would not expect someone to react well no, plus it is very distracting to other road users.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 03:34PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The driver did the aggressive act first by driving they way he did.

The cyclist was well within his rights to beep his horn at the driver for driving so recklessly.

Cyclist was completely innocent and within the law. He should bring a civil case against the driver.

Aggressive by over taking? Impatient and dangerous I would say but not necessarily aggressive.

How was he well within his rights?:

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/good-driving-practice/using-a-horn.html

Now that's for Ireland, but I seriously doubt in the UK it is accepted to beep to admonish other road others.

The guy most likely would not have hit him had the cyclist not beeped at him. Both acted wrongly.

brokenarms · 29-04-2013 03:37PM

The horn is a warning device . NOT for indicating that you are slightly upset.

Knasher · 29-04-2013 03:38PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So the cyclist began the aggression by voicing his displeasure?

I cycle a fair bit and people pass me way too close all the time, and it's pretty hard to tell the difference from somebody who is driving aggressively or just carelessly. In this case I'd say it was aggressively though, trying to box in traffic behind you and get out of the car isn't a normal reaction to getting beeped.

SeanW · 29-04-2013 03:42PM

listermint wrote: »

I pay more road tax than you. I also Cycle. Does that mean i can complain twice as much ? or 3 times as much depending on what junker you are driving.

rofl rofl

If you're driving a pre '08 car you're likely to be paying far more road tax for your 'junker.'

Adriana Tasteless Spaghetti wrote: »

In some areas cycling on the path is essential. Try competing for road space with an 18 wheeler. Law or not, I don't believe a cyclist should have to risk his/her life in these cases.

I cycle with my 9 year old boy every day nearly, and I would prefer the safety of the path when dealing with faster traffic. He is more precious to me than people opinions on bending the rules a little.

Ok, so you have a good reason for such flagrant lawbreaking.

I would be fine with that, but for the very extreme and aggressive views cyclists such as cyclopath2001 and Iwannahurl, not only advocating a zero tolerance approach to all motorist lawbreaking (including breaking speed limits on grade separated type 1 dual carriageways with 30 and 50 kph limits) but constantly looking for new laws to punish motorists with more charges, taxes and restrictions.

The approach to "lawbreaking" should be consistent. If, as some upstanding members of the cyclist fraternity want, cars should have onboard GPS speed reporters, or there should be 10 times more speed cameras everywhere and anywhere, followed by an array of brutally harsh anti-motorist laws, then it should follow that bikes should have registration plates and their owners followed to hell when there is cycling on footpaths, cycling through red lights etc.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 03:42PM

Knasher wrote: »

I cycle a fair bit and people pass me way too close all the time, and it's pretty hard to tell the difference from somebody who is driving aggressively or just carelessly. In this case I'd say it was aggressively though, trying to box in traffic behind you and get out of the car isn't a normal reaction to getting beeped.

Well the point is that you don't beep at someone in such instances, what's the best possible outcome and it's not meant for it? It can only be construed as aggression.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 29-04-2013 03:47PM

brokenarms wrote: »

That youtube vid was awesome . If there was ever a lad that needed a slap, it was a that lad. Why would ya blow an air horn? Why would ya carry a video?
He gestured to the lad in the white van from the start when he undertook him. The van was letting him out. He then held the van up . Loved it.
I cycle everywhere myself these days .

Agreed, but common sense is vital .
If there are people using the footpath either cycle very slow giving priority to pedestrians at all time or get off and push. If there are many people. Walk. You will piss everyone off if you dont.
I cycle with my 9 year old boy every day nearly, and I would prefer the safety of the path when dealing with faster traffic. He is more precious to me than people opinions on bending the rules a little.

Yea exactly. It's not rocket science. If you're going too fast then it's simply not on.

Jawgap wrote: »

Simple answer - change your route. You're not entitled to the shortest, quickest or most direct route from A to B.

Did you even think of this before you posted it?

Not sure where I said I was using the shortest, quickest or most direct route. Oh, you're just making assumptions to add some credibility to that very simplistic answer you offered.

folan · 29-04-2013 03:48PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Aggressive by over taking? Impatient and dangerous I would say but not necessarily aggressive.

sounds aggressive. and the most important part is the "dangerous" part

CramCycle · 29-04-2013 03:53PM

brokenarms wrote: »

I cycle with my 9 year old boy every day nearly, and I would prefer the safety of the path when dealing with faster traffic. He is more precious to me than people opinions on bending the rules a little.

And legally your nine YO is allowed to cycle on the path, no rule breaking there.

Ray Palmer · 29-04-2013 03:56PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Aggressive by over taking? Impatient and dangerous I would say but not necessarily aggressive.

How was he well within his rights?:

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/good-driving-practice/using-a-horn.html

Now that's for Ireland, but I seriously doubt in the UK it is accepted to beep to admonish other road others.

The guy most likely would not have hit him had the cyclist not beeped at him. Both acted wrongly.

Number 2 covers beeping.

Impatient and dangerous means aggressive too me and I would not distinguish.

By no means is the cyclists act aggressive, it was not a possible harm to the driver. It is not in any way justifiable to attack somebody for beeping a horn especially after your own actions were dangerous to start off with.

Jawgap · 29-04-2013 03:57PM

Adriana Tasteless Spaghetti wrote: »

Yea exactly. It's not rocket science. If you're going too fast then it's simply not on.

Did you even think of this before you posted it?

Not sure where I said I was using the shortest, quickest or most direct route. Oh, you're just making assumptions to add some credibility to that very simplistic answer you offered.

No, I'm saying if a route or stretch of road is dangerous then avoid it by using a different stretch that is less dangerous - it's just common sense - simple rather than simplistic.

There are certain stretches I avoid - south Quays is the example that immediately springs to mind - why would you cycle on a stretch that you perceive as dangerous and then use that as justification for cycling on the path?

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 03:59PM

folan wrote: »

sounds aggressive. and the most important part is the "dangerous" part

Even if it was, voicing his displeasure by beeping was not warranted and would simply cause the incident to escalate as we seen.

bruschi · 29-04-2013 04:05PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Even if it was, voicing his displeasure by beeping was not warranted and would simply cause the incident to escalate as we seen.

do you really think that anytime someone beeps the horn at another driver because they have overtaken recklesslly or driven dangerously, that it escalates the situation and you end up with them chasing you, running you down and hitting you? If that was to happen then no traffic would ever move in any village, never mind a town or city.

taking the actions of a cyclist who was cut off and beeped a horn as the cause for the escalation of the event is somewhat distorting where the rights and wrongs are.

looking_around · 29-04-2013 04:07PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying if a route or stretch of road is dangerous then avoid it by using a different stretch that is less dangerous - it's just common sense - simple rather than simplistic.

There are certain stretches I avoid - south Quays is the example that immediately springs to mind - why would you cycle on a stretch that you perceive as dangerous and then use that as justification for cycling on the path?

This isn't always possible, living out in the country you basically have left or right, and often both ways are equally dangerous.

Knasher · 29-04-2013 04:07PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Even if it was, voicing his displeasure by beeping was not warranted and would simply cause the incident to escalate as we seen.

So what you are saying is that the van drivers reaction to being beeped is understandable.

Ush1 wrote: »

If I beep my horn to indicate displeasure I would not expect someone to react well

How would you react if somebody beeped at you?

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 04:07PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Number 2 covers beeping.

Impatient and dangerous means aggressive too me and I would not distinguish.

By no means is the cyclists act aggressive, it was not a possible harm to the driver. It is not in any way justifiable to attack somebody for beeping a horn especially after your own actions were dangerous to start off with.

How do you mean number 2? The cyclist was beeping after he had been overtaken and the van had driven on, he wasn't warning he was trying to voice his displeasure at the driver.

Beeping when not necessary is construed as aggression, whether it was possible to harm him or not is totally irrelevant. The driver would not have reacted that way(which was wrong) had the cyclist not beeped at him. Meet aggression with aggression and you get more aggression.

galwaycyclist · 29-04-2013 04:08PM

CramCycle wrote: »

And legally your nine YO is allowed to cycle on the path, no rule breaking there.

Not correct. if you are going to post claims like that then perhaps back it up with a source?

Article 13 of the Traffic and Parking regulations is where it defines the offence of driving or cycling on footpaths (footways). To my knowledge it contains no exemptions for children. (this is not an endorsement)

It may not be possible to prosecute 9 year olds but that does not make various things legal for them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 29-04-2013 04:09PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying if a route or stretch of road is dangerous then avoid it by using a different stretch that is less dangerous - it's just common sense - simple rather than simplistic.

There are certain stretches I avoid - south Quays is the example that immediately springs to mind - why would you cycle on a stretch that you perceive as dangerous and then use that as justification for cycling on the path?

It's the only way I can go.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 04:10PM

bruschi wrote: »

do you really think that anytime someone beeps the horn at another driver because they have overtaken recklesslly or driven dangerously, that it escalates the situation and you end up with them chasing you, running you down and hitting you? If that was to happen then no traffic would ever move in any village, never mind a town or city.

taking the actions of a cyclist who was cut off and beeped a horn as the cause for the escalation of the event is somewhat distorting where the rights and wrongs are.

No, no I don't? Do I think it helps or is it what a horn should be used for? No, no I don't.

How is it distorting? Do you agree, that had the cyclist not beeped at him he would not have been attacked?

I never said what the driver did was right.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 04:14PM

Knasher wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the van drivers reaction to being beeped is understandable.

How would you react if somebody beeped at you?

Nope, that seems a weak strawman to be honest. I've previously said both were in the wrong.

If they beeped at me to voice displeasure?

Knasher · 29-04-2013 04:18PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Nope, that seems a weak strawman to be honest. I've previously said both were in the wrong.

It isn't a strawman, you are all but saying that the van driver was provoked by the cyclist. And I wouldn't consider the cyclist actions in any way sufficient provocation for the van drivers response.

Ush1 wrote: »

If they beeped at me to voice displeasure?

Yes.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 04:20PM

Knasher wrote: »

It isn't a strawman, you are all but saying that the van driver was provoked by the cyclist.

Yes, I am saying that he was provoked. That does not mean that I find him attacking someone understandable, that would be what I would class as an over reaction.

Knasher wrote: »

Yes.

Quite a broad spectrum really isn't it? Can you be any more specific?

Ray Palmer · 29-04-2013 04:21PM

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean number 2? The cyclist was beeping after he had been overtaken and the van had driven on, he wasn't warning he was trying to voice his displeasure at the driver.

Beeping when not necessary is construed as aggression, whether it was possible to harm him or not is totally irrelevant. The driver would not have reacted that way(which was wrong) had the cyclist not beeped at him. Meet aggression with aggression and you get more aggression.

The second legitimate reason for beeping.
Your ability to read minds through video is remarkable :rolleyes:
Beep at somebody when they do something that put you at risk e.g. alerting them to there actions, is allowable in Irish law.

I get the beeping can be seen as aggression I didn't see that here. If it can cause harm is pretty relevant to the reaction.

You are blaming the victim no way around that when you take this stance. The cyclist was innocent of ANY wrong doing.

The cyclist did not provoke him or taunt him and you are suggesting beeping is doing that which it isn't

rubadub · 29-04-2013 04:21PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not correct. if you are going to post claims like that then perhaps back it up with a source?

Article 13 of the Traffic and Parking regulations is where it defines the offence of driving or cycling on footpaths (footways). To my knowledge it contains no exemptions for children. (this is not an endorsement)

I can't find anything in law, have heard 12 years old many times though.

Not sure if this is true
http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/Cyclists/

Riding on the footpath
Generally speaking, people aged over 12 years are not permitted to cycle on the footpath. However, there are exceptions to this rule, including:

An adult who is supervising a young child on their bike is allowed to ride on the footpath with them.
Riding on the road may not be safe for some people with certain physical or intellectual disabilities. Riding on the footpath is allowed, so long as the person has a medical certificate that outlines their exemption.
Postal officers who are delivering mail are allowed to cycle on the footpath.
When riding on the footpath, you must keep to the left whenever possible, and always give way to pedestrians.

CramCycle · 29-04-2013 04:31PM

rubadub wrote: »

I can't find anything in law, have heard 12 years old many times though.

I know it was quoted somewhere before but will have to look for it later, my understanding was that Children and certain people with diminshed mental or physical capacity were exempt (presumably they have to give all due consideratio to any pedestrian on the footpath at the time).

I cannot remember the exact terms though so am open to being corrected.

Ush1 · 29-04-2013 04:32PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The second legitimate reason for beeping.
Your ability to read minds through video is remarkable :rolleyes:

Still not quite getting what you're saying here, that the cyclist was adhering to the second allowance listed is that rules of the road link?

"make them aware of your presence for safety reasons when reasonably necessary."

As I've already said, the driver was clearly already aware and had finished the overtaking. No mind reading needed, but if you have an alternative theory I'm all ears.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Beep at somebody when they do something that put you at risk e.g. alerting them to there actions, is allowable in Irish law.

Please show me something to back this up?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I get the beeping can be seen as aggression I didn't see that here. If it can cause harm is pretty relevant to the reaction.

Okay, well I did see the beep as aggression along with at least two other posters who said as much. I can't see how it would be anything other than aggression. How does it matter if the cyclist can't cause harm, and also, he most certainly can cause harm?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You are blaming the victim no way around that when you take this stance. The cyclist was innocent of ANY wrong doing.

I'm saying both behaved aggressively, I'd imagine the assault or attempted assault would be treated with more contempt by a court, rightfully so.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The cyclist did not provoke him or taunt him and you are suggesting beeping is doing that which it isn't

Yes, I am suggesting that.

Knasher · 29-04-2013 04:34PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, I am saying that he was provoked. That does not mean that I find him attacking someone understandable, that would be what I would class as an over reaction.

So you feel that the motorist was provoked by the cyclists beeping, but you don't feel that the cyclist was provoked into beeping the motorist by his "impatient and dangerous" overtaking? Because I'd consider the motorists actions sufficient provocation for the cyclists response, but I absolutely wouldn't consider the motorists response to be sufficiently provoked.

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments