Cyclists

[Meridian]

There's one parking bay on the left hand side on that road, which I also know very well, and if you watch the video, there are cars parked in it, so even if he were to move into the space he would quickly have to swerve back out into traffic again to avoid the parked cars, which is obviously dangerous.

It is not safe in this scenario for any cyclist to move to the left - the bay is occupied and the narrow width of the road doesn't afford a safe passing distance.

Note please, I did say that if there were no cars parked there, that it would be possible. Obviously with cars parked there it is not possible.

So what if it's possible? It's illegal? Are road users supposed to act by what is possible or what is legal? If I'm at a crossroads and the light goes green should I go or sit there forever - after all someone coming the other way could barrel through. Whilst that may not be legal, it is possible

We could be discussing that all day and night, what is legal and safe are the most important considerations, followed up by consideration for other road users.

If this is the motorist's thinking then it is entirely illogical. That stretch of road is, at the very most, 500m long. You then come into Douglas village where it merges to become a two-way road where there's ample space to overtake. Doing 40kmph means you'd do 500m in about 45 seconds. Doing 50kmph - the legal limit - means you'd do it in roughly 35 seconds. "Stuck behind the cyclist the whole way along my journey" in this instance, in reality, actually means it's taking the motorist about 10 seconds more to drive this road. Blowing your horn at someone on a bike for the sake of 10 seconds is just dickhead behaviour

I am obviously only guessing the motorists thoughts as to why the beeped, you did after all ask me.


There are 2 parties at fault there, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[J.R.R. hartley]

'Gnat', the word is 'gnat'.


I'd seriously question the third level institution that certified you.

Might have been GNUI Cork

 

[Crankycorner]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559133681394110465

This lad makes John look like the poster boy of good behaviour and sanity.

 

[Moyboy]

Note please, I did say that if there were no cars parked there, that it would be possible. Obviously with cars parked there it is not possible.

And in the video, based on which you accuse him of holding up traffic there are cars parked there. So you concede that it's not possible for him to move in there in this instance.

We could be discussing that all day and night, what is legal and safe are the most important considerations, followed up by consideration for other road users.

The cyclist is being both legal and safe in that video. The motorist is being unsafe in needlessly blowing his horn at the cyclist, and is showing no consideration for the cyclist by attempting to intimidate him.

There are 2 parties at fault there, two wrongs do not make a right.

Except there aren't in this case. There's one wrong, an impatient motorist with a sense of entitlement losing their temper over what is at most a ten second delay.

 

[Crankycorner]

Looking at that photo, I am thinking, how does she pass the beep test.

Fair dues.

Uncalled for.

 

[Meridian]

And in the video, based on which you accuse him of holding up traffic there are cars parked there. So you concede that it's not possible for him to move in there in this instance.

He could have slowed down and pulled in out of the way of the car, it is technically possible.

The cyclist is being both legal and safe in that video. The motorist is being unsafe in needlessly blowing his horn at the cyclist, and is showing no consideration for the cyclist by attempting to intimidate him.

The cyclist as has been shown throughout this thread and indeed due to his own Twitter footage, that he has a very arrogant nature and seems to think he is invincible whilst cycling. His sole purpose seems to be to aggravate motorists, for the sole purpose of gathering footage for his Twitter feed.

Except there aren't in this case. There's one wrong, an impatient motorist with a sense of entitlement losing their temper over what is at most a ten second delay.

No sir, both are wrong.
The cyclist is delaying the motorist regardless, he could have attempted to cycle on the left side, had he done this then the motorist would have noticed that the cyclist was at least attempting to move into the side of the road and out of his way.
I am sure the motorist would have thought, fair dues but the road is too narrow here.

But the Chicken man would then have no footage.

 

[Dogwide]

'Gnat', the word is 'gnat'.


I'd seriously question the third level institution that certified you.

I cringed. , I do be morto for you Jank.

He could be dyslexic.

Did you hear about the dyslexic John, he walked into a bra.

 

[fed up]

Cyclists could face speed limits and may need number plates, reports say

The transport secretary told the Daily Mail that we should not "turn a blind eye" to cyclists who break road laws, speed and "bust red lights" and "get away with it".

news.sky.com

 

[SoundMan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559133681394110465

This lad makes John look like the poster boy of good behaviour and sanity.

Hurling mad Kilkenny and kids would've been put off a pastime with the encouragement, not even insistence, on the wearing of helmets?

These lycra-warriors are just nuts!

 

[SoundMan]

Cyclists could face speed limits and may need number plates, reports say

The transport secretary told the Daily Mail that we should not "turn a blind eye" to cyclists who break road laws, speed and "bust red lights" and "get away with it".

news.sky.com

Just the UK at the moment but hopefully it's only a matter of time before some sensible enforcing can be brought in now that there is so much infrastructure being devoted to cycling.

The transport secretary told the Daily Mail that we should not "turn a blind eye" to cyclists who break road laws, speed and "bust red lights" and "get away with it".