Road rage against cyclists is it just me?

steamengine wrote: »

It seems pretty black and white to me, cyclists are not entitled to inconvenience motorists by cycling two abreast and these are listed as rules which you must obey. Not my words the RSA's.

The ROTR are not the law, they are the RSA's interpretation of the law and are not necessarily correct.

steamengine wrote: »

If that's the case why comply with anything in it ? Seems to me I've hit on an inconvenient truth, more like ! :)

Most of the time both the law and the ROTR say the same thing, but just I would not take the word of the latter as gospel.

As has been stated many times here by those more eloquent than me, cyclists often ride two abreast for safety reasons to avoid dangerous situations where overtaking cars may try to squeeze by while there is traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Surely the safety of road users is more important than your convenience in overtaking?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is still in force, but it does seem that cycling more than two-abreast, unless overtaking a slower moving cyclist, might not be entirely legal and I have seen this a few times on the roads.

S.I. No. 294/1964 — Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a29

Driving two abreast


29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.


(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic."

steamengine wrote: »

It seems pretty black and white to me, cyclists are not entitled to inconvenience motorists by cycling two abreast and these are listed as rules which you must obey. Not my words the RSA's.

It's interesting that you both (and possibly the RSA) seem to be misinterpreting this statute. If we consider 29. (1) it is two clauses in a single sentence. Taking the main clause:

"A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast."

So this allows cyclists to cycle two abreast.

Taking the conditional clause within:

"save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians)"

This clause allows an exception to the two abreast rule (allowing three abreast) but only if it will not endanger other traffic. Note that it says "endanger", not "inconvenience". So this entitles a cyclist to overtake other, slower cyclists who are cycling two abreast even if it inconveniences other traffic.

The second section of the statute says:

"(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic."

This means cyclists riding two abreast must single out to overtake but are perfectly entitled to overtake other cyclists riding two abreast resulting in a total of three abreast.

I have really no idea where* people get the idea that we may not cycle two abreast or that 'inconvenience' to other traffic is a crime.


*Maybe from their sense of entitlement...

cdaly_ wrote: »

It's interesting that you both (and possibly the RSA) seem to be misinterpreting this statute. If we consider 29. (1) it is two clauses in a single sentence. Taking the main clause:

"A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast."

So this allows cyclists to cycle two abreast.

Taking the conditional clause within:

"save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians)"

This clause allows an exception to the two abreast rule (allowing three abreast) but only if it will not endanger other traffic. Note that it says "endanger", not "inconvenience". So this entitles a cyclist to overtake other, slower cyclists who are cycling two abreast even if it inconveniences other traffic.

The second section of the statute says:

"(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic."

This means cyclists riding two abreast must single out to overtake but are perfectly entitled to overtake other cyclists riding two abreast resulting in a total of three abreast.

I have really no idea where* people get the idea that we may not cycle two abreast or that 'inconvenience' to other traffic is a crime.


*Maybe from their sense of entitlement...

I 100% agree with this reading of the law. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.

cdaly_ wrote: »

It's interesting that you both (and possibly the RSA) seem to be misinterpreting this statute. If we consider 29. (1) it is two clauses in a single sentence. Taking the main clause:

"A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast."

So this allows cyclists to cycle two abreast.

Taking the conditional clause within:

"save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians)"

This clause allows an exception to the two abreast rule (allowing three abreast) but only if it will not endanger other traffic. Note that it says "endanger", not "inconvenience". So this entitles a cyclist to overtake other, slower cyclists who are cycling two abreast even if it inconveniences other traffic.

The second section of the statute says:

"(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic."

This means cyclists riding two abreast must single out to overtake but are perfectly entitled to overtake other cyclists riding two abreast resulting in a total of three abreast.

I have really no idea where* people get the idea that we may not cycle two abreast or that 'inconvenience' to other traffic is a crime.


*Maybe from their sense of entitlement...

I think the mods can close this thread after this post ;-)

I love it! Seems entirely reasonable.

Do you understand what you've posted?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or perhaps to the inane right that some cyclists seem to think that SI's don't apply to them but only to others

Myself I prefer the 1937 version ( anyone know if there is an easy search function for SI amendments? )



Just read a bit more

Link please?

I can ride nearly 3m from the left if I'm travelling in a pair, and I only need to single out if the road is less than 23ft wide.

I can travel in pairs in a group of up to 20 people, and can't let a gap of more than 50 yards develop between me and the group in front (ostensibly making it harder for a vehicle to overtake because I can't let a gap develop where the could potentially leap frog the group in smaller bunches).

Sign me up!

AltAccount wrote: »

I can ride nearly 3m from the left if I'm travelling in a pair, and I only need to single out if the road is less than 23ft wide.

I can travel in pairs in a group of up to 20 people, and can't let a gap of more than 50 yards develop between me and the group in front (ostensibly making it harder for a vehicle to overtake because I can't let a gap develop where the could potentially leap frog the group in smaller bunches).

Sign me up!

no such group shall be less than fifty yards from any other such group proceeding in the same direction, such distance being measured from the member of each such group who is nearest to the other such group.

ALT you may have miss read .

Spook_ie wrote: »

Good try but I'll see your 1937 and raise you a specific 182/1997

That doesn't seem to relate to the 1937 law which you unearthed earlier in any way, those bye-laws were about stopping a distance out from the kerb, at an angle and near junctions.

Sorry, going off topic from cyclist-related road rage!

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm told that in Germany a lot of rules are enforced by tiny, niggling fines, €2 and the like, which are annoying enough to make people change their behaviour, but not enough to make people angry and defiant.

OK, I'm in Germany and can confirm this, up to a point. When I was a poor student in Germany in 1997 I broke a red light cycling home from a disco through deserted streets at three in the morning. The fine was hefty enough (140 DM, or 70 Euro) plus penalty points. The same as a motorist would have paid. I don't really understand why Irish cyclists will pay less than Irish motorists for RLJ - if B has a crash with C because of the stupid actions of A, and A remains unscathed, does it matter what A was driving at the time?

On the other hand, if A is a pedestrian and breaks a red light, the fine is 5€. Not necessarily everywhere, but I think that's the current Munich fine.

Cycling in a pedestrian zone used to be €10 and has gone up to €15.

Parking fines in various places are being increased because it was cheaper to get them than to pay for parking.

The "ticket" you have to buy when caught without one on public transport used to cost €40, I think that's going up to €60.

I live in Upper Franconia and I recently heard a parking fine story from a friend based in Lower Fanconia. An Upper Franconian beer lorry driver parked badly outside a pub in Volkach and got a ticket while he was making a delivery. He caught up with the parking warden as she was writing the ticket for a fairly tiny sum and started abusing her roundly. She got upset and added an extra bit to the fine to cover the driver obstructing her in her work. He got more upset. She sued him for insulting her and was awarded damages that were far, far higher than the initial parking fine. The Upper Franconian cuss word that he used to isn't used in Lower Franconia, so the good people of Volkach were all going round saying to each other that they had no idea what sulln meant, but it must be a really, really bad word because the parking warden had received damages for having to listen to it. So I made enquiries and discovered that it comes from "suhlen", to wallow (like a pig in muck) and is therefore akin to calling somebody a dirty sow.

Moral of the story: it doesn't matter how trivial the fine is if you also get sued. Most people here have third liability insurance, so accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, inline skaters and so on are often sorted out in much the same way as car accidents: stop and exchange details and then let the insurance companies work it out, in court or out of court.

I do think the trivial fines work. People paying a €15 fine don't feel bitterness towards the policeman who enforces it. They also don't feel so annoyed by their own stupidity that they try to hide the fact they got fined. They put their hands up and acknowledge that they were caught fair and square, and they tell all their friends - the fact that it all becomes a bit of a joke isn't a bad thing if the story makes the rounds and the message gets passed on that way.

That said, this is Germany and there are 17 Transport Ministers (one Federal one and 16 in individual states) and loads of state-level and local regulations. Take a shortcut home from the pub in the car on a road that's "resident's only" and you might get a €15 fine for a traffic offence, but use a "Forest Traffic only" road and you suddenly fall foul of laws protecting nature rather than traffic laws and might get a €20 000 fine instead (although I think you'd have to go on a three-week rampage with a lot of quad bikes before being fined the full whack.)

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah a reference to a 1937 SI, I'm still trying to find a search function to see if it's still valid

penguin88 wrote: »

Interesting if they are still valid

Revoked by the 1964 General Bye Laws.

Citation and revocation
1.—(1) These bye-laws may be cited as the Road Traffic General Bye-laws, 1964.

(2) The General Bye-laws for the Control of Traffic, 1937 to 1959, are hereby revoked.

manic_dave wrote: »

I cycle 20km each way to work every day. If i get another white van man come up behind me and point at the path while shouting out the window at me Im going to scream. THE PATH IS NOT FOR BIKES!

Get yourself one of these.

Catch him at the lights, politely knock on the window with a smile and when he rolls it down, wham the full can inside. Watch his ears bleed.

(I was this close >< to applying this strategy to one of the taxi drivers telling me to get off the road or driving into me. Thankfully at some stage either them let go, or me.)