Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

I was watching it last night and I think, in fairness to Derrane, she was referring to cyclists 3 and 4 abreast rather than 2 abreast. However this is usually what some drivers perceive from their angle of vision rather than reality. She referred to 'country roads'. What 'country roads' physically allow 4 abreast?

I’m still trying to figure out how do differinate an arrogant cyclist from a humble one?

Basil3 wrote: »

I saw a cycling club going 3 abreast in around Ongar road just recently. It was early and very light traffic, though.

I can't see the big deal. If she had been complaining about motorists who hog the fast lane on the M50, would ALL motorists be up in arms over it? Why do cyclists in general need to be offended by someone saying they don't like what they view as arrogant cyclists?

It encourages a pack mentality and thus increases the risk posed to cyclists.

koutoubia wrote:

Very very very rarely have i seen more then 2 abreast. The odd sportive maybe.

I've seen what I assumed to be a cycling club on a Saturday morning with some in the group more than 2 abreast. 3 to 3 & a half abreast if that makes sense. I'm struggling to remember where it was & I'm thinking somewhere between Balbriggan and Drogheda. I'd rarely work as far as Drogheda so south of that.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I haven't see this Late Late Show, so I won't comment on what she said directly. However, picking on outgroups usually involves making out that the ones who stand up for themselves are militant, arrogant, uppity, whatever. It's not full-on hatred but it's a special subset of "othering" people.

There's a link in the first post. Nothing that unusual or shocking really, which is probably a bad sign of my cynicism. I thought the Late Late was a bit more high brow, but it's been since I've watched it (Toy Show excluded, of course).

The weirdest comment was from the white-haired gent who said he gave someone with a cargo bike a wide berth because he thought there was a baby in the front. Turned out it there was no baby. Implied is that if there's no baby, a cyclist does not deserve a wide berth?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I watched the clip and I totally get what she was saying. She even stressed that she wasn't talking about all cyclists, she was talking about arrogant cyclists. She was talking about an illegal act and I don't think she said anything wrong. The other fool beside her made the farm animal comparison. I thought she was making a valid point & was doing quite well till the other guy tried to help her make her point.

I am not having s pop at you, but define an ‘arrogant’ cyclist, and is it right that a motorist thinks it’s ok to impose their will on any road user, particularly one more vulnerable than they are?

What is inherently more dangerous - arrogance driving or stupid cycling?

I have seen lots of both and there is no defence for either. However, arrogance behind the wheel of a motor vehicle is far more dangerous, and prevalent.

Why don’t the LLS do a balanced piece ?

I do agree the guys comments did not help. The standard rule of “if you have nothing say, say nothing” should have been used there.

The other guy had no clue either. I thought he looked very uncomfortable about the conversation. Then he made the pointless cargo bike comment. Does he not understand that the use is defined by the type of bike. Nothing odd about cargo in a cargo bike- be it kids or a bit of 4 x 4!

Just watched the clip and what annoyed me that she was annoyed that she had been held up by this cyclists. And that to me seem the main problem car drivers seem to think that the main problem is that they are somehow been delayed when really its the car traffic as they hit the next bottleneck that delays them , the 30 seconds delay to safely pass a cyclist is what morons like derrane focus on.

ednwireland wrote:

Just watched the clip and what annoyed me that she was annoyed that she had been held up by this cyclists. And that to me seem the main problem car drivers seem to think that the main problem is that they are somehow been delayed when really its the car traffic as they hit the next bottleneck that delays them , the 30 seconds delay to safely pass a cyclist is what morons like derrane focus on.

But she was annoyed at being held up by cyclists cycling illegally. She wasn't annoyed with cyclists cycling in a legal manner. I'd be annoyed myself. Not at all cyclists just the ones breaking the law.

Cyclists are annoyed at parked cars in cycle lanes & they are right to be annoyed. A motorist is quite right to be annoyed at cycling 3 or 4 abreast

amcalester wrote:

Does it really happen though or are people seeing cyclists in banks of 2 and thinking that they’re seeing cyclists 4 abreast?

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot. But look if she only ever saw it once in her life she's right calling these particular people arrogant.

Nevermind what your woman said how about the way Tubridy ran with it inciting the crowd into endorsing the binning of a cycling helmet? The symbolism is shocking, I can't even imagine how the families of the 15 people that were killed out there last year would have felt watching that.

magicbastarder wrote:

If she's only seen it once, she's right in making an issue of it on prime time national television?

She didn't say she only saw it once. I've no idea how many times she has seen it.

I said if it was "only even once"
That she was right to call them arrogant as it is an arrogant thing to do.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have been keeping an eye out for cyclists cycling three or more abreast for the last five years - while cycling and while driving - and i have seen it on one occasion.

They tend to frequent the Clontarf cycle lane, blocking the way for faster cyclists to overtake them

As far as I could see RTE were a bit too liberal with the hospitality in the green room before the "expert" panel came on, sort of showed themselves up.

Best thing about having watched that ****e was that I caught the young lady who was interviewed last on the program, she was very impressive having come through some tough times, well done to her and those in the system who helped and encouraged her when things could have gone badly for her.

Basil3 wrote: »

Of course, it's a lot easier to see how many cyclists abreast there are when you're directly behind them...

No, that's where the problem is.

Lets say there are 10 cyclists cycling 2 abreast - i.e. 5 couples. If they are not directly aligned behind each other it looks like there are more than 2 abreast. The law doesn't state any required minimum/maximum distance between each cyclist. The first 2 may be 1 metre apart, the next 2, .5 metres apart and so on. When viewed directly from behind, it may appear that they are 3/4 abreast.

This is the problem most non-cycling motorists seem to suffer from. Apart from the start of major sportives, when the road is usually closed or there is an escort, I've never seen a group going 4 abreast. 3 abreast is legally permitted when 2 are overtaking a single cyclist or vice versa.

If viewed directly from overhead, it will show that they are 2 abreast.