Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

tomasrojo · 13-01-2018 6:44pm

She was done for speeding, no? Not dangerous driving. I realise 145km/h might be "dangerous" but it's not the technical charge she was charged with.

magicbastarder · 13-01-2018 6:45pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

She was about 20% above the limit, which is quite considerable.

she would beg to differ: "she said: 'Twenty-five kilometres an hour isn't massively over the speed limit"

for someone who - quote - "normally drives like a snail", getting up to 145km/h and not realising it is a little alarming sounding.

Mercian Pro · 13-01-2018 6:47pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've seen 3 & 4 abreast on country roads... You'll see it on howth Hill every weekend.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have definitely seen it a lot. Maybe it's because I live close to Howth that if seen it a lot.

As a matter of interest, where in Howth do you see cyclists riding 3 and 4 abreast every weekend?

I presume you are not referring to two cycling up the hill momentarily crossing with two cycling down. From my experience of group cycling, hills have the effect of singling out the group whether going up or down. Maybe you are thinking of one of the infamous posters?

13-01-2018 6:56pm

Lemming wrote: »

Three abreast is not - contrary to the "popular" belief of RTE fools and a whole lot more besides - "illegal" in of itself. Three abreast is legal where the outside rider is performing an overtaking maneuver and it is of course safe for them to proceed.

So there's another question to ask yourself in doubt.

At what point did I say it was illegal? I simply stated that I saw 3 cyclists abreast. I wasn't complaining about it, it didn't put me out in any way....it was just an observation.

As I'd expect from the cycling forums, I've now been educated, and I now know that I didn't see 3 cyclists abreast, and it has been explained to me in great detail that it was all an optical illusion.

tomasrojo · 13-01-2018 7:00pm

http://irishcycle.com/2018/01/13/anger-at-rtes-late-late-show-as-cyclists-two-or-three-abreast-binned/

Didn't know she was concern-trolling people carrying children on bikes too.

mickdw · 13-01-2018 7:01pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

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.

But feck it, if they are cycling 2 by 2 but in such a manner that they are overall as wide as 3 abreast and appear to be 3 abreast from directly behind, well they may as well be 3 abreast as far as a motorist is concerned, if a group are doing 2 abreast, they need to be lined up pretty good. The photo posted earlier showed a group lined up pretty well.

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 7:03pm

mickdw wrote: »

... if a group are doing 2 abreast, they need to be lined up pretty good....

Ideally yes, but the law doesn't require a specific distance apart therefore they aren't doing anything illegal.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 7:16pm

Mercian Pro wrote:

As a matter of interest, where in Howth do you see cyclists riding 3 and 4 abreast every weekend?

I didnt say that I see 3 & 4 abreast every weekend on howth Hill. I'm not in howth every weekend and I don't see them every weekend that I am there. I just said that I've seen plenty of times. Having said that it's not uncommon either. There's a reason why someone went to the time & expense of putting up the cartoon posters last year in howth. Some & I stress some cyclists try take over the road there.

tomasrojo · 13-01-2018 7:18pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There's a reason why someone went to the time & expense of putting up the cartoon posters last year in howth.

I think the reason was that there was a crank who had too much time on their hands.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 7:22pm

tomasrojo wrote:

I think the reason was that there was a crank who had too much time on their hands.

That could well be true Far too much time imo

Unknown Soldier · 13-01-2018 7:25pm

Basil3 wrote: »

At what point did I say it was illegal? I simply stated that I saw 3 cyclists abreast. I wasn't complaining about it, it didn't put me out in any way....it was just an observation.

As I'd expect from the cycling forums, I've now been educated, and I now know that I didn't see 3 cyclists abreast, and it has been explained to me in great detail that it was all an optical illusion.

I don't think anyone is telling you it was an optical illusion, they are pointing out times when a lot of people think cyclist are riding three abreast when in reality they are not.

If it helps you sleep better, I don't doubt you. I have seen it myself on a number of occasions, but as I said, it's been a cycling group of three.

magicbastarder · 13-01-2018 7:30pm

mickdw wrote: »

if they are cycling 2 by 2 but in such a manner that they are overall as wide as 3 abreast and appear to be 3 abreast from directly behind, well they may as well be 3 abreast as far as a motorist is concerned

as far as a motorist is concerned, there's little difference if cyclists are 2 or 3 abreast. if a motorist has to perform an overtaking manouevre to get past two cyclists, they have to perform an overtaking manouevre to get past three.

and again, three is legal in certain circumstances.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 7:43pm

magicbastarder wrote:

and again, three is legal in certain circumstances.

I learned something new today!

I genuinely did not know this.

07Lapierre · 13-01-2018 8:01pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've seen 3 & 4 abreast on country roads. 3 & 4 abreast is illegal on all roads so the country roads part of her statement is irrelevant. You'll see it on howth Hill every weekend.

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'm not having a pop at all cyclists. I see bad cyclists, pedestrians and drivers every day. We just happen to be talking about cycling here.

3 cyclists abreast is NOT illegal! (As long as the 3rd cyclist is overtaking the other 2 cyclists)

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 8:17pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

3 cyclists abreast is NOT illegal! (As long as the 3rd cyclist is overtaking the other 2 cyclists)

...or 2 cyclists overtaking a single cyclist.

magicbastarder · 13-01-2018 8:23pm

Are three cyclists allowed overtake another road user side by side?

Weepsie · 13-01-2018 8:25pm

Mod Note: Please keep it civil towards each other. However, if you're not a regular to the forum, please try to contribute constructively rather than helpful advice to cyclists and whataboutery.

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 8:28pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

Are three cyclists allowed overtake another road user side by side?

Road user as in pedestrian?

cython · 13-01-2018 8:34pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...or 2 cyclists overtaking a single cyclist.

Strictly speaking, only single file overtaking two abreast is permitted according to the SI (i.e. the scenario above is not actually allowed), if cyclists are to be considered traffic (my emphasis):

SI 332/2012 wrote:

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

Are three cyclists allowed overtake another road user side by side?

So no, cyclists may not overtake another road user while riding three abreast (or two abreast). EDIT: Pedestrians may be another story as they are not traffic, but if they are on the road they should be heading against traffic on the same side meaning they are not able to be overtaken really.

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 8:39pm

cython wrote: »

Strictly speaking, only single file overtaking two abreast is permitted according to the SI (i.e. the scenario above is not actually allowed), if cyclists are to be considered traffic (my emphasis):...

My interpretation of that has always been that 'other traffic' means non-cycling traffic - i.e. that overtaking another cyclist is legal but not a pedestrian, animal drawn vehicle or motor vehicle.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 8:44pm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

My interpretation of that has always been that 'other traffic' means non-cycling traffic - i.e. that overtaking another cyclist is legal but not a pedestrian, animal drawn vehicle or motor vehicle.

Isn't a bicycle a vehicle. Not a mechanically propelled vehicle but a vehicle nonetheless?

If they are a vehicle then are they not traffic?

cython · 13-01-2018 8:48pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

My interpretation of that has always been that 'other traffic' means non-cycling traffic - i.e. that overtaking another cyclist is legal but not a pedestrian, animal drawn vehicle or motor vehicle.

That may be your interpretation, but at the same time it's a dangerous distinction to make - it's oft-lamented that cyclists are not seen by drivers as being traffic (rather they are seen as a hazard or obstruction), and claiming such a distinction only lends credence to that view, IMHO.

Additionally, if you accept that distinction, then the wording of the act is such that 4 abreast can be taken to be perfectly legal if you have 2 abreast overtaking 2 abreast, since a cap of 3 abreast is never mentioned explicitly (this is something I've never considered before, mind, your interpretation just put the idea into my head!)

Andy Magic · 13-01-2018 8:55pm

Plastik wrote: »

I cycle 15,000-20,000km per year, and drive a similar distance. I don't think I have ever seen cyclists "three or four abreast" other than in an official race, or at a sportive.

+1 it was all just exaggeration looking to say the popular thing. Bunch of nobodies on that show but now we know there names.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 9:01pm

Andy Magic wrote:

+1 it was all just exaggeration looking to say the popular thing. Bunch of nobodies on that show but now we know there names.

That's simply not true. I have seen 3 & 4 abreast myself.

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean that it does not happen.

Andy Magic · 13-01-2018 9:06pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's simply not true. I have seen 3 & 4 abreast myself.

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean that it does not happen.

How often do you see this? I drive more than I cycle and I've honestly never come across 4 cyclists cycling abreast. The hate towards cyclists is gone beyond obsessive at this stage.

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 9:08pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Isn't a bicycle a vehicle. Not a mechanically propelled vehicle but a vehicle nonetheless?

If they are a vehicle then are they not traffic?

I was referring to 'other traffic' not 'traffic'.

When I was doing truck and bus lessons/tests, the instructors/testers would refer to 'other traffic' meaning non bus/truck traffic.

Wishbone Ash · 13-01-2018 9:10pm

cython wrote: »

That may be your interpretation, but at the same time it's a dangerous distinction to make - it's oft-lamented that cyclists are not seen by drivers as being traffic (rather they are seen as a hazard or obstruction), and claiming such a distinction only lends credence to that view, IMHO.....)

See my post above regarding 'other traffic'.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 9:14pm

Andy Magic wrote:

How often do you see this? I drive more than I cycle and I've honestly never come across 4 cyclists cycling abreast. The hate towards cyclists is gone beyond obsessive at this stage.

The point is I have seen it.

I don't get the defensiveness of this thread. I'm not attacking cyclists but to totally deny the possibility that "some" cyclists break the law I just don't get. It's even been suggested that people who have seen 3 & 4 abreast are counting wrong!

If I say I saw a dangerous cyclist it has no reflection on members here. I don't get defending the behaviour or suggestions that it doesn't exist. I see as many dangerous drivers & pedestrians as cyclists so I'm not picking on cyclists. I believe that the law needs to be enforced on all road and footpath users.

Sleeper12 · 13-01-2018 9:21pm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I was referring to 'other traffic' not 'traffic'.

A bike is other traffic too though

Andy Magic · 13-01-2018 9:23pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The point is I have seen it.

I don't get the defensiveness of this thread. I'm not attacking cyclists but to totally deny the possibility that "some" cyclists break the law I just don't get. It's even been suggested that people who have seen 3 & 4 abreast are counting wrong!

If I say I saw a dangerous cyclist it has no reflection on members here. I don't get defending the behaviour or suggestions that it doesn't exist. I see as many dangerous drivers & pedestrians as cyclists so I'm not picking on cyclists. I believe that the law needs to be enforced on all road and footpath users.

I think we could end up going round in circles here and I've better things to be doing on my Saturday night, but your answer that you have seen it states a lot and you have clearly made your mind up on cyclists.

I've seen junkies shooting up in Dublin yet no one seems to think this is a problem. My point is, just because you've seen it once it doesn't make it a nationwide problem. There are far worse things going on yet people like to make a popular anti cyclist remark, it's a trend at this stage, if you don't hate cyclists your the odd one out nowadays.

Anyway hopefully I'm not cycling in front of you on the road someday!

Cycling and THAT Late Late Show segment

Comments