nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cyclist behaviour on country roads; reg numbers for sports bikes? Mod Note post #18

mathepac

Earlier in the week I was travelling between Ardconey and Borrisokane on my way to a funeral.

On the narrowest part of that road, which has a continuous white line and lots of dips that impede visibility to on-coming traffic, I came across two lycra-clad idiots cycling two-abreast. It was a dull miserable morning but our two heroes had no hi-viz tabards, no reflectors or lights on the bikes and only one cyclist had a helmet.

The car in front of me overtook them by crossing the white line; fortunately, there was no on-coming traffic. I beeped the horn briefly to alert them to my presence. The outside cyclist looked back so I held up an index finger and gestured to the nearside of the car, the best I could do on the spur of the moment to convey "single file please, I want to overtake without endangering any of us".

The outside cyclist drifted across in front of my car onto the wrong side of the road, and gestured for me to move between the two bikes. I gave more than a short beep in response, and rolled my window down to enquire politely as to his stupidly dangerous antics. Quick as a flash your man grabbed the door-frame and allowed himself to be towed by my car as if he was on the Col de Torini. I now had eejit No 1 attached to my car uninvited and eejit No 2 wobbling dangerously ahead of me observing the conversation between me and eejit No 1.

I was afraid to stop the car, accelerate or make any move that might result in eejit No 1 becoming more closely acquainted with the Co Tipperary road-scape or the underside of my car, so while he droned on about cycling two-abreast being safe according to the "rue-elles of da ro-ahd which you-ahse should re-ahd”, I asked him to take his hand off my car as I was closing the window.

Eejit No 1 said he'd report the incident to the Guards. I told him to make sure to get my reg no correct so I could pass on the SD card from the dash-cam. At that he released his grip on my door-frame and drifted off behind me.

Try as I might I cannot make out any identifying brands on the lycra or the bikes. This is partly due to where the dash-cam is positioned just above the disc-holder on the lower left corner of the windscreen, which is out of the way of the sweep of the wiper-blades.

If the bikes had reg nos I'd have had no problem tracing these dangerous clowns but without them I'm at nothing unfortunately.

Is there a case for making sports bikes or bikes generally as identifiable as other road vehicles?

Find more posts tagged with

cycling safety

bike registration plates

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

AltAccount wrote: »

Interesting how there's so much more focus on matthepac's impatience rather than the cycling grabbing the door frame of a moving car...

Because it seems pretty clear and universally agreed that the guy is a moron, and since he's not here to discuss his actions, there's not much else to discuss about it.

Beasty

Looking at your 10 points of "idiocy"

Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line - Perfectly acceptable and legal
No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights - Perfectly acceptable and legal
No hi-viz tabards or vests - Perfectly acceptable and legal
One rider had no helmet - Perfectly acceptable and legal
One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road - illegal/unacceptable
He gave no hand-signals of his intentions - unacceptable
He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road illegal/unacceptable
He grabbed hold of my car uninvited - illegal/unacceptable
He allowed himself to be towed by my car - illegal/unacceptable
Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards - Perfectly acceptable and legal and to be encouraged - cyclists should check behind them particularly in a situation like this

So that leaves us with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 that are unacceptable/illegal. You have tried to dress it up almost as 5 different examples of "idiocy", but they could equally be seen as part of the same idiotic manouver by the cyclist

Pinch Flat

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

In saying that, a picture (or in this case a video) paints a thousand words. So put it up and see the situation as it unfolded.

Plastik

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

ThisRegard

T-Maxx wrote: »

Video or GTFO

He's been asked a few times, I can't handle the anticipation.

Darkglasses

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Why didn't the cyclists 'single up'. This is what is do in a situation where two or more cyclists are on the road.

The concern would be that a driver would pass you in the same lane, rather than give a safe amount of space. Also when it's more than 2, there's a more serious problem that the line become quite long.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Riding two abreast on a narrow country road with restricted forward visibility and a continuous white centre-line.

Your view as a motorist was possibly restricted. A cyclist sits higher and can see more.
No lights (or even reflectors) on the bikes in poor visibility. I was driving on dips rather than just side-lights

It was daytime and you seen them so they weren't that obscured. Hiviz is not obligatory.
No hi-viz tabards or vests

See above.
One rider had no helmet

Not obligatory. Some cyclist choose not to wear one. You never mentioned it earlier and it is completely irrelevant to your rant.
One rider cycled out in front of my car and crossed the centre-line to the wrong side of the road.

Because of your impatience. They wouldn't have done it if you'd stayed back and waited for a safe place to pass.
He gave no hand-signals of his intentions.

So what?
He continued to travel of the wrong side of the road

Like above, because of a situation you created.
He grabbed hold of my car uninvited

As above.
He allowed himself to be towed by my car

As above.
Eejit No 2 did his impression of an owl by rotating his head back-wards while cycling forwards

You are there eejit with your childish name calling. Learn the rules of the road and learn a bit of patience.

Pinch Flat

Plastik wrote: »

Because they don't have to. Does a car you come across travelling slower than you have to pull in to let you pass?

Eh no as a cyclist you can't obstruct vehicles trying to pass. And I'm coming from the point of view of someone who cycles the guts of 10,000 km annually.

mathepac

RustyNut wrote: »

Maby it just me but what I read there is "I was in a hurry when I came upon someone else legitimately using the road! instead of waiting untill a safe place to pass I got all pissy and started blowing the horn which just p1ssed off the other road users leading to ........"

Naw it's just you and those like you. I'm mature enough to accept the consequences of my own actions and to expect others to be responsible for theirs. Old Newton's laws have no bearing on human interactions, not on cosmic forces or sub-atomic particles either.

Otherwise we'd all be like the wife-beater in the TV ad (UTV I think) "Now look at what you made me do."

Pinch Flat

Darkglasses wrote: »

The concern would be that a driver would pass you in the same lane, rather than give a safe amount of space. Also when it's more than 2, there's a more serious problem that the line become quite long.

Yeah point taken but I this case it was 2 cyclists.

Beasty

What we don't know is whether doubling up would allowed safe overtaking or encouraged risky overtaking - it depends entirely on the road conditions and cyclists will often "take the road" to discourage dangerous/illegal overtaking

ThisRegard

mathepac wrote: »

Naw it's just you and those like you. I'm mature enough to accept the consequences of my own actions and to expect others to be responsible for theirs. Old Newton's laws have no bearing on human interactions, not on cosmic forces or sub-atomic particles either.

Otherwise we'd all be like the wife-beater in the TV ad (UTV I think) "Now look at what you made me do."

So show us the video, it'll put an end to this debate.

coolbeans

The OP should have been patient and obeyedd the rules of the road. Everything escalated from his actions leading to an outcome where none covered themselves in glory.

Lumen

Where's the video? Is it here yet? I want to see the video. Where's the video?

mathepac

ThisRegard wrote: »

So show us the video, it'll put an end to this debate.

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

tacklemore

There's only one way this will end!

Plastik

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Eh no as a cyclist you can't obstruct vehicles trying to pass. And I'm coming from the point of view of someone who cycles the guts of 10,000 km annually.

They were not obstructing anybody - apart from the messing that followed. But from what we can tell they were simply traveling two abreast. This is perfectly within the law. It is something that is also plastered all over the RSA ads on the TV. They do not have to single out. It might be more courteous to do so on occasion, but that is it.

And seeing as we're willy waving, I'm coming from the point of view of someone that cycles the guts of 15,000 km anually.

coolbeans

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

Having a video and not showing it when challenged upon your points makes one think that you have something to hide. Or not? Who knows?? It's simple really. Shouldn't need to explain it. You'd ask the same yourself if the shoes were on the other foot. It's all we'resaying ...like :-)

laraghrider

There are a lot of people on here asking to see the video. If the encounter was as bad as the OP says and I assume it was then I also assume it's been reported to the gardai? So maybe posting a video on a public forum for a pending investigation is not the best thing to do.

ThisRegard

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

To see it there would have been any benefit had such a ridiculous idea already been implemented or if it's just a knee jerk reaction.

coolbeans

laraghrider wrote: »

There are a lot of people on here asking to see the video. If the encounter was as bad as the OP says and I assume it was then I also assume it's been reported to the gardai? So maybe posting a video on a public forum for a pending investigation is not the best thing to do.

To hell with that. There will be no investigation. Post up da vij

Beasty

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the post was the question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

The opening post is attempting to spout some moral outrage on the back of claims over the behaviour of the cyclists in question to support your desire for such identifying information. Of course posters are going to question what exactly happened, particularly when you claim to have such evidence

If you simply want the views of those who frequent the forum on that specific question a quick search would have delivered the answer as we have gone through this numerous times. However your "story" of what happened has simply raised questions over your own behaviour and the extent you prompted the reaction from the cyclists.

el tel

mathepac wrote: »

The whole point of the original post was my question about making bicycles as identifiable as other road vehicles - what has my poor video or any other video got to do with answering a simple question?

Then was your question about identifying cyclists accompanied by a self-incriminating ramble about an experience you claim to have had?

Couldn't you have simply asked "Should (or how can) cyclists be made identifiable?"

[And in which case you might have done a search first and seen that this ridiculous question has been asked a multitude of times already]

coolbeans

laraghrider wrote: »

There are a lot of people on here asking to see the video. If the encounter was as bad as the OP says and I assume it was then I also assume it's been reported to the gardai? So maybe posting a video on a public forum for a pending investigation is not the best thing to do.

To hell with that. There will be no investigation. Post up da vij-oh and be done with it. Otherwise this will end as another thread of pointless speculation

mathepac

Mugser wrote: »

You were on your way to a funeral; so you should appreciate how fragile life is.
Really and truly, would it have really mattered if you were a bit late?
Never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to putting others at risk using there tonne-odd hunk of steel to gain but a few seconds down the road.

Let me see now, in your obviously unbiased opinion I put other road-users at risk by:

not overtaking over a continuous white centre-line
slowing down so I was following the cyclists at a safe distance
ensuring other road-users were aware of my presence (appropriate use of lights and horn)
not maneuvering, turning or stopping my car suddenly when the idiot cyclist grabbed hold of it
warning him in advance I was closing the window
overtaking a single cyclist by indicating properly and not crossing the centre-line

What of the question I asked - Should bikes be registered like other road vehicles so their riders can be held accountable for their actions?

I'll hazard a guess and say I think you'd answer with a resounding "NO", in your unbiased opinion of course.

Beasty

Guys, these threads inevitably seem to get quite heated. Can you all please keep it civil as cards will be handed out for any posts that are abusive towards any other posters

Any questions, PM me - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

looksee

Its perfectly legal for a car to do 40kph to the extreme right of the carriageway (ie just inside the white line), that doesn't mean its courteous, or reasonable or conducive to happy road users.

Diarmuid

Is the video up yet?

KnotABother

One point the OP makes is very valid. I have agreed for a long time that cyclists should have to carry reg plates. I am a city driver and I can say that I very rarely see a cyclist stop at a red light. In fact many times I see them sail through busy junctions on a red without looking or entering the footpath and nearly striking pedestrians. Almost every day I see them glide across pedestrian crossings when there is a cycle lane and even a box there for them.
Others turn with no signal with little or no knowledge of proper road positioning.

Cyclists are quick enough to have a go at drivers but rarely see the affect they have when they intimidate pedestrians.

The core feel I get reading this thread is that cyclist oppose regs or ID numbers for their bikes because they know they will be caught breaking the law pretty much every day.

zindicato

video?????