Is this aggression "normal"? MOD WARNING: read post #219

mossym · 21-07-2014 2:20pm

Padkir wrote: »

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

.

most n routes that you know of have enough room for two of your car to drive side by side on in the lane, with a foot gap between them? i'm trying to think of a single N road that is that wide around here, and coming up with 2 single stretches of road between Limerick and pallasgreen, and limerick and croom, neither one overly long. everything else doesn't even come close.

and you;re not supposed to have your wheel on the white line. if it has the body of your car has crossed the line, and you've broken the law.

i don't stand over cyclists rights to cycle two abreast. i do however have serious issues with advocating cars trying to squeeze past cyclists in the same lane, making it the norm. Given the crazily close passes you get from cars now while it's not seems utterly foolish to me

xxyyzz · 21-07-2014 2:26pm

Kashkai wrote: »

When did this car v cyclist thing kick off?

Humans have had tribal tendencies since the dawn of man. It's just the labeling that changes. Muslims vs Christians, Mountainbikers vs hillwalkers, drivers vs cyclists.

magicbastarder · 21-07-2014 2:30pm

Padkir wrote: »

My VW Bora is a shade under 6 foot, a single bicycle will take up max 3 foot of they are keeping in. Another 4 foot of space between us. I would say that a significant portion of national route (non dual carriageway) lanes outside of towns / cities are 13 foot or wider.

generally speaking though, these aren't the roads motorists or cyclists have an issue with in the above debate - the roads you mention are wider and straighter than the more twisty country roads people seem to be discussing.

21-07-2014 5:15pm

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Cycle lanes are no longer mandatory after a change by Varadkar.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Varadkar+abolishes+requirement+for+cyclists+to+use+cycle+lanes/id/19410615-5218-5085-7ae6-7b87b0401760

Darkglasses · 21-07-2014 5:15pm

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Cycling two abreast is legal on Irish roads, regardless of whether your mate was in the cycle lane or not.

07Lapierre · 21-07-2014 5:20pm

pac_man wrote: »

I thought I'd post on this thread as I'm unsure if I was in the wrong.I was cycling through Stepaside and my mate was in the cycle lane. We were cycling two abreast with me on the outside of the cycle lane because we both couldn't fit within the lane. There was a women beeping her horn and didn't seem too happy as she passed us and I was wondering am I legally in the wrong?

Legal yes. Not sure what the problem was, considering the fact that the motorist did pass you.

mrcheez · 21-07-2014 6:07pm

Many people would be under the impression that a cycle-lane is the limited space that a bike is allowed to use on the road.

If you are cycling 2-abreast so that your friend is in the cycle-lane and you are outside it, I would imagine that these people assume your friend is correct and that you are blocking traffic, and should be behind your friend.

I guess their justification is that you don't normally see 2 mopeds side-by-side on the road.

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

cdaly_ · 21-07-2014 6:20pm

Raam wrote: »

If cars drove on stilts then we could cycle under them and they could literally overtake us. That would be handy.

I had that opportunity drafting a high clearance tractor on the hols. Was tempted to ride up the middle, wave at the driver and then drop back to drafting again. Wasn't the best tractor drafting but was about as good as being in the bunch instead of solo...

Tenzor07 · 21-07-2014 6:33pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

If they can hear each other through full face helmets, wind noise and engine noise then they have better hearing than most.. so yes!

buffalo · 21-07-2014 6:54pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

Many people aren't aware that cyclists can use whatever lane they like, even if a bike lane is available.

Boskowski · 21-07-2014 6:57pm

CramCycle wrote: »

But why be annoyed? The two abreast is for safety, yours and theirs. If you have over twice the distance to make the overtake then you are more likely to meet on coming traffic mid manoeuvre, leaving you with the choice of hammering it, hope for best, pull in and hope for the best or hope the oncoming traffic can slow enough. None are ideal solutions. Cycling abreast clears up any confusion some drivers may have about safe overtakes as they cannot see the potential to take a stupid risk. The overtake is over quicker, means a slightly reduced line of sight is needed.

Believe it or not with this being the internet and all but I think I'm after coming around to your point of view. I shall not be annoyed in the future (so much

).

Kashkai · 21-07-2014 7:01pm

hollypink wrote: »

I'm a bit confused though by one aspect of this post - if it was a narrow country road with blind bends and it wasn't safe to pass, how would you have overtaken the cyclists if they had moved into single file? Wouldn't you still have had to cross over the white line to overtake anyway, which you couldn't do if there were continuous blind bends? Maybe I'm missing something?

Yes I can understand what you're saying but it's difficult to describe this road. While it's twisting, narrow etc, it has a broken whit line down the middle for overtaking and the speed limit is 80kph (daft but that's what it is).

As for overtaking, if the cyclists were in single file, it might have been possible to get out and around them pdq but when they are taking up a full cars width, it would mean going completely to the far side of the road, take another second or two and possibly put everyone in danger, cars and cyclists. While my mate and I do cycle abreast, we move into single file to allow cars to overtake on narrow roads. Wish the two lads on the bikes had do e the same yesterday.

The roads belong to us all but when people are a little considerate, it goes a long way to easing the tensions out there. Pretty obvious from this thread that there is a lot of "them versus us" mentality between cyclists and motorists. The funny thing is. I'd say the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists so why can't they just make allowances when driving/cycling?

buffalo · 21-07-2014 7:14pm

Kashkai wrote: »

As for overtaking, if the cyclists were in single file, it might have been possible to get out and around them pdq but when they are taking up a full cars width, it would mean going completely to the far side of the road, take another second or two and possibly put everyone in danger, cars and cyclists. While my mate and I do cycle abreast, we move into single file to allow cars to overtake on narrow roads. Wish the two lads on the bikes had do e the same yesterday.

But now you have two cyclists in a row, and you'll have to take another second or two to get past them. But you don't seem to realise this by your post, and therefore you may well try to overtake them when you don't have enough time.

Which is part of the reason cyclists sometimes should and do go two abreast.

Unknown Soldier · 21-07-2014 7:28pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Many people would be under the impression that a cycle-lane is the limited space that a bike is allowed to use on the road.

If you are cycling 2-abreast so that your friend is in the cycle-lane and you are outside it, I would imagine that these people assume your friend is correct and that you are blocking traffic, and should be behind your friend.

I guess their justification is that you don't normally see 2 mopeds side-by-side on the road.

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

Perhaps there needs to be a TV awareness campaign so the rules are clearly laid out. For example many people aren't aware that cyclists can use the bus lane even if a bike lane is available.

Making eye contact with car drivers is imperative IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXXwtP0MWKo

No Pants · 21-07-2014 7:30pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Actually this brings up an important point, can motorcyclists go side-by-side so they too can have a conversation?

These guys had no problem.

punisher5112 · 21-07-2014 7:41pm

No Pants wrote: »

These guys had no problem.

Of course they didn't they would just shoot you if it were a real life cop show.

Lumen · 21-07-2014 8:25pm

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Making eye contact with car drivers is imperative IMO.

I'm not sure about that. There's an interesting technique for walking through an oncoming crowd where if you look above people's heads they subconsciously move out of your way.

Red Nissan · 21-07-2014 10:32pm

I believe in the share the road concept to be honest.

Where is all this segregation coming from?

If we all follow the rules we will need laneways the size of motorways and duel carriageways three time their current width.

Kashkai · 21-07-2014 11:26pm

I'm really, really sorry I started this thread now. Should have known better as I've been on boards long enough. Ah well, guess I never learn.

Safe cycling and driving to all.

evolving_doors · 21-07-2014 11:32pm

What's all this chattin about anyway? It's not like 1930's Ireland with the donkey drawing the milk churns being the fashtest car around . Today's roads are about getting you from a to b the quickest way possible (hence the building of motorways...

What's so important that you have to have a long chat about over a cycle on today's roads. If yer cycling then yer cycling ... if yer chattin then do this..

Otherwise just pull in---- single file ----for a couple of seconds and resist the urge to become the arbiter of 'road safety' by blocking or slowing down the flow of traffic.

Roads aint made for chattin on

No Pants · 22-07-2014 7:51am

Armelodie wrote: »

Roads aint made for chattin on

Has it not been made clear already? Cyclists do not cycle side by side for a chat. There are other reasons.

NS77 · 22-07-2014 7:55am

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So if we're on a narrow road, we may elect to single up - however this can cause situations that are dangerous, as the motorists now have to pass twice the length of the group. Some will hold fire until a safe opportunity arises, some don't and will pass a group on double white lines, blind corners and going over blind bridges / dips on the road.

Yep - and the longer the line, the greater the risk of a driver pulling in on top of it when they realise there's no room to complete their ill-timed manoeuvre. Two-abreast = shorter line = safer for all.

evolving_doors · 22-07-2014 8:16am

No Pants wrote: »

Has it not been made clear already? Cyclists do not cycle side by side for a chat. There are other reasons.

No it has not been clarified at all. What I am reading is some vague wafflery about "forcing cars to overtake properly". If an accident did occur and a judge asked as to why the cyclists were going 2 abreast I can bet you wouldn't be using the phrase ' forcing cars to do x,y,z'

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

rockdrummer4 · 22-07-2014 8:22am

Kashkai wrote: »

Hi all,

Just getting back into some serious cycling after a ten year lay off. During that time as a motorist, I saw some pretty stupid things done by cyclists running through red lights especially but I was never the type to go all "road rage" on them, not even beeping the car horn. "It's your ass" was usually my reaction.

However during my recent reconversion to cycling, I've been pretty shocked by the behaviour of a lot (and I mean a lot) of drivers. My mate and I cycle two abreast but keep into the left of the road allowing plenty of room for cars to overtake. However I've lost count of the number of cars that drive up your ass, beep their horns and then finally overtake, while beeping again. A few morons have even cut in close and hit their brakes after they get in front forcing us to do likewise. Have to say that my mate has gotten pretty aggrieved himself at this and I thought there was going to be a confrontation the other night when some eejit in a corolla overtook us, cut in and slammed on his brakes bringing us all to a halt (with me nearly hitting the back of his car). My mate was off his bike in a flash but the car drove off.

When did this car v cyclist thing kick off? Like I said, I've been on 4 wheels for years but never got aggressive with any cyclist, gave them plenty of room when overtaking etc. And I sure as hell never tried to cut them off or force them off the road. It'd make me think twice before encouraging my kids to come out cycling with me.

I don't want to start a car v cyclist thing here but I'm just curious if the behaviour I've seen from motorists the past month or so when I'm Cycling is "normal" behaviour, or should I just cycle elsewhere

Do you think cycling 2 abreast is taking other roads users into considertaion? I do think that is a bit much, however reacting that way by the driver is too much aswell... Think we all need to be a bit more considerate, I dont think bikes should be 2 abreast, way too dangerous...

Jawgap · 22-07-2014 8:59am

Armelodie wrote: »

No it has not been clarified at all. What I am reading is some vague wafflery about "forcing cars to overtake properly". If an accident did occur and a judge asked as to why the cyclists were going 2 abreast I can bet you wouldn't be using the phrase ' forcing cars to do x,y,z'

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

Have a look at the RSA videos - surely if they thought single file was the way to go they'd promote it in their videos.

rockdrummer4 · 22-07-2014 9:07am

Jawgap wrote: »

Have a look at the RSA videos - surely if they thought single file was the way to go they'd promote it in their videos.

It would be more out of common coutesy for other road users, cycling 2 abreast is just so you can have a natter while cycling?

Obviously motorists want to get places, thats why they drive.. so can you understand it would be quite annoying to be stuck behind a cyclist for a while because they are 2 abreast!

And the same would go for motorsists, to give cyclist some respect aswell..

It works both ways.. Its more about common sense and respect than anything else.

Its like a car going 80 in a 100 kph main road, they could easily move in to hard shoulder to let others overtake (common courtesy) but a lot just stay there with no respect for other users... its so annoying..

Dermot Illogical · 22-07-2014 9:14am

Armelodie wrote: »

Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow.

Since they decided that their safety trumps your right to plough on ahead regardless of what's in your way? Have a look around you next time you're out driving. What standard of driving do you see?
Now bear in mind that a cyclist on the road has no way of determining just how incompetent the drivers around them are, so it makes sense to not allow them just enough of a gap to try squeeze through. There's only one loser if and when it all goes wrong.

It's legal, and as long as it doesn't cross over into taking the piss (on wider roads for example) you should probably try get over it.

Stepping Stone · 22-07-2014 9:24am

Driving around the ring of Kerry, I have seen some seriously questionable behaviour from both motorists and cyclists. Driving into Fossa one evening, I saw three men cycling abreast. That meant that the genius on the outside was actually cycling on the median (white line). If he wobbled, fell, etc it would be right into the path of an oncoming car. What was going through his mind, I don't know. It is a pretty popular cycling and driving route, so I have seen every standard imaginable. Some drivers will take any risk at any speed and some cyclists will do exactly the same.

As for cycling two abreast at all times, being from a very rural area I know that if you have an accident, especially a serious one, a lot of the time the advice is to get into your car and drive to the hospital (be driven obviously) and maybe meet an ambulance/ doctor on the way if there is one available. The hospital is over an hour and a half away and we have two ambulances available, which are regularly in use at both times. People are often in a hurry for a good reason. You might not meet a Garda escort for miles until the next town because they may be miles and miles away. I do feel that in cases where it is safe, it wouldn't kill people to move over and allow overtaking (this includes slow drivers who refuse to be overtaken) because you never know why that driver is in such a panic.

While it is easy to rule out the above in an urban area, in a rural area you cannot rely on the emergency services and being a prick for the sake of it is just not on.

mossym · 22-07-2014 9:25am

Armelodie wrote: »

Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

around the same time as it did for motorists. the rules of the road state two cyclists can cycle side by side. it's no different than a tractor motoring along at 30km/hr, save that many cyclists would be going faster than that.

i lived in the states for 6 years, road laws where i lived said if you had 5 or more cars queued behind you you had to pull over. i'm a strong believer that rule should be brought into play here. and apply to everyone, bikes, cars, tractors, trucks.

by your own argument, cyclists can pull over for a few seconds and let you pass. in much the same vein motorists can wait the few seconds until an overtake is safe, in which case single or double cyclists doesn't matter. what do you do when you meet a tractor? stay behind it indefinitely because it takes up the whole of one lane?

and the norm for our group is to move into single file if we're on a narrow stretch of road and cars are behind. if it's wide enough, stay in twos.

arguments from motorists(and i'm one of them too) arguing that cyclists aren't the law makers on the road are laughable when they're made on the assumption that motorists are.

TonyStark · 22-07-2014 9:40am

Armelodie wrote: »

I have never come across anything about 'going 2 abreast on purpose to enhance road safety'. Since when did it become acceptable for 2 cyclists to become the arbiter of how traffic should flow. On the rare occasion ive ever come up behind horse riders they always pull in single file... and they are longer than bikes.

Cyclists are traffic.

Once you learn to accept what they are doing is for personal safety rather than conversational purposes you might just find that your reaction to them changes ever so slightly. Mine certainly did.

Is this aggression "normal"? MOD WARNING: read post #219

Comments