Cycle rage - any experiences of this?

PunyHuman · 25-08-2005 9:42am #1

I mean cyclist-on-cyclist rage.

I was coming in to work this morning down the canal between Ranelagh and Leeson bridges. Loads of cyclists in a row. Myself and a friend are cycling beside each other and talking. I am aware that there is a guy behind me but I didn't know he wanted to pass. Next thing he's pedalling furiously past on the other side of the traffic gesturing wildly and roaring spitefully at me to keep out of the f*cking way.

If he had asked I would have dropped back to let him pass. But what's most odd is that we were all going to have to stop at the next lights anyway, so there's no point in rushing.

I guess he was stressed out. But usually the rage is cyclist-on-motorist or vice versa. Anyone been subjected to something similar?

jman0 · 25-08-2005 10:14am

I suppose the equivalant would be when 2 cars are driving the same speed, occupying both lanes of the dual-carrigeway, preventing other motor traffic from passing.
Yes, i'd be a little irked about you. I wouldn't have resorted to his antics however.
Nevertheless you shouldn't be cycing 2 abreast anyway, unless you're overtaking.

penexpers · 25-08-2005 1:24pm

Yup, cycling two abreast is pretty dangerous, in my opinion.

SteM · 25-08-2005 1:54pm

You're cycling two abreast on what was probably a busy road, that means he has to go way out on the road to pass you. It was unfair on him and dangerous for both of you. If you were aware of him you probably should have asked if he wanted to get by or pulled in behind your friend.

I don't think I've seen a cyclist have a go at another cyclist before in Dublin and I'd cycle to/from work most days.

egan007 · 25-08-2005 2:00pm

Bell?

I mean come on people....
Cars have horns

jman0 · 25-08-2005 3:10pm

penexpers wrote:

Yup, cycling two abreast is pretty dangerous, in my opinion.

Not just dangerous, but the point i was trying to make that in the Rules of the Road it states that cyclists should never cycle 2 abreast, bar when they're overtaking.

Metrobest · 25-08-2005 3:15pm

It shouldn’t be dangerous. The reason it’s dangerous is that the cycle lanes are (1) too narrow and (2) inadequate. Cycling is a social activity and having a chat with someone whilst cycling along is one of the nicest activities imaginable. In Holland it’s quite common to see lovers hold hands while they ride (their bikes)!.

dowlingm · 25-08-2005 4:32pm

funny, I remember the old commercials used to say "never more than two abreast", I guess RotR has been updated since.

Trampas · 25-08-2005 4:39pm

I cycle down the canal everyday and i would rarely see two people side by side.

It is not easy to cycle side by side on that road unless going slow with the amount of traffic on it.

dangerous man

Mucco · 25-08-2005 6:59pm

Is cycling two abreast dangerous?
I think incidents where a car hits a cyclist from behind are very low, most incidents occur at junctions, so I don't see how it can be that dangerous.
I too remember the ROTR saying that cyclists should cycle at no more than two abreast - must get myself a copy of the latest edition.

In reply to jman0: it's not quite the equivalent of two cars on a dual carraigeway - in this case it was possible to overtake.

M

cyclopath2001 · 25-08-2005 8:08pm

jman0 wrote:

Not just dangerous, but the point i was trying to make that in the Rules of the Road it states that cyclists should never cycle 2 abreast, bar when they're overtaking.

No it doesn't.But it's very common for motorists to brand as 'dangerous' any kind of activity that slows down their progress.

vector · 25-08-2005 8:32pm

Metrobest wrote:

...In Holland it’s quite common to see lovers hold hands while they ride (their bikes)!.

In IE one of the Road Traffic Acts says that Cyclists may not hold onto another vehicle be it moving or stopped, the intro to the act defines a bicycle as a vehicle

So two cyclists holding hands is verboten

(however it coule be argued that the connection is cyclist to cyclist and not cyclist to vehicle so it is allowed, but for that you would need to look at past cases the distinguish between the "cyclist" and his "vehicle")

Metrobest · 25-08-2005 11:02pm

On street cycle lanes in Dublin are just too narrow to be effective. The solution is simple. Less space for cars, more space for cyclists. The priority of Dublins planners, however, seems to maximum throughput of vehicles through junctions, and the standard of cycle lanes is an afterthought. Its a shocking indictment of Dublins cycle lanes that the canal lanes, in all their narrow glory, are amongst the most popular with the citys cyclists.

Amsterdam is full of canals. Hardly any of these canals have cycle lanes. And yet you can cycle along them safely and in comfort. The reason for this is
1. Low traffic volumes thanks to high parking charges in the central district
2. Low speed of vehicles
3. High presence of and respect for the bicycle

In Amsterdam, the equivilent of Dame Street would have two car lanes, two tram lanes, and two fully segregated cycle lanes, complete with special traffic lights for bicycles at all junctions

The equivilent of the outer canal rings of Dublin would not be used as "inner orbital routes for cars" but they would be low in car traffic, and dominated by cycling and other residential ammenities.

It really is down to traffic planners and their priorities. In a citz like Dublin where the car is king, cycling can never be a pleasure, and thats the shame of Dublin, the shame amplified by the fact we hosted a major cycling conference this year, and squandered the opportunity for real change in favour of vacuous PR stunts such as "kilometres of cycle track constructed" and whatnot. And then we wonder why cycling is in decline. Simple. Too many cars on the road, and not enough space for safe cycling.

Mucco · 26-08-2005 12:56am

Metrobest wrote:

The priority of Dublins planners ... seems to maximum throughput of vehicles through junctions, and the standard of cycle lanes is an afterthought.

The problem with Dublin cycle lanes is that cyclists feel obliged to use them.

Forget the law, cycle where you feel safest (Roads Act 1993). That quite often means ignoring the painted tarmac.

M

MaceFace · 26-08-2005 8:39am

Of all the cycle lanes I use, most of them are decent and they are definelty wide enough for a bike. I regularly cycled down the canal and I have agree with a previous comment that you need to be going at a slow speed to be able to cycle 2 abreast.

Maybe the guy behind you made noise (by his brakes or pedalling) and he thought you were too engrossed in a conversation to hear. It has happened to me.

MorningStar · 26-08-2005 9:17am

It always depends where you cycle. Some of the cycle lane/paths are in terrible conditions while others are fine. If you go some ways you might never know how bad they are. Havve a look at cyclopath's website for examples.

Cycling 2 a breast is inconsiderate at the least and dangerous at the worst. Not too surprised somebody got mad at the OP.

Metrobest
Dublin is a high work inncer city which can't stop traffic in the same way the historic Amsterdam did. It all looks good but couldn't deal with th volumes we have and need to get into the city for our economy to survive. Nice ideal but unrealistic when a bigger picture is looked at.

PunyHuman · 26-08-2005 12:57pm

I take the point that cycling two abreast could be taken as inconsiderate, but in this situation I don't believe it was dangerous.

I plead that:

*everyone was cycling at a leisurely pace, no more than 20kph

* the traffic was practically stationary (as it always is along the canal at that time).

* it was a nice sunny morning! No need to be roaring at anyone.

I suppose the guy could have been late for work or something. But in general you usually find us cyclist sticking together against the often incredible ignorance of car drivers.

I suppose I don't adhere to the rules of the road as rigidly as I should - I wear headphones when cycling for instance, break lights often, and don't wear a helmet. But I do use lights and a reflective jacket at night.

daymobrew · 26-08-2005 1:38pm

PunyHuman wrote:

* everyone was cycling at a leisurely pace, no more than 20kph
* the traffic was practically stationary (as it always is along the canal at that time).

Maybe the guy likes to cycle fast. I do (>30kph), as a fitness thing.
If traffic was practically stationary there might have not been enough space between you and the cars to permit overtaking.

PunyHuman wrote:

* it was a nice sunny morning! No need to be roaring at anyone.

I have no comeback for this :rolleyes:

PunyHuman wrote:

I wear headphones when cycling for instance, break lights often, and don't wear a helmet.

:eek: I'll bite my tongue. You are my polar opposite. I won't get into a debate, I'll just agree to differ.

Metrobest · 30-08-2005 10:12pm

MorningStar wrote:

Cycling 2 a breast is inconsiderate at the least and dangerous at the worst. Not too surprised somebody got mad at the OP.
Metrobest
Dublin is a high work inncer city which can't stop traffic in the same way the historic Amsterdam did. It all looks good but couldn't deal with th volumes we have and need to get into the city for our economy to survive. Nice ideal but unrealistic when a bigger picture is looked at.

Some of this is cultural, but much of it is down to bad planning. North-South traffic is funnelled through College Green and O'Connell Bridge, and there are very little disincentives in place to discourage motorists from using this route.

A completely-inadequate bus-based public transport system, run by a state monopoly, is not seen as a reliable option for getting to work, especially if the commute is not from suburb to city centre.

There are no provisions for cyclists in most parts of the city. Apart from the red lines painted randomly on sections of street, there are the problems of bottleneck junctions (no space for cyclists), one way streets (no contra-flow cycle lanes) and bad traffic light sequences (no lights for bicycles, encouraging the breaking of lights).

Just imagine an Amsterdam-style scenario where 30% of Dubliners cycled to work each day. Imagine the difference that would make to the traffic. Imagine how much cleaner the air would be. Imagine how pretty the Georgian streets and squares would look, uncluttered by row upon row of car parked cars.

But this scenario cannot, will not happen until car volumes are reduced and cycling is made a safe alternative. At present something like 4% of Dubliners cycle to work, similar to most third-world cities. I defy anyone to defend Dublin's network of cycle lanes when these statistics are taken into account. Dublin's planners are doing nothing to encourage people to cycle - the figures speak for themselves.

MorningStar · 31-08-2005 9:40am

Metrobest wrote:

Some of this is cultural, but much of it is down to bad planning. North-South traffic is funnelled through College Green and O'Connell Bridge, and there are very little disincentives in place to discourage motorists from using this route.

There is bad planning but geographical,historical, ownership etc... reasons at play too. They will put in a congestion charge soon enough I will guess it will be shortly after the port tunnel opens. I wonder if the will just do before the canals or use the rivers

Metrobest wrote:

A completely-inadequate bus-based public transport system, run by a state monopoly, is not seen as a reliable option for getting to work, especially if the commute is not from suburb to city centre.

The state don't want the transport company they can't do too much because of the unions. The government aren't organised enought to arrange such a conspiracy

Metrobest wrote:

There are no provisions for cyclists in most parts of the city. Apart from the red lines painted randomly on sections of street, there are the problems of bottleneck junctions (no space for cyclists), one way streets (no contra-flow cycle lanes) and bad traffic light sequences (no lights for bicycles, encouraging the breaking of lights).

Metrobest wrote:

Just imagine an Amsterdam-style scenario where 30% of Dubliners cycled to work each day. Imagine the difference that would make to the traffic. Imagine how much cleaner the air would be. Imagine how pretty the Georgian streets and squares would look, uncluttered by row upon row of car parked cars.

I can imagine but that doesn't mean it is possible. Amsterdam moved many of its businesses out of the city and made it a limited working city. This reduced the traffic so they were able stop motor traffic.

Metrobest wrote:

But this scenario cannot, will not happen until car volumes are reduced and cycling is made a safe alternative. At present something like 4% of Dubliners cycle to work, similar to most third-world cities. I defy anyone to defend Dublin's network of cycle lanes when these statistics are taken into account. Dublin's planners are doing nothing to encourage people to cycle - the figures speak for themselves.

It's the fact that the businesses are in the city that is drawing the traffic in. We need to reduce the need for the transport not the mode. The cycle lanes in Dublin will become more ineffectual now as the new houses are further from the city. In saying that Dublin city has a hugely increasing population that might use bikes to travel internally. Then again the new appartment blocks have nowhere to lock a bike. :rolleyes: I fairness I have been to a few European cities (not Amsterdam) and the cycling provisions weren't anything to write home about. More people seemed to cycle but the cities were more pedestrianised which seemed to be where people were cycling.

I think we need a Dublin solution to a Dublin problem, Amsterdam dealt with it's issues with great planning for a different issues. We are miles ahead of where they changed things.

StopWatch · 31-08-2005 10:06am

To get Back to the original point Cyclist on cyclist rage: the closest I've ever come was actually yesterday, coming down the canal, a guy in front of me was texting on his mobile, weaving all over the place, i was just annoyed that he would cause an accident,in which I would probably also be involved. asshole. Other than that, its rare, but it happens. As for the original incident, you know how it is, to you it seemed like you were just having a conversation while cycling, to him it seemed like you were taking the piss and causing an obstruction. Cyclists need to respect each other as much as possible, because the drivers certainly won't.

MorningStar · 31-08-2005 11:59am

StopWatch wrote:

To get Back to the original point Cyclist on cyclist rage: the closest I've ever come was actually yesterday, coming down the canal, a guy in front of me was texting on his mobile etc....

And you did what? Doesn't sound like rage you got annoyed.

Metrobest · 31-08-2005 10:53pm

Morningstar, my view is that Dublin-style solutions have failed in the past, and continue to fail, because there is a culture where the car is king. This means that public transport and cycling solutions may well be made available - so long as they don't interfere with the rights of motorists.

That's why we've got row-upon-row of car parking on Dublin's streets. (These could be used for segregated cycle lanes, and contra flow cycle lanes)

Why junctions have two lanes for cars, and no lanes for bikes. (Remove one car lane if you're serious about making things safe for cyclists.)

Why traffic lights are designed to squeeze through the maximum amount of cars. (Install bike-only traffic lights to counterbalance this)

Why civil service car parking spaces aren't subject to tax - they're a god-given right. (Tax them to the hilt - environmental tax and benefit in kind)

Why there is a serious shortage of bike parking spaces all over the city centre, yet there's always ample room for cars in the multi-storey car parks. (More bike racks, everywhere)

That's why there's no 30 pm/h speed limit in built up areas. (An immediate requirement to ensure safety on the roads)

The list goes on.

Johnny Jukebox · 31-08-2005 11:06pm

Until the oil runs out cycling will always be second best, particularly in the Irish climate and culture.

Only draconian statutory legislation *forcing* people out of their cars for city center commuting, and equally strong legislation *forcing* employers/local authorities/county councils to provide commuter oriented cycling facilities will trigger a paradigm shift.

This of course, will never happen as there is no political benefit to do it.

We must resign ourselves to being a minority, in the same way a slightly batty but ultimately harmless old aunt is.

Stark · 31-08-2005 11:18pm

jman0 wrote:

I suppose the equivalant would be when 2 cars are driving the same speed, occupying both lanes of the dual-carrigeway, preventing other motor traffic from passing.
Yes, i'd be a little irked about you. I wouldn't have resorted to his antics however.
Nevertheless you shouldn't be cycing 2 abreast anyway, unless you're overtaking.

I get annoyed enough when I'm walking on a footpath and slow walkers in front of me span out, stopping me from passing them :mad:

RicardoSmith · 01-09-2005 12:22am

I duno about rage but I've had a lot of inconsiderate cyclists who annoyed the heck out of me. For example, You struggle to get past someone who's holding you up, and they pull in front of you at the lights so you have to keep passing them out. Grrrrrrr...

MaceFace · 01-09-2005 8:32am

Car isn't king. It is a neccessity for almost all. Unless you are only travelling a mile or so, it is not feasible to cycle unless you have showers at your destination. Add to that the fact that you may be required to wear a suit to work, putting it in your back pack is not an option.

As a long time cyclist, I believe it is just not possible for us to be like the Dutch. Our country is wetter, has more hills, and most people live in the suburbs.

So, stop whinging about trying to get cars banned and put your efforts into getting better public transport to give people a choice of options.

MorningStar · 01-09-2005 8:38am

Metrobest wrote:

Morningstar, my view is that Dublin-style solutions have failed in the past, and continue to fail, because there is a culture where the car is king. This means that public transport and cycling solutions may well be made available - so long as they don't interfere with the rights of motorists.
etc...

I am not disagreeing with you in desire for a different outcome just to apply the wrong solution won't fix it. I heard city planners from Amsterdam who were in Dublin explain what they did and what needed to be done here for their system to work. The basics of it are it can't be done we might as well level the city and then change everybodys' way of thinking. It's very easy to see something working and think it is straight forward but like ducks there is a lot of working going on underneath.
You can complain all you like about cars , cycle lanes etc... but it doesn't change the fact so many people need to bring their cars in and there is not enough public transport. Cycling can't change that as the urban sprawl allowed around Dublin make it next to impossible to make cycling a viable form of transport for many.
On the speed issue in built up areas it might seem to make sense but there are very few fatalities in built up areas it's the open and back roads where the problems is.

Victor · 01-09-2005 6:17pm

MorningStar wrote:

but it doesn't change the fact so many people need to bring their cars in

Bull of the highest order. Very few of the cars parked around D2/4 actually move during the day.

uberwolf · 01-09-2005 6:20pm

jman0 wrote:

Not just dangerous, but the point i was trying to make that in the Rules of the Road it states that cyclists should never cycle 2 abreast, bar when they're overtaking.

Can you link to that? Cos I've never heard that as anything but a perception before.

RicardoSmith wrote:

I duno about rage but I've had a lot of inconsiderate cyclists who annoyed the heck out of me. For example, You struggle to get past someone who's holding you up, and they pull in front of you at the lights so you have to keep passing them out. Grrrrrrr...

and you'd think that when someone passes you doing twice your speed in full lycra that you wouldn't block them at the lights, but without fail... :rolleyes: never understood it

Metrobest · 01-09-2005 11:22pm

MorningStar wrote:

I heard city planners from Amsterdam who were in Dublin explain what they did and what needed to be done here for their system to work. The basics of it are it can't be done ..

I think it can be done. What it requires is tough, firm decision making and the facing down of a small but powerful minority of Dubliners (those who choose to drive their cars into or through the city centre).

littlejukka · 01-09-2005 11:35pm

cyclists are perfectly within their rights to cycle two abreast. they are obliged to go single file while the are overtaking. the guy could have just asked you to move in.

MorningStar · 02-09-2005 8:13am

Victor wrote:

Bull of the highest order. Very few of the cars parked around D2/4 actually move during the day.

Just because they don't move during the day doesn't mean they aren't needed to get to and from work. The additional tasks like pick up the children and shop bring in the requirement for a car too. The city is too spread out to facilitate a decent cheap public transport system.

Metrobest wrote:

I think it can be done. What it requires is tough, firm decision making and the facing down of a small but powerful minority of Dubliners (those who choose to drive their cars into or through the city centre).

That's nice but experts familiar with both don't think it is feesible with our current city use and layout. It's nice to think of people pulling strings to make thinks the way they are but I don't see any signs of organisation to do this. I think it is sheer bad planning on top of bad planning.

jman0 · 02-09-2005 8:33am

My mistake.
On page 58 of my copy of the Rules of the Road it states (actually i don't have it with me atm)
"Cyclists should never cycle more than 2 breast"
And i guess i overlooked the operative word "more".
Also on page 59 it states something to the effect that cyclists should cycle in single file (when the roads are busy).
i think.

ergo · 21-09-2005 10:47pm

again back to the OP

I cycle that canal cycle lane quite a lot at rush hour

often it's difficult to overtake single cyclists especially if they are unaware and in the middle of the lane and this can be very annoying, nevermind if someone's going 2 abreast

and I don't object to the 2 abreast thing in general but at rush hour on this lane probably not the best

I tend to be a late type of person and would be rushing down (enjoying the sunny morning too

)and fair point about everyone getting stuck at the next red light but if you're turning left at the next red light eg Leeson St bridge then it can pay to get there faster

and aside: it drives me nuts if I'm cycling along at a reasonable speed, contantly overtaking a slow cyclist who keeps catching up at the lights and then parking themselves in front of me

and another thing: climate is often cited as a reason why people here don't cyle but let's face it cylists, we don't get rained on that much here, and that was backed up by a recent study which i will google at some stage when I get the chance

vector · 21-09-2005 11:04pm

ergo wrote:

...
and aside: it drives me nuts if I'm cycling along at a reasonable speed, contantly overtaking a slow cyclist who keeps catching up at the lights and then parking themselves in front of me...

I hate overtaking other cyclists, because they have no idea you are behind them and are liable to swerve to the right at any time (to legitimatly avoid sudden pothold at the edge of the road) I don't want a tinkle tinkle bell on my masculine bike, what should I do

OMcGovern · 21-09-2005 11:32pm

vector wrote:

I don't want a tinkle tinkle bell on my masculine bike, what should I do

Maybe you can mount one of those airhorns on the handlebars :-)
In fact a drinks bottle holder would probably be perfect.

On a very rare occasion when I drove into work, to drop the car in for servicing, I was driving down the Quays towards O'Connell Bridge.
I was slowing down, with 2 car lengths of space between the car in front of me.
A bike from my left undertook me, a bike from my right overtook me....
They criss-crossed in front of me like a Red Arrows formation, missing each other within one foot or so !! They would've destroyed each other....

It's only a matter of time before cyclists like that "take a tumble".
Natural selection will kill off all the really aggressive ones.

Ps. for my two cents, cycling the buslanes on the N4 is nasty when the buses
can't get past. At times I've ended up moving into the middle lane to let them pass.

regards,
Owen

cyclopath2001 · 22-09-2005 7:43am

jman0 wrote:

My mistake.
On page 58 of my copy of the Rules of the Road it states (actually i don't have it with me atm)
"Cyclists should never cycle more than 2 breast"
And i guess i overlooked the operative word "more".
Also on page 59 it states something to the effect that cyclists should cycle in single file (when the roads are busy).
i think.

Check out the 'shoulds' and 'musts'. The ROTR is a combination of legal obligations and non-binding recommendations. Cyclists can cycle two abreast at all times and may cycle more than that abreast, while overtaking, if it safe to do so. Courtesy towards those trying to pass is nice but not obligitory.

What p***es me off is roller-bladers, joggers and pedestrians in off-road cycle tracks.

RainyDay · 22-09-2005 8:04am

MorningStar wrote:

Just because they don't move during the day doesn't mean they aren't needed to get to and from work. The additional tasks like pick up the children and shop bring in the requirement for a car too. The city is too spread out to facilitate a decent cheap public transport system.

No offence, but this is rubbish. Kids can go a carrier seat on bikes too, once they past 12-18 months and can sit up properly. Kids can go on the LUAS and be picked up without having a car. Shopping can be done on foot/bike/LUAS. It's all possible, if you have half an interest in reducing car use.

jman0 · 22-09-2005 8:07am

MaceFace wrote:

As a long time cyclist, I believe it is just not possible for us to be like the Dutch. Our country is wetter, has more hills, and most people live in the suburbs.

Average Rainfall for Amsterdam:
831.6mm/year
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N52E004+2100+06240W

Average Rainfall for Dublin:
741.9mm/year
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N53W006:2100:03969W

MorningStar · 22-09-2005 10:30am

RainyDay wrote:

No offence, but this is rubbish. Kids can go a carrier seat on bikes too, once they past 12-18 months and can sit up properly. Kids can go on the LUAS and be picked up without having a car. Shopping can be done on foot/bike/LUAS. It's all possible, if you have half an interest in reducing car use.

Offence taken! You don't avoid it by just saying no offense. Have a bit of respect and don't call anybody's view rubbish especially over someting that is not offensive in anyway.
Cycling suits me so I do it as it is a valid option. Many, many newer estates have no public transport, schools or shops. You might not know this but many people deal with this reality. I don't like it but lack of proper planning has caused this. There are parts of Swords that must be a good half hour cycle each way to a shop or school. It is unrealistic to expect some people to do this but some obviously can and don't. Urban sprawl has made public transport a very expensive option the city is too spread out for a mass transport system to be cost effective.

PunyHuman · 22-09-2005 11:13am

cyclopath2001 wrote:

... Cyclists can cycle two abreast at all times and may cycle more than that abreast, while overtaking, if it safe to do so. Courtesy towards those trying to pass is nice but not obligitory.

Vindicated at last! Thank you very much. Bear in mind though that I did not know the guy was trying to pass me out. What about courtesty to those cyclists one is trying to overtake? That was my original point.

ergo wrote:

and I don't object to the 2 abreast thing in general but at rush hour on this lane probably not the best

You're probably right; I have conceded this point earlier. But it's still within my rights.

Zaph0d · 22-09-2005 12:02pm

jman0 wrote:

Average Rainfall for Amsterdam:
831.6mm/year
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N52E004+2100+06240W

Average Rainfall for Dublin:
741.9mm/year
http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N53W006:2100:03969W

Maybe the rain in Amsterdam all falls in one week of the year.

A beter meausre than average total annual rainfall would be probability of rain during any journey.

How likely am I to get wet on any 10 minute bike journey? 1%? 5%?

PunyHuman · 22-09-2005 12:16pm

Zaph0d wrote:

How likely am I to get wet on any 10 minute bike journey?

Depends on whether or not it's raining. Fnar

There can be few more depressing feelings than cycling to work in the rain, against a headwind, sweating under those ridiculous wets that seem to channel water straight into one's shoes.

Gavin · 22-09-2005 1:15pm

If I'm coming up behind someone (hur hur) I flick my brakes and pull right out into the car lane when overtaking. It's less aggressive than ringing a bell.

It really annoys me when someone overtakes, leaving a tiny amount of room in between. And yes, slow cyclists pulling in front at traffic lights is intensely annoying. Get into the bloody queue !!

Gav

cyclopath2001 · 22-09-2005 6:44pm

PunyHuman wrote:

Vindicated at last! Thank you very much. Bear in mind though that I did not know the guy was trying to pass me out. What about courtesty to those cyclists one is trying to overtake? That was my original point.

The law does not require courtesy, but it does require the person doing the overtaking to do so without endangering others or causing inconvenience. This applies to all vehicles, cars and bikes.

vector · 22-09-2005 6:53pm

<sidebar>
at what point does a bicycle "vehicle" become a "pedestrian"... if the rider has two feet on the ground, but is still on the bike?

RainyDay · 23-09-2005 12:32am

MorningStar wrote:

Cycling suits me so I do it as it is a valid option. Many, many newer estates have no public transport, schools or shops. You might not know this but many people deal with this reality. I don't like it but lack of proper planning has caused this. There are parts of Swords that must be a good half hour cycle each way to a shop or school. It is unrealistic to expect some people to do this but some obviously can and don't. Urban sprawl has made public transport a very expensive option the city is too spread out for a mass transport system to be cost effective.

I'd bet a fiver donation to a charity of your choice that you can't name a street in Swords that is more than 30 minute cycle away from a shop or a school on the DTO Journey Planner. Now if you had said Lucan, I might have agreed with you, but not Swords. I agree that our planning & public transport systems leave a lot to be desired, but I also challenge the view that you 'have to' have the car because of kids or shopping.

Victor · 25-09-2005 8:40pm

RainyDay wrote:

I'd bet a fiver donation to a charity of your choice that you can't name a street in Swords that is more than 30 minute cycle away from a shop or a school on the DTO Journey Planner.

Hell, lets make it €50.

PunyHuman · 26-09-2005 1:28am

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The law does not require courtesy

More's the pity.

ergo · 26-09-2005 6:56pm

Zaph0d wrote:

Maybe the rain in Amsterdam all falls in one week of the year.

A beter meausre than average total annual rainfall would be probability of rain during any journey.

How likely am I to get wet on any 10 minute bike journey? 1%? 5%?

from the Irish Times, 3rd June 2005

Outlook brighter as cyclists' fear of rain unfounded
Paul Cullen

Dublin's weather is not nearly as bad as commuters think it is, according to new research carried out by the city council.
Indeed, so balmy are the capital's climatic conditions that a cyclist can expect to get wet on just one out of every 200 trips, according to an analysis of Met Éireann's weather records.
Director of traffic Owen Keegan found from an accompanying survey of 600 motorists and cyclists that the perception of bad weather was an important factor in influencing car drivers not to take the bike to work.
It also encouraged occasional cyclists to use other forms of transport during the winter.
"Car commuters and cyclists alike have a pessimistic view of the probability of getting wet in Dublin which is very inaccurate when viewed against actual data," says Mr Keegan.
The research shows that a cyclist on a typical 22-minute commute gets wet on only 0.6 per cent of trips in the morning and 0.4 per cent in the evening.
If the threshold is reduced to include drizzle, these figures rise to 5 per cent in the morning and to 4 per cent in the evening.
The survey found that both groups overestimated the frequency of rain in the capital. Almost 20 per cent of drivers and 25 per cent of cyclists wrongly believed it rained at least every second day. Mr Keegan plans further research to show how the probability of getting wet can be further reduced by "rainfall avoidance strategies" such as delaying the start of a journey.

today not a good day for these stats though!

Cycle rage - any experiences of this?

Comments