# Pelotons



## RogerS (8 May 2016)

Can anyone please explain to me the justification of a peloton riding 4 abreast for ten miles down a main road with minimal opportunity to overtake safely?

Why? 

Why 4 abreast? 

OK...we need to share the roads... Give and take works both ways IMO.


----------



## monkeybiter (8 May 2016)

I think I would have 'forced the issue' before I'd travelled ten miles.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 May 2016)

Killing them is a little extreme, though, isn't it?


----------



## Zeddedhed (8 May 2016)

Isn't the phrase 'a little extreme' an oxymoron?


----------



## monkeybiter (8 May 2016)

> Killing them is a little extreme, though, isn't it?



After one mile it might be, after five miles........nah!


----------



## Droogs (8 May 2016)

no reason at all other than they are inconsiderate tw*$%s, just what gives cyclists a bad name :roll:


----------



## LancsRick (8 May 2016)

No justification, they're just inconsiderant. Any cyclists that aren't in single file/overtaking as just being arrogant in my eyes.


----------



## flying haggis (8 May 2016)

Droogs":17rmprst said:


> no reason at all other than they are inconsiderate tw*$%s, just what gives cyclists a bad name :roll:



and of course they are never in the wrong...


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 May 2016)

LancsRick":3bjdn0yc said:


> No justification, they're just inconsiderant. Any cyclists that aren't in single file/overtaking as just being arrogant in my eyes.


I think you'll find there is a law against them riding in single file.


----------



## lurker (8 May 2016)

The problem is if you hit them it's a PITA getting the blood and gore off the bumper


----------



## LancsRick (8 May 2016)

phil.p":3eh95006 said:


> LancsRick":3eh95006 said:
> 
> 
> > No justification, they're just inconsiderant. Any cyclists that aren't in single file/overtaking as just being arrogant in my eyes.
> ...



Care to share a link? First time I've heard that one, highway code actually advises you to ride single file!


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

I live in an area where there seem to be loads of 'races' and some where they ride in teams with all the gear on. 

These are little country roads and in some areas, they are going round corners in the middle of the road. 

A little while ago, i went to overtake in my van as they were going slowly up a hill, and as i chose to do it, a car appeared in the other direction. This meant i had to stop between the line of cyclists. No danger to them at all but they had to stop. I then received so much foul language, but some started wacking the back of my van. 

Bearing in mind my. 3 year old was in the van and scared out of her skin, i decided to not get out, but drive off when i could. 

I found out what amateur race this was and phoned to complain, but all i got was the "roads are for cyclists only" line.


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

By the way, i have subsequently moved one of the arrow signs they put up for these. I didn't get to see the results, but there must have been some confused riders!


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.


----------



## Wuffles (8 May 2016)

I always give cyclists room, unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary; two abreast plus and I don't give them any extra room. They like that, probably, they're always waving at me.

Sometimes they won't get any room at all, when they appear from nowhere around a single track lane, don't stop in time and are forced into a ditch - true story.


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

Then you haven't been down near Tormarton or badminton. I don't cycle as i am disabled, but my wife and kids are keen cyclists but ride safely. 

The point is that i see loads of organised amateur races, and they ride as if in the tour de france with the roads closed. 

The above with 4 abreast is an example of this.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

Wuffles":11zkfurx said:


> I always give cyclists room, unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary; two abreast plus and I don't give them any extra room. They like that, probably, they're always waving at me.
> 
> Sometimes they won't get any room at all, when they appear from nowhere around a single track lane, don't stop in time and are forced into a ditch - true story.


Do you get angry at other wide slow moving vehicles like tractors or have you just got a weird thing about cyclists?


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

Logger":9zlv8th9 said:


> Then you haven't been down near Tormarton or badminton. I don't cycle as i am disabled, but my wife and kids are keen cyclists but ride safely.
> 
> The point is that i see loads of organised amateur races, and they ride as if in the tour de france with the roads closed.
> 
> The above with 4 abreast is an example of this.


Races as such are illegal. Time trials are legal (but permission has to be obtained) but they set off at minute intervals and are not allowed to tail each other, even less to form a peloton.
What you saw (if you saw anything at all) would be a touring group - possibly a CTC club ride or an Audax event.


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

They often have numbers on and cycle in big groups. I do see people time trialing, including time trialing in groups of three.


----------



## cedarwood (8 May 2016)

Jacob":2cau45do said:


> I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.



I have been a cyclist, a motor biker, a car driver and a tractor driver and have always treated others as I would like to be treated. as a tractor driver the law says that I am not allowed to drive along the road and unnecessarily hold traffic up and that when practicable I should pull over and let the faster traffic pass. That my friend should apply to all slow moving objects on the road, I have only ever seen a cyclist stop to allow traffic past once in all the years that I have been driving they are just ignorant of all other road users, even horse riders and pedestrians (when there is no footpath) get off the road when they can to let cars and tractors pass them.


----------



## nev (8 May 2016)

Jacob":3csrkntu said:


> Wuffles":3csrkntu said:
> 
> 
> > I always give cyclists room, unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary; two abreast plus and I don't give them any extra room. They like that, probably, they're always waving at me.
> ...



A tractor cannot make itself thinner with a twitch of the bars or simple manoeuvre and free up the road to allow the ever longer queue of other road users to be on their way. :roll: simple politeness really.

As an example I have just come back from a short motorbike ride with the missus as pillion. This was her first time on a bike so i had to go slow so as not to frighten her :shock: anyway, along the way seeing vehicles approaching in my mirrors, me doing 50mph them doing 60, single carriageway, I indicated and moved to the left, waving them past. Everyone happy. I could have of course just made myself as wide as possible sat in the middle or outside of the lane and caused a tailback, after all I have every right to be there :roll:


----------



## stuartpaul (8 May 2016)

Jacob":3dg2rzne said:


> I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.


I don't like the arrogance that some have when they don't make any contribution to road upkeep. They demand rights but don't appear to have any responsibilities!


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

stuartpaul":7m27qobn said:


> Jacob":7m27qobn said:
> 
> 
> > I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.
> ...


We pay taxes just the same as you. We have the same rights and responsibilities as you. We actually cause little damage in terms of upkeep, close to zero. 
If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then just keep off the road. Simple enough - you have a choice. Public transport, motorways are there for people like you.
NB Most of us pay Vehicle tax too - this doesn't pay for the roads - "road tax" is a misnomer. The roads are paid for from the general taxation and cost more than is raised by vehicle tax anyway. So non drivers are subsidising you.



> I have only ever seen a cyclist stop to allow traffic past once in all the years that I have been driving they are just ignorant of all other road users, even horse riders and pedestrians (when there is no footpath) get off the road when they can to let cars and tractors pass them.


Total nonsense. We stop regularly to let vehicles past. There is a problem however - particularly on hilly or busy roads, in that if you stop to let people past you may not easily get going again - so you just have to slog on until there is enough room for them to pass. Most drivers understand this. HGV are the best - you hear air brakes huffing and puffing behind you but they always wait and give you a wide berth.


----------



## Wuffles (8 May 2016)

Jacob":3vysys9o said:


> Wuffles":3vysys9o said:
> 
> 
> > I always give cyclists room, unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary; two abreast plus and I don't give them any extra room. They like that, probably, they're always waving at me.
> ...



Which bit didn't you understand?

"I always give cyclists room, unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary" - they get no extra room from me when they are taking the mickey, same amount of room as when I overtake a large static caravan on a trailer or a farmer in a tractor. I'm not trying to hit anyone, why would I, but my generous safe distance is eaten up by anything more than should be there.

Get off your high horse, we've clearly hit a nerve, this is an immensely difficult subject but like it or not, some cyclists do take the mickey.

An example. When there is some kind of competitive "race" underway on the the A38 (an arterial road for which they will never get exclusive access to), in the heat of the moment of course they ride more than two abreast.

I used to ride sports bikes, but that doesn't mean I am in favour of lunatics attacking that same stretch of road at speeds over 80mph on a Sunday afternoon.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

> unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary


It's not for you to deem what is necessary


> like it or not, some cyclists do take the mickey.


Of course they don't. But some drivers certainly need a bit of extra training!


----------



## Wuffles (8 May 2016)

Jacob":3j54ygvi said:


> > unless they are taking up more room than I deem necessary
> 
> 
> It's not for you to deem what is necessary
> ...



Ah, I get it now.


----------



## RogerP (8 May 2016)

Jacob":3f25iwiy said:


> Races as such are illegal. Time trials are legal (but permission has to be obtained) but they set off at minute intervals and are not allowed to tail each other, even less to form a peloton.
> What you saw (if you saw anything at all) would be a touring group - possibly a CTC club ride or an Audax event.


Races on UK roads can be legal if properly authorised and usually with a rolling road closure arrangement supervised by the police. The Tour de Yorkshire is a good example.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

Interestingly it was lobbying from cyclists more than anything which induced local authorities to improve roads and road surfaces. Cycling was a prime mode of transport for a long time, before the infernal combustion engine came along. It still is primo in various parts of the world including Europe.


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

[/quote]Total nonsense. We stop regularly to let vehicles past. There is a problem however - particularly on hilly or busy roads, in that if you stop to let people past you may not easily get going again - so you just have to slog on until there is enough room for them to pass. Most drivers understand this. HGV are the best - you hear air brakes huffing and puffing behind you but they always wait and give you a wide berth.[/quote]

When i took my daughter to pre school last week, i go down a single track lane for 2 miles. An old man cycling slowly made me follow him the entire way. I meet people on horses often who will move over when safe. 

You make a sweeping statement to say cyclists are always victims. I don't think most contributers on here are cyclist haters.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

Logger":5nfnd5qk said:


> ... An old man cycling slowly made me follow him the entire way.


 If the road was busy or hilly he could end up getting on and off dozens of times and blocking the road even more. It can be a bit of a problem. Or he might have been deaf! Anyway it's good for people to drive really slowly.


----------



## NazNomad (8 May 2016)

Awww, leave 'em be. After all, they pay the same road tax and insurance as the rest of us road users. ;-)


----------



## stuartpaul (8 May 2016)

I have decided that from this point onwards when someone is talking out of their rear waste disposal orifice they shall be deemed to be 'talking Jacobs'. 

Just about sums it up!


----------



## bugbear (8 May 2016)

"Club rides" (groups of keen cyclists out training) often look a lot like a race; they're a large group of cyclist going rather fast; and may very well be 4 (or more) abreast.

If they're going fast enough they tend to form into single file - for aerodynamic reasons, not for the convenience of motorists!

If Jacob has never seen this, perhaps he hasn't been as much of a cyclist as he claims.

He does make a lot of claims.

BugBear


----------



## Max Power (8 May 2016)

Never argue with a fool , they will always drag you down to their level and beat you with experience :roll:


----------



## Logger (8 May 2016)

As my wife says "You can't argue with stupid" 

Nick


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 May 2016)

LancsRick":tk6yx4cn said:


> phil.p":tk6yx4cn said:
> 
> 
> > LancsRick":tk6yx4cn said:
> ...


You din't detect a note of sarcasm there, then?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 May 2016)

Jacob":b74smrgk said:


> I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.


Bummer around here - the trains don't exist and the buses are held up by cyclists.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

NazNomad":3bysuadv said:


> Awww, leave 'em be. After all, they pay the same road tax and insurance as the rest of us road users. ;-)


There is no such thing as road tax. 
Roads are paid for by all taxpayers, whether or not they use them.
I think this little misunderstanding leads some drivers to imagine that they are paying for the privilege and are thus have more entitlement.
They are wrong.
The nearest you get to "road tax" in UK is in the occasional toll on road, bridge, ferry etc. Some of these are barred to cyclists. Some are free!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 May 2016)

"HGV are the best - you hear air brakes huffing and puffing behind you but they always wait and give you a wide berth."
That's because they end up in court at the drop of hat. Guilty until proven innocent.

You don't pay "road tax"? You don't pay it unless you have a vehicle on the road that liable to "vehicle excise duty".
A duty is a tax. It's mere pedantry to call it any other.


----------



## Jacob (8 May 2016)

phil.p":2bmdrdi5 said:


> "HGV are the best - you hear air brakes huffing and puffing behind you but they always wait and give you a wide berth."
> That's because they end up in court at the drop of hat. Guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> You don't pay "road tax"? You don't pay it unless you have a vehicle on the road that liable to "vehicle excise duty".
> A duty is a tax. It's mere pedantry to call it any other.


You aren't taxed for using the road. You are taxed for using certain vehicles on the road. Hence it's called "vehicle tax". To call it "road tax" is simply to misunderstand it. 
Pedestrians aren't taxed but they can use the roads and the pavements too! It's not fair!


----------



## BearTricks (8 May 2016)

To be completely honest, the only thing that annoys me about cyclists is when I see a grown man or woman using the pavement instead of the road. That's actually illegal in most cases, instead of just being a pain in the buttocks, even when children do it. 

I can understand why a child could be forgiven for not riding on the road, considering they likely aren't aware of the highway code, probably want to avoid the ire of adult drivers and are harder to spot but an adult riding on the pavement comes off as a specific type of laziness that really annoys me.

Otherwise I've never had much of a problem with cyclists unless they personally have a bit of an attitude problem. That's usually an issue with the individual rather than a symptom of riding a bike.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 May 2016)

The highway code is quite clear - 

"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

I question the sanity of cyclists who ignore this or the other worthy advice contained therein. A small "tickle" through carelessness or impatience of either driver or cyclist will leave a car with a £50 bill from "Dents Away" (or similar), and the cyclist with potentially life changing or life ending injuries.

Motorists and cyclists need to show more tolerance and consideration ..... and cyclists deploy a bit more common sense and ride defensively.

Just my thoughts

Terry


----------



## Eric The Viking (9 May 2016)

As a cyclist, and motorcyclist, and car driver, I have long thought the first two should be compulsory steps towards getting a car license.

I passed my bike test in my late forties, having given up previously in my early twenties. It taught me a huge amount about road safety, and the feeling of vulnerability I'm sure has made me a far better car driver.

That said, I too find cyclists round 'ere infuriating sometimes. Wuffles, do you ever drive up Cheddar Gorge? If so, you'll know what I mean...


----------



## monkeybiter (9 May 2016)

The point is; cyclists, motorcyclists AND car drivers are not all the same and are 'amazingly' as different as the rest of the genpop. Some are considerate and will yield, there are others who are ignorant [choose your meaning] and will obstruct, and of course there are others still, who know exactly what's going on but choose to belligerently disrupt all but the the blindly faithful Luddites. I added the plural.

There are good'uns and bad'uns in all camps, it doesn't make any camp inherently right, but neither does it make any bad'uns good just because of the camp they choose.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

monkeybiter":2h6144yh said:


> ......
> There are good'uns and bad'uns in all camps, it doesn't make any camp inherently right, but neither does it make any bad'uns good just because of the camp they choose.


Exactly.
But cyclists do have to ride "defensively" for safety's sake, and this is what annoys some drivers. 
This means being well out from the kerb and _not_ necessarily edging in to let people pass, as this is where you get pinched or wobbled off. 
In traffic lanes such as approaching a junction you _have_ to stay centre of your chosen lane, otherwise you find yourself being passed on both sides with little room to wobble. This is where most cyclists get killed.
Passing parked cars you have to stay a doors width out or sooner or later one will suddenly open in front of you.
Cyclists _have_ to wobble - this is how bikes stay up. The slower you go the wider the wobble; bikes can't be ridden in a straight line, or close to a kerb.


----------



## NazNomad (9 May 2016)

Jacob":1c81qwwv said:


> NazNomad":1c81qwwv said:
> 
> 
> > Awww, leave 'em be. After all, they pay the same road tax and insurance as the rest of us road users. ;-)
> ...




Did you see the 'wink' at the end of my post? I was completely kidding. :roll:

What would your reply have been if I had sarcastically said that cyclists pay the same Vehicle Excise Duty as car users?


----------



## Rhossydd (9 May 2016)

Jacob":toldtlyr said:


> But cyclists do have to ride "defensively" for safety's sake, and this is what annoys some drivers.


Riding four abreast is not 'defensive', it's just plain WRONG.
There are bad cyclists in the same way there are bad car drivers, motorcyclist and pedestrians. You do cycling a dis-service by trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Rhossydd":1vyr5eix said:


> Jacob":1vyr5eix said:
> 
> 
> > But cyclists do have to ride "defensively" for safety's sake, and this is what annoys some drivers.
> ...


I'm not defending 4 abreast riding. This would be just about impossible anyway on normal roads and hence extremely rare.
I _am_ defending the rights of cyclists to use the roads - which may include "defensive" or "assertive" riding, which some drivers object to.


----------



## NazNomad (9 May 2016)

Jacob":glawufvo said:


> There is no such thing as road tax.



Do you wear those same blinkers when you're cycling 4 abreast? :-D :-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax


----------



## LancsRick (9 May 2016)

phil.p":2jg0o3w1 said:


> ]
> You din't detect a note of sarcasm there, then?



Ah. No. Well played, you got me.

(Git)


----------



## DiscoStu (9 May 2016)

Cyclist shouldn't be riding 4 a breast and hogging the road, drivers shouldn't be cutting them up and not giving them space. I see plenty of decent cycling on a daily basis and plenty of decent driving however like all things it's the odd cyclist that gives them a bad name and the same with drivers. 

Oddly a friend of mine posted a video on Facebook yesterday. It was entitled "another silly person on the road". Knowing he is a keen cyclist I was expecting to see a video from his helmet camera of a car cutting him up etc. Actually what it showed was a car sat at red lights. He pulled up to the red lights and stopped. The lights must have been red for 20 seconds or so (a decent long time) when another cyclist came between him and the car and straight through the lights that they were both waiting at. He didn't even cross with caution just flew through! What an silly person!


Oh and two things that do wind me up - cyclists with no lights at night and some who seem to have bought some new super powered lights that seem a lot brighter than a cars headlight on full beam. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bugbear (9 May 2016)

http://bostonwheelerscc.org.uk/club-runs.htm

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

bugbear":1774d9ow said:


> http://bostonwheelerscc.org.uk/club-runs.htm
> 
> BugBear


Nice empty wide road plenty of room - but narrow lanes.
NB they are doing the proper thing with respect to the lanes. They are obviously not taking the slip road so they are hogging the lane and moveing clear of the slip. This is assertive riding. Worst thing would be to ride along the line markings and risk being overtaken on both sides simultaneously. Next worst would be to keep to the inside of the slip and then try to move out of it at the last minute. No doubt some drivers would find this all annoying.

Just been for my morning belt. Had to thread (safely and legitimately) through a gap between traffic jams (lotsa bin men about). Surprised not to hear a toot, shout, fist through open window, beer can lobbed out, spit, etc. These are all quite common hazards.

We've got nothing against drivers - most of us are drivers, but some of them are tedious berks.

I agree about cyclists with no lights. They don't realise how invisible they are. Ditto pedestrians on dark nights with no pavements. We always wear bright yellow if viz is an issue.


----------



## Wuffles (9 May 2016)

Jacob":1c8fzkfi said:


> bugbear":1c8fzkfi said:
> 
> 
> > http://bostonwheelerscc.org.uk/club-runs.htm
> ...



Just going to cherry pick your post like you did mine, sure you won't mind.

"obviously" "annoying" "tedious berk"


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Wuffles":34dvli7z said:


> ...
> ....
> "obviously" "annoying" "tedious berk"


I'm sure you are not - don't be so self deprecating!

What cherry picking? I quoted all your post I thought? Maybe I missed the point.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 May 2016)

"I agree about cyclists with no lights. They don't realise how invisible they are. Ditto pedestrians on dark nights with no pavements. We always wear bright yellow if viz is an issue."
I agree on that one. My 1900cc Yamaha, 8'5" long, loads of chrome, reflectors, headlight and me in reflective jacket and reflectors on the helmet together weighing over half a tonne was invisible to many car drivers and cyclists.


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

stuartpaul":cc9rutpd said:


> Jacob":cc9rutpd said:
> 
> 
> > I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.
> ...





Jacob":cc9rutpd said:


> I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.



And so, just because you have never seen this happen, anyone else who has seen them is a liar in your book, Jacob. Getting to be a bit of a habit this, Jacob. Your arrogance is breathtaking.


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

nev":1tsujmq8 said:


> Jacob":1tsujmq8 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuffles":1tsujmq8 said:
> ...



=D>  Well said, Nev. 

And as others have said, tractors are generally very courteous and will move out of the way to let traffic past whenever they can. That's what 'sharing' the road is all about. Something that many cyclists are oblivious to.


----------



## Mark A (9 May 2016)

While working outside my house yesterday I saw two cyclists ride past extra slowly and chatting. Behind them were four cars, two vans and a 7.5 tonner.

Chatting!






Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

Picking up on the discussion regarding vehicle excise duty. As has been correctly stated, the money raised from VED goes into a common pot. Of course, it's not just VED that motorists stump up. Fuel excise duty and VAT on fuel is yet another charge and these too go into the common pot. As does many taxes. Some of the money from this pot goes towards roads and infrastructure. 

From which cyclists benefit. Therefore it is only reasonable that, since cyclists benefit, that they too should make some contribution into the common pot.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

RogerS":3h6mdh30 said:


> ...
> From which cyclists benefit. Therefore it is only reasonable that, since cyclists benefit, that they too should make some contribution into the common pot.


They pay taxes too. Most of them also drive. I think they should get a discount off their car tax.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Mark A":3j5pyn52 said:


> While working outside my house yesterday I saw two cyclists ride past extra slowly and chatting. Behind them were four cars, two vans and a 7.5 tonner.
> 
> Chatting!...


Chatting! That's terrible - what kind of R soles are they? :shock:


----------



## Eric The Viking (9 May 2016)

phil.p":hngp9xyg said:


> "I agree about cyclists with no lights. They don't realise how invisible they are. Ditto pedestrians on dark nights with no pavements. We always wear bright yellow if viz is an issue."
> I agree on that one. My 1900cc Yamaha, 8'5" long, loads of chrome, reflectors, headlight and me in reflective jacket and reflectors on the helmet together weighing over half a tonne was invisible to many car drivers and cyclists.



The trouble is that many DO see you but ignore you. I have a BMW R80: tourer like this:





Even with the headlight on and a high-viz vest people would ignore me... but...
... I used to ride into work with a friend who owned one of these:




Norton Interpol 2 (Wankel engine)

The bike was bought directly from the Avon & Somerset police (who had a fleet of seven, operating from their old Avon St. garage). The owner, John, used to volunteer for the Blood Transfusion Service, so legitimately had the stripes, blue lights and siren fitted, although he was only allowed to use blues+twos on official blood runs (he replaced the "Police STOP" sign at the back and the radio telephone for bike shows, too). He also had Belstaffs, a fluorescent tabard and a white helmet.

On the ring road on the North side of Bristol, it was like riding behind Moses - the waves just parted! The only trouble was that the thing had fantastic low-end torque, and even when he was "pootling" I got left way behind at the lights...

... happy days. But the point was that people did see him in their mirrors and react, when they apparently didn't see me on my own.

I think it's the same with bicycles - car drivers "tune them out". If they were forced to use a bicycle, at least for a while, that wouldn't happen half as much. And cyclists, driven by the need to pass a test, would probably be better behaved too.

E.


----------



## NazNomad (9 May 2016)

Whenever I see a MAMIL... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 May 2016)

Jacob":ktceo1zk said:


> Mark A":ktceo1zk said:
> 
> 
> > While working outside my house yesterday I saw two cyclists ride past extra slowly and chatting. Behind them were four cars, two vans and a 7.5 tonner.
> ...


Total ones.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 May 2016)

Everyone on the road should pass a CBT - that would open people's eyes. Eric - I had a R100RT til 1983 when I braked hard and the front wheel flew into scores of pieces.


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

Jacob":2s8diuz3 said:


> RogerS":2s8diuz3 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Missing the point again. Yes, they pay taxes too. So do I. So do you (possibly). It all goes into the common pot....common..as in benefit for all (something which I thought you would have approved of). So ....no reason at all why cyclists shouldn't also contribute towards the common pot. It's all for the common good.


----------



## Eric The Viking (9 May 2016)

phil.p":2ifpqz90 said:


> Everyone on the road should pass a CBT - that would open people's eyes. Eric - I had a R100RT til 1983 when I braked hard and the front wheel flew into scores of pieces.



Mine is the single disc model -- was ist "braking hard"? :shock: 

And anyway it needs notice in writing for speeds over 69.5 MPH. 
But it will go all day at 68.



E.

PS: Love it to bits but it's really too big and heavy for me now and needs rather a lot of TLC - big, sad decision in the pipeline, I fear.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":1vehr47s said:


> .....
> On the ring road on the North side of Bristol, it was like riding behind Moses - the waves just parted! .....


Similar if you wear bright yellow top on a push bike. It feels immediately safer, people slow down, give you wider berth etc. It's because they are on autopilot and bright yellow means police, ambulance, road workers etc. Bright red means nothing and doesn't work so well.


----------



## John Brown (9 May 2016)

Jacob":2pjsajzg said:


> RogerS":2pjsajzg said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I agree with Jacob on this point. I would wager that nearly all of the so-called "Middle aged men in Lycra" have cars as well, so even if "Road Tax" WAS ring-fenced for spending on the roads, the argument wouldn't hold water.
The young mother with the clhild seat might not have a car, hence the bike, but the cyclists everyone moans about generally have cars. How do you suppose they transport their bikes without a car?

If you ride a bike occasionally, you will probably come to the realization that a lot of road users, bike and cars, are totally inconsiderate of others - motorists who can't be bothered to indicate(most SUV drivers, in my experience), for example, can make life difficult for cyclists. And vice-versa.

What Zilch-Wedlock me off, as a car owner who also cycles, are pedestrians who jump out in front of my bike at zebra crossings, causing me to convert my kinetic energy into heat. They are inconsiderate b*astards.


----------



## DiscoStu (9 May 2016)

The overwhelming issue is that slow things and fast things do not mix. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bugbear (9 May 2016)

DiscoStu":18jwqt2y said:


> The overwhelming issue is that slow things and fast things do not mix.



Indeed. I'm sure Porsche drivers hate Landrovers. :wink: 

BugBear (deliberately misunderstanding for comic effect)


----------



## gwaithcoed (9 May 2016)

My wife and I have just bought this to help us keep fit. I'm 79 and she is 77. Will all the folk that hate cyclists and maybe thinking of coming to North Wales please could you give me a warning as to when you will arrive and we will keep out of your way.    

Alan. :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## Eric The Viking (9 May 2016)

bugbear":5wkx7vzj said:


> DiscoStu":5wkx7vzj said:
> 
> 
> > The overwhelming issue is that slow things and fast things do not mix.
> ...



Ha, but not t'other way around. They make a very satisfying "crunch" sound...

... sorry, forgot for a second: I'm an ex-Landrover owner, sadly.

:-(

E.


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

John Brown":1w7mvjc6 said:


> Jacob":1w7mvjc6 said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":1w7mvjc6 said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if cyclists have cars or don't. The fact is that they benefit from that common pot. So it is not unreasonable for them to make a contribution like everyone else does.

I have absolutely no idea as to the relevance of a woman with a child seat 'might not have a car'. Where does she put it then? On her back ?



John Brown":1w7mvjc6 said:


> What waters me off, as a car owner who also cycles, are pedestrians who jump out in front of my bike at zebra crossings, causing me to convert my kinetic energy into heat. They are inconsiderate b*astards.



As a pedestrian I'd say it depended on the circumstances, how much time did they give you to brake, was there a continuous stream of traffic etc.


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":1wa9nb4b said:


> bugbear":1wa9nb4b said:
> 
> 
> > DiscoStu":1wa9nb4b said:
> ...



You just reminded me of a delightful phrase made by Ian Banks (sadly missed) who when asked if his Land Rover had crumple zones, replied 'Yes, other people's cars' :lol:


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

It's interesting to see how this thread has got hijacked.

Back to the original point, I think that there is consensus that a peloton riding four abreast is out-of-order.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

RogerS":2t522mv0 said:


> It's interesting to see how this thread has got hijacked.
> 
> Back to the original point, I think that there is consensus that a peloton riding four abreast is out-of-order.


You are quite right. 
That is why you will rarely if ever see cyclists 4 abreast. It's not even practical as a way of getting a peloton going.
Similarly it's out of order to do a host of other things which also rarely happen - but it'd be tedious if every uninteresting incident was reported on a woodwork chat group; "bus delayed by ducks in the road" and that sort of thing. :roll:


----------



## bugbear (9 May 2016)

Jacob":1nc5ovvw said:


> RogerS":1nc5ovvw said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to see how this thread has got hijacked.
> ...



So why did Roger see them doing it?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Dunno. 
They may have been doing a sensible manoeuvre such as the chaps in your video link. 
They may have set out to have a laugh by annoying the red faced old geezer following them!
Most likely Roger is exaggerating. 10 miles four abreast sounds very improbable to me - I bet it was half a mile three abreast.
These things happen (rarely). An anti-cycling enthusiast would take it as significant, but it isn't.
I see car drivers doing stupid things regularly but I'm not going to waste your time posting them up on here and getting hot under the collar!


----------



## John Brown (9 May 2016)

"I have absolutely no idea as to the relevance of a woman with a child seat 'might not have a car'. Where does she put it then? On her back ?"
No. On the back of her bicycle, obviously. Are you also purposely misunderstanding for comic effect? 

John Brown wrote:
What waters me off, as a car owner who also cycles, are pedestrians who jump out in front of my bike at zebra crossings, causing me to convert my kinetic energy into heat. They are inconsiderate b*astards.


As a pedestrian I'd say it depended on the circumstances, how much time did they give you to brake, was there a continuous stream of traffic etc.

Yes, of course it does, but in the absence of other traffic I believe it is inconsiderate of a single pedestrian to force a cyclist to stop on a zebra crossing, and I don't really see how any sane person could calmly argue that point.


----------



## mind_the_goat (9 May 2016)

I think in general, people hate cyclists the same way they hate White Van drivers, buses, caravans, little old ladies, artics overtaking, Audi drivers, horses etc., It's annoying when you are stuck behind a stupid one, but few people are really going to get violent over it. Why can't someone vent their frustration about it without being attacked for doing so? Better here than on the road.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

John Brown":33yqhpn2 said:


> ...., but in the absence of other traffic I believe it is inconsiderate of a single pedestrian to force a cyclist to stop on a zebra crossing, and I don't really see how any sane person could calmly argue that point.


It's the law - pedestrian has right of way and is entitled to expect you to stop. If stopping is a problem then you are going to fast.
People often under-estimate the speed of approaching bikes (pedal or motor) and sometimes hardly notice them, which is something a biker needs to be aware of all the time - he/she is sometimes invisible! Which is also why we have zebra crossings - it takes out the element of chance.
So basically you should stop, unless they wave you through - which does happen sometimes.


----------



## Logger (9 May 2016)

Jacob":2n5kgjbb said:


> Dunno.
> Most likely Roger is exaggerating. 10 miles four abreast sounds very improbable to me - I bet it was half a mile three abreast.!



So back to people who report these things are liars again Jacob. Brilliant


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

Logger":3qcnfbxb said:


> Jacob":3qcnfbxb said:
> 
> 
> > Dunno.
> ...


The word I used was "exaggerating". If you look carefully you will see it is spelt differently. Also it has a quite different meaning from lying. If you aren't sure of the difference look them up in a dictionary.


----------



## custard (9 May 2016)

Here in the New Forest the hostility between cyclists and other road/forest users seems to be escalating. The local paper regularly reports confrontations between horse riders and off-road cyclists, a cycle road race through the forest was cancelled last year when the show ground hosting the event suddenly called it off citing pressure from locals, and during the same event the previous year cyclists reported tacks had been thrown on the road and road signs removed.

I can't speak for the bridle paths but the serious cyclists I meet on the road are generally pretty well behaved. If there's a problem it's not "lycra louts" but the local tourist board selling the forest as a cycling mecca, which prompts inexperienced family cyclists to take the train to the main New Forest station, hire bikes, and head out on narrow but busy roads, often with young children struggling to keep up. The road by the station is often crowded with large boats on trailers hurrying down to the coast, they'll often be in a rush to catch a tide and will overtake cyclists at 50 or 60mph just before blind bends, my heart's in my mouth when I see the close shaves.


----------



## John Brown (9 May 2016)

Jacob":1rsu3e09 said:


> John Brown":1rsu3e09 said:
> 
> 
> > ...., but in the absence of other traffic I believe it is inconsiderate of a single pedestrian to force a cyclist to stop on a zebra crossing, and I don't really see how any sane person could calmly argue that point.
> ...



Yes, I understand that it's the law, and I'm not suggesting that I'm travelling too fast to stop(I barely get up to jogging speed these days), but, when I'm being a pedestrian, I make a point of not making cyclists stop as I know that a certain effort has been expended to get up to speed. It's all part of being considerate of other road users.
Being perfect in every way makes it hard for me to understand the behaviour of lesser mortals.

Although I may be guilty of attributing to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or just lack of awareness.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

John Brown":2lp70rrg said:


> ....
> Although I may be guilty of attributing to malice that which can be explained by stupidity or just lack of awareness.


Yes very probably! 
Basically I'd stop unless waved through - you never know they may be partially sighted, pineappled or completely deranged, with just enough brain power left to realise that a zebra crossing is a safe option (supposedly :roll: ).


----------



## Bm101 (9 May 2016)

Consideration for others. Acceptance that the world is peopled by fools. Now there's a novel idea. 
It's not about bikes or motorbikes or cars or lorries or even the pedestrian. 
Its about realising the difference between a Darwin Award Nominee and the one who wants a standing ovation and everyone to come with them on stage.


----------



## MIGNAL (9 May 2016)

As the only non car driver/cyclist/motorcyclist/tractor driver in this entire thread (I'm just a mere pedestrian) I must say that I'm absolutely pssed off with seeing car drivers talking on mobile phones. 
Yet to see a cyclist, motor cyclist or even a tractor driver do it but I live in hope!


----------



## John Brown (9 May 2016)

MIGNAL":36b55kmk said:


> As the only non car driver/cyclist/motorcyclist/tractor driver in this entire thread (I'm just a mere pedestrian) I must say that I'm absolutely pssed off with seeing car drivers talking on mobile phones.
> Yet to see a cyclist, motor cyclist or even a tractor driver do it but I live in hope!


I've seen a lot of cyclists talking on mobile phones, and texting as well. Teenage boys mainly. To be totally honest, if there'd been such things as mobile phones when I were a lad, I'd have been doing the same. Not that that makes it right..


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

Logger":2ppjb43c said:


> Jacob":2ppjb43c said:
> 
> 
> > Dunno.
> ...



Many thanks, Logger. 

He does have form. Wasn't it only last week that he called Eric The Viking a liar ? Now me.

Time to lock the thread, methinks.


----------



## Jacob (9 May 2016)

There's a big difference between lying and exaggerating. You should look it up in a dictionary.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (9 May 2016)

Will you two wind your necks in please! My Goodness the pair of you are like flippin' teenagers. I'd rather not lock the thread, much prefer if you both grew up and gave it a rest.


----------



## otter (9 May 2016)

Just pull in front with your motorbike and stop. :mrgreen:

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


----------



## RogerS (9 May 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3lw7azk5 said:


> Will you two wind your necks in please! My Goodness the pair of you are like flippin' teenagers. I'd rather not lock the thread, much prefer if you both grew up and gave it a rest.



I'm out of here.


----------



## defsdoor (9 May 2016)

Riding four abreast in some cases can actually help cars to pass.

Technically, to pass a cyclist, you should do so exactly the same as you would pass a car. You have to perform a safe overtaking manoeuvre and you should not expect the cyclist to somehow get out of your way. After all - why should you dictate the speed that others should be travelling at ? Do you get out of the way of that 220mph Ferrari behind you ? Cyclists are not required to ride on the left hand side of the road (in some cases it is even dangerous to do so) and assertive riding (holding the lane) is often the best way to ensure safety (for example some idiots love to pass cyclists and then turn left into them - somehow expecting the cyclist to know they are doing this and give way.)

Road priority is generally on a first come first served basis unless the road signs/marking dictate otherwise. If you are behind a cyclist and cannot pass it you have no choice but to suck it up and wait. The cyclist has no reason or responsibility to get out of your way (do you expect slow people on stair cases to get out of your self-important way ? )

However, on single carriage roads, a long line of single file cyclists is almost impossible to pass because there are no gaps for you to safely filter back in to when passing. A group of cyclists could be passed in one overtaking move if they are tightly bunched.

Of course, these could have just been inconsiderate people. This doesn't mean all cyclists are inconsiderate and generalising about such things doesn't help anyone.

I went out for a proper ride on my bike the other week (2nd time in 3 years!) and, because of road works and the resulting opposing queue of traffic, it was impossible for cars to safely pass me. I'm doing, maybe, 15mph and a 4x4 half truck is behind me unable to pass - the lane is barely wide enough for his tank in the first place. After 20-30 seconds he decides his desire to get to the next set of traffic lights is more important than my life and passes me with no room for me whatsoever, whilst f'ing and blinding at me through the window. I ended up in the hedgerow. I could have easily ended up under his wheels.

I cycle with my daughter (now 7) to her school in the mornings (500yds at most). It's on the road we live on. It's a residential road with a normal 30 limit (residents have been petitioning for it to be a 20 for years as there is a school on it). Cars come down here at ridiculous speeds. Some pass me and my daughter (riding two abreast for her safety) whilst we are passing parked cars and there are cars coming in the opposite direction. Should we be stopping to let cars pass constantly ? Or should people just learn to respect other people's right to exist and chill out a little ? I guarantee that you will be waiting behind the car ahead at the next junction regardless of your urgency.

I have no problem sitting behind cyclists when I am driving. Generally I'm wishing I was riding with them. At worst, if I am delayed a couple of minutes, who cares ? I'm not driving an ambulance on an emergency or anything, you know, important.

People seem to be in a desperate rush to get to their graves. Relax and admire the view (especially if that's the Ladies Cycling club ahead of you  )


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 May 2016)

"... for example some idiots love to pass cyclists and then turn left into them..."
The favourite where I live is for the cyclist to overtake you coming into traffic lights then turn left across you. I've come close to wiping out a few.


----------



## Finial (9 May 2016)

The Highway Code speaks against riding four abreast. I've never seen it happen on open roads. Come to that, I've never been held up by a bike for more than a minute. No doubt it sometimes happens in other places or at other times.

But I've often been delayed, sometimes for hours, by a driver who ignored the Code, crashed their car and blocked the road. When cycling in London, I'm often held up by people driving two abreast, or driving close to the kerb, which is enough to block the lane. Just about every single time I am approaching lights, drivers will overtake simply to cut in and join the queue in front of me. Many roads are reduced to a single lane for two way traffic, causing huge cumulative time loss, by drivers who see nothing wrong with parking on the highway. When I'm cycling on roads where there is no room to overtake, I find that many motorists don't have enough patience to wait even a few seconds for a passing place before starting to rant and blow their horn. I also notice that many cars are now almost the size of small lorries, so of course find passing anything difficult. And that the seats next to their drivers are normally empty.

And yet I read here that cycling is the problem. An interesting thread.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2016)

defsdoor":2r39ekqw said:


> ....
> 
> I cycle with my daughter (now 7) to her school in the mornings (500yds at most). It's on the road we live on. It's a residential road with a normal 30 limit (residents have been petitioning for it to be a 20 for years as there is a school on it). Cars come down here at ridiculous speeds. Some pass me and my daughter (riding two abreast for her safety) ....


I cycle with children (and grandchildren :shock: ). I tend to place myself behind and well out from the kerb as a sort of shield - deterring people from passing us too closely. And wear bright yellow top.

defsdoor's comments make sense - it may be easier to pass a pack of cyclist together rather than passing them one by one in a line. Re overtaking by tank - this is where assertive riding helps - stick to the middle of the lane so there is no chance of being overtaken. Big4x4s do tend to make their drivers angry - they feel like kings of the road but in fact have poor visibility particularly on the near side and have a problem negotiating tight spaces.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

"The Highway Code speaks against riding four abreast. I've never seen it happen on open roads."
On one B road near me leading to the beach you wouldn't go a day without seeing it. It's their holiday, you see. They glower at you if you pass, they glower at you if you follow. They glower at you because it is their road - they're on holiday so everyone else can go to hell.


----------



## AJB Temple (10 May 2016)

Well, this has been an amusing thread. A lot of the time I commute into London from deepest Kent. Usually on a motorbike. You see extreme cyclist behaviour such as texting, drinking coffee, sticking arm out and turning right without looking, going over red lights, passing bollards on the wrong side etc...routinely. I see quite a lot of dimwit driving too. It's all part of the rich tapestry of life. Cyclists do scare me when they go up the inside of lorries or buses, but what the hell, it's their life. I actually prefer cyclists to jump red lights - at least they are out of my way then!

Until quite recently as a charitable thing I used to do a fair bit of examining for advanced motorcycle tests. This was mostly in Surrey, often around the Box Hill and Shere area, which is cycling central. There are lots of country lanes, mostly with a national limit, and loads of hairpin bends on steep hills. More than once I have seen collisions between cyclists and cars as the cyclists, a bit out of control on descents, try to straighten corners and are unavoidably in the path of oncoming traffic. Can be quite nasty and a couple of times I have seen the cycling groups blame entirely innocent car drivers, without, quite literally, having a leg to stand on. I think it is pretty dangerous riding a bike these days and we need to cut them a little bit of slack. The Boris bike riders are often the worst in London - not used to cycling, inattentive, and puffed out. 

I disagree with Jacob completely about big 4X4s. I have a Q7 as our workhorse (prior to that an X5 and prior to that a Range Rover) and none of them have had poor visibility on the near side. On the contrary, my experience when comparing our cars (we are politically and ecologically incorrect and have some) is that the 4X4 has better visibility as you are high up, have a panoramic view all round and big mirrors. The current cars also have blind spot alert systems and lane deviation warnings, and one of them has a pedestrian collision avoidance system that stops the car if you don't, so safety is actually pretty good these days. I can confirm too that driving a 4X4 does not invoke in me a feeling of Kingship or indeed any kind of lordly lineage. My republican sentiments remain strangely intact and I cruise along in serene comfort (usually on my way to the tip).


----------



## Droogs (10 May 2016)

Perhaps the answer is either:
everyone must spend 2 years using a bicycle on the roads and then 2 years using a motorbike and only then can they start the process to gain a full licence for motor vehicles. That way every road user will know what it's like for each road user and may increase civility and awareness.

or we all become special constables and arrest each other


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

Surprising, really. Neither drivers nor cyclists could see my baby.


----------



## bugbear (10 May 2016)

phil.p":dtsjjrgl said:


> Surprising, really. Neither drivers nor cyclists could see my baby.



That car is missing two of its wheels!

BugBear


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

_On one B road near me leading to the beach you wouldn't go a day without seeing it._

I never use that road. Driving in town and in the country, it's always cars that hold me up, never bikes. Long lines of them, impossible to pass, many on journeys that could perfectly well be made in other ways.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

Pass them on the inside. That's what cyclists normally do. Be careful of the little blinking orange light on the left hand side, though. It means you might get run over doing it.


----------



## Racers (10 May 2016)

You need one of these bright green and a race pipe.



Kawasaki ZXR750j by Racers, on Flickr

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

:lol: I doubt that with a race pipe was much louder than mine with six foot long straight through shotguns on a 1900cc twin. She barked when I asked her to.


----------



## bugbear (10 May 2016)

phil.p":1bum6vx2 said:


> :lol: I doubt that with a race pipe was much louder than mine with six foot long straight through shotguns on a 1900cc twin. She barked when I asked her to.



And my dad's bigger than your dad!  

BugBear


----------



## Racers (10 May 2016)

Screaming is more effective than barking. :wink:  

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

Not when you want make someone jump out of their seat.


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

phil.p":3f7hf7f0 said:


> Pass them on the inside. That's what cyclists normally do. Be careful of the little blinking orange light on the left hand side, though. It means you might get run over doing it.



Yes, always risky if the traffic is moving, particularly as many drivers think indicating gives them the right to turn and aren't normally very good at using their mirrors. You aren't victim-blaming are you Phil? You do know that one of the commonest accidents involving bikes is when a driver half overtakes a bike and turns into it?

It seems to be increasingly common now for drivers to overtake queues on the inside. On the pavement.


----------



## whiskywill (10 May 2016)

Just last week I was at a traffic light controlled T junction waiting to turn right. My light turned to green, all others were on red. As I pulled out a cyclist came from the left, ignoring the red light and on the wrong side of the keep left bollard, and rode diagonally across my path to turn right. Only my quick reaction prevented him getting a full side on shunt. 
Sometimes I wish my reaction time was a bit slower.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2016)

Finial":1td4km05 said:


> phil.p":1td4km05 said:
> 
> 
> > Pass them on the inside. That's what cyclists normally do. Be careful of the little blinking orange light on the left hand side, though. It means you might get run over doing it.
> ...


Safest for cyclists at junctions is to stay in the middle of the lane so nobody can squeeze past or turn across.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

" You do know that one of the commonest accidents involving bikes is when a driver half overtakes a bike and turns into it?"
I've always struggled to see this. If the driver has overtaken, he has seen the bike so therefore has deliberately run him down. When the cyclist gets run over, the driver hasn't seen the bike - there fore it would appear quite often that the bike (being sideswiped so to speak) got there last, in which case the cyclist is an silly person passing a truck on the inside coming up to a left hand junction. I'm not "victim blaming" - I object to the lorry driver, who is trained and tested automatically being presumed to be in the wrong when the cyclist often totally untrained and who might never have seen a main road is automatically a totally innocent squeaky clean saviour of the universe. You do appear to be virtue signalling, though.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 May 2016)

whiskywill":f9iw4y47 said:


> Just last week I was at a traffic light controlled T junction waiting to turn right. My light turned to green, all others were on red. As I pulled out a cyclist came from the left, ignoring the red light and on the wrong side of the keep left bollard, and rode diagonally across my path to turn right. Only my quick reaction prevented him getting a full side on shunt.
> Sometimes I wish my reaction time was a bit slower.


I had my mirror smashed while sitting at a red light waiting to turn right. The cyclist took exception to my being in his way ... which I was, but only because he shot the red light to get there. Pitty I didn't realise he was going to smash the mirror - I'd have flung the door open and done it in style.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2016)

phil.p":8o8kgrcb said:


> " You do know that one of the commonest accidents involving bikes is when a driver half overtakes a bike and turns into it?"
> I've always struggled to see this. If the driver has overtaken, he has seen the bike so therefore has deliberately run him down. When the cyclist gets run over, the driver hasn't seen the bike - there fore it would appear quite often that the bike (being sideswiped so to speak) got there last, in which case the cyclist is an silly person passing a truck on the inside coming up to a left hand junction. I'm not "victim blaming" - I object to the lorry driver, who is trained and tested automatically being presumed to be in the wrong when the cyclist often totally untrained and who might never have seen a main road is automatically a totally innocent squeaky clean saviour of the universe. You do appear to virtue signalling, though.


A bit of truth in that. Cyclists should be taught to hog the centre of the lane and certainly shouldn't overtake inside near a junction - unless it's obviously safe - slow traffic, clear views, not stopping next to HGVs or buses etc.


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

phil.p":3ub4fyjb said:


> " You do know that one of the commonest accidents involving bikes is when a driver half overtakes a bike and turns into it?"
> I've always struggled to see this. If the driver has overtaken, he has seen the bike so therefore has deliberately run him down. When the cyclist gets run over, the driver hasn't seen the bike - there fore it would appear quite often that the bike (being sideswiped so to speak) got there last, in which case the cyclist is an silly person passing a truck on the inside coming up to a left hand junction. I'm not "victim blaming" - I object to the lorry driver, who is trained and tested automatically being presumed to be in the wrong when the cyclist often totally untrained and who might never have seen a main road is automatically a totally innocent squeaky clean saviour of the universe. You do appear to virtue signalling, though.



I think you are quite close to victim blaming here. You assume that the rider overtakes on the inside. That does happen, but I can tell you that it is commonplace for a driver to 'left hook' a bike. It's happened to me often. Mostly there is no actual collision, but I've been hurt once so far. To answer Jacob's point, there are many situations where drivers will swing out to pass, then turn. They do the same at width restrictions. I've been hit twice by drivers misjudging an overtake. I suspect one of those was a so-called 'punishment pass', where a hostile driver deliberately passes close. The other was a driver who preferred to risk my safety rather than wait about ten seconds for a passing place. Many, probably most, bike accidents do not involve poor cycling.

I don't think these incidents are usually deliberate. Perhaps the driver is not paying attention, forgets they have just overtaken the bike, fails to see the bike, underestimates its speed or fails to check their mirror. The point is that drivers make mistakes just as people cycling do. Drivers' mistakes are dangerous, bike riders' mistakes usually aren't. I can also assure you that the training and testing that drivers are supposed to go through certainly does not guarantee good driving.

Bikes and motor vehicles don't mix well. That's why we need proper cycle tracks.


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

phil.p":whyixulr said:


> I had my mirror smashed while sitting at a red light waiting to turn right. The cyclist took exception to my being in his way ... which I was, but only because he shot the red light to get there. Pitty I didn't realise he was going to smash the mirror - I'd have flung the door open and done it in style.



I hope I damaged the mirror and paintwork of the car that ran into me when overtaking. The driver failed to stop, so I don't know.


----------



## AJB Temple (10 May 2016)

Interestingly when motorcyclists and police and emergency services are taught advanced riding skills, one of the mantras is to dominate your lane where appropriate, and so as not to inadvertently encourage other road users (oncoming or behind) to squeeze you over. This can be especially so when passing parked cars (for example). Cyclists operating lane dominating methods (except briefly) can exacerbate their danger by winding other road users up. Cyclists have the dual disadvantage of being both relatively slow and more vulnerable and need to be mindful of their own safety. A rider or driver on an advanced test who does not show due safety and courtesy towards cyclists is asking for a test fail. 

I do think we have reached the point here, especially in major cities such as London, where cyclists should have passed some form of proficiency test and carry insurance. My office is in the City and over the years I have seen countless accidents where cyclists passing the wrong side of central islands have hit pedestrians and then ridden off. I can't see that there is a good reason for not having some kind of identifier for cycles. I spent a lot of time living in Holland (my son is at university there now as it happens) and both the attitude and most importantly the infrastructure is different. Our roads are over stretched.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2016)

AJB Temple":24w75wib said:


> ..... Cyclists operating lane dominating methods (except briefly) can exacerbate their danger by winding other road users up. Cyclists have the dual disadvantage of being both relatively slow and more vulnerable and need to be mindful of their own safety. A rider or driver on an advanced test who does not show due safety and courtesy towards cyclists is asking for a test fail......


Dominating the lane is a matter of safety for a cyclist (only as long as necessary of course) and the risks from winding up another driver are much lower than the risk of being caught out near the line between vehicles on both sides, or hitting the kerb on one side. Cyclists have a third disadvantaged in that they have to wobble - too near the kerb and you fall over. A motorbike weaves in the same way but not so obviously.



> Our roads are over stretched.


Under investment and bad planning and detailed road design. Short sighted really - cycling is a good investment in very many ways.


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

AJB Temple":lgit25vo said:


> Interestingly when motorcyclists and police and emergency services are taught advanced riding skills, one of the mantras is to dominate your lane where appropriate, and so as not to inadvertently encourage other road users (oncoming or behind) to squeeze you over. This can be especially so when passing parked cars (for example). Cyclists operating lane dominating methods (except briefly) can exacerbate their danger by winding other road users up. Cyclists have the dual disadvantage of being both relatively slow and more vulnerable and need to be mindful of their own safety. A rider or driver on an advanced test who does not show due safety and courtesy towards cyclists is asking for a test fail.
> 
> I do think we have reached the point here, especially in major cities such as London, where cyclists should have passed some form of proficiency test and carry insurance. My office is in the City and over the years I have seen countless accidents where cyclists passing the wrong side of central islands have hit pedestrians and then ridden off. I can't see that there is a good reason for not having some kind of identifier for cycles. I spent a lot of time living in Holland (my son is at university there now as it happens) and both the attitude and most importantly the infrastructure is different.



If the attitude is different there it's because everyone cycles. Here only a few hardy commuters do. Next to nothing is done for cycling here. We have the kind of cyclist we deserve. I think you are probably right about the danger of aggressive drivers. It takes very little to wind them up.

There are good reasons not to register bikes. For one thing, countries that have tried it have found no advantage. For another, more people cycling would help solve some serious problems in our cities. We need to make cycling easier, not put obstacles in the way. As for insurance, apparently there are more uninsured drivers here than there are bike riders. Insurance doesn't stop accidents. The point we have reached is where we need to build proper infrastructure.


----------



## Finial (10 May 2016)

Jacob":1cu6html said:


> Under investment and bad planning and detailed road design. Short sighted really - cycling is a good investment in very many ways.



And still cycling is ignored when new roads are built. And almost all cycling infrastructure that does get built is rubbish, money frittered away to little or no benefit.


----------



## Jacob (10 May 2016)

Finial":3mzeorum said:


> Jacob":3mzeorum said:
> 
> 
> > Under investment and bad planning and detailed road design. Short sighted really - cycling is a good investment in very many ways.
> ...


One very cheap and highly effective way to improve road conditions in towns is to make some streets into cul de sacs with bollards which bikes could pass. Access only for motors - through routes for bikes

Though it'd probably go horribly wrong

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... the-month/

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2011.htm


----------



## AJB Temple (11 May 2016)

A lot has been done to create cycle routes and superhighways for bicycles in London (at great cost and material disadvantage to traffic flow it must be said). Some of this improves routes for motorcyclists too, as we can also use most bus lanes and cycle lanes are usually not solid white lines. It is hard to blame planners - major cities were largely developed a long time ago and could not have envisaged modern population demands.


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2016)

AJB Temple":234l93k1 said:


> A lot has been done to create cycle routes and superhighways for bicycles in London (at great cost and material disadvantage to traffic flow it must be said).


Cycling _is_ traffic flow. Most of Europe, including in old cities, seems to have recognised this and have much better cycling facilities than UK. It's also quiet, non air polluting, good for health (big benefits in saved NHS spending etc).


> Some of this improves routes for motorcyclists too, as we can also use most bus lanes and cycle lanes are usually not solid white lines. It is hard to blame planners - major cities were largely developed a long time ago and could not have envisaged modern population demands.


Govt and planners lack of foresight then. 
Most big towns have had massive investments in ring roads, by passes - sometimes wrecking attractive old towns. My nearest is Derby - massive areas of new road works and new car parks dominate the town centre. Unfortunately this started happening in the 60s just before the big boom in car ownership and has had to be modified and extended many times at huge expense, with zero spent on cycle facilities until fairly recently. 
There is now quite a good network of cycle routes done very cheaply using back streets, old railway/canal lines, parks, footpaths. This in turn takes bikes off the mega road system and improves traffic flow (and saves lives). 
Bikes are transport of the future; a huge benefit to overcrowded towns and to clean air, reducing carbon footprint etc. Curretnly with better facilities more and more people are taking it up. Also helped by interest in the Tour de Yorkshire etc


----------



## NazNomad (11 May 2016)

Bikers - Boys who like to go out at weekends with their friends on their own and park up to compare what they arrived on. :lol: :lol: *

You should just take this whole thread behind the bike sheds and sort it out amongst yourselves.


*NB: This post is joking - let's see who doesn't get it.


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2016)

I'd need a much bigger ruler than yours!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 May 2016)

Jacob":95b6zkqv said:


> I'd need a much bigger ruler than yours!



For what? Your mouth?


----------



## bugbear (11 May 2016)

This morning, on my 2½ mile trundle to work, I saw 2 woefully moronic manouvres on bicycles, and 2 woefully moronic manouvres in cars.

I think the problem is morons, not the form of transport they happen to be in at the time.

BugBear


----------



## Finial (11 May 2016)

bugbear":o5ucvune said:


> I think the problem is morons
> 
> BugBear



That's true, but they aren't equivalent. How many people are killed by bikes? 

It's like the original post in this thread - bikes sometimes hold people up, motors do it so much that it's taken for granted by people who complain about the bikes.


----------



## Finial (11 May 2016)

AJB Temple":11h9jysz said:


> A lot has been done to create cycle routes and superhighways for bicycles in London



It's great that a start has been made, though most of the work done until recently has been very poor and ineffective.

But in my part of London nothing at all has been done, so hardly anyone cycles.


----------



## bugbear (11 May 2016)

Finial":1fczoozs said:


> bugbear":1fczoozs said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is morons
> ...



Yeah - people using bicycles are both more vulnerable and less dangerous than people using cars.

BugBear


----------



## Woodchips2 (11 May 2016)

I don't seem to get any trouble with cyclists but I do tend to pull in and let them pass me if it's safe to do so.

Regards Keith


----------



## BearTricks (13 May 2016)

John Brown":3jsb3pp0 said:


> MIGNAL":3jsb3pp0 said:
> 
> 
> > As the only non car driver/cyclist/motorcyclist/tractor driver in this entire thread (I'm just a mere pedestrian) I must say that I'm absolutely pssed off with seeing car drivers talking on mobile phones.
> ...



I've been looking for insurance recently and I read that women used to be considered safer drivers, so their insurance was a lot lower, but after everyone got mobile phones the playing field was essentially leveled because women are more likely to use their phones while driving. I think men are more likely to get in to more serious accidents every so often and women are more likely to get in to small accidents regularly but that's just what I read online.

I have to admit, there's a busy crossroads near my house that fills up with traffic from the local colleges at rush hour every day. I tend to walk to the shop around that time and there's a large number of Fiat 500s being driven by late teens/early 20s women and a few of them always seem to be texting. I've seen a few bumps and scrapes happen. That said, there's a gym here too with a blind corner leading out of the car park and I've seen a few blokes come flying round it, one person got hit right in front of me the other week.

As for bikes, I can't say I've ever seen someone cycling and texting, but I have seen people cycling and smoking which seems like the most ridiculous thing in the world to me.


----------



## NazNomad (13 May 2016)

BearTricks":3917oh2b said:


> ...there's a gym here too with a blind corner...



I think it's fantastic that the visually impaired have somewhere to work out, if they wish.


----------



## John Brown (13 May 2016)

I thought the cheaper insurance for women was a casualty of EU regulation(well, I only thought that since someome mentioend it on Woman's Hour this morning), but that could be apocryphal. As a teenager, I used to cycle and smoke frequently, but then I wasn't cycling as a fitness exercise, just as a practical means of transport. Back then we didn't have a mummy that'd drop us off in the Range Rover, we had to walk, cycle, or take the omnibus.


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2016)

BearTricks":h0aswntj said:


> That said, there's a gym here too with a blind corner leading out of the car park and I've seen a few blokes come flying round it, one person got hit right in front of me the other week.
> 
> As for bikes, I can't say I've ever seen someone cycling and texting, but I have seen people cycling and smoking which seems like the most ridiculous thing in the world to me.



Ridiculous?

_Let's have a moment of silence for all those who are stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride stationary bicycles_
* -- U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer*

 

BugBear


----------



## mind_the_goat (13 May 2016)

To get this back on track, guess what I saw yesterday ?
Yup, a large peloton with 4 of them abreast, passing a point in the road with parked cars on both sides, effectively blocking the road both ways for a short section. Now I admit I didn't have to slow down, much, to avoid to ensure I didn't meet them head on and I there was just me who suffered very mild inconvenience. I wouldn't have taken much notice except for having read this thread recently. Just felt the need to support the idea that this does happen.
There is another section of road near me that I use regularly, and so do bikes. It's narrow, windy and hilly. I just have to anticipate that there might be slow bike round a corner, and accept that i could be stuck behind one on an uphill stretch doing 5mph, but that's the way it is. They generally well behaved on this road, I can't imagine they feel terribly safe, and ensure enough space between them to allow overtaking on the straights. I'm pretty sure most of them have cars, so DO pay road tax. My only concern is that tourists, and there are many, are not be aware the road is heavily used by cyclists, there really should be some warning signs up.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2016)

I suffered mild inconvenience recently when I had to slow down to let two old people with sticks across the road. I bet they don't pay road tax and insurance the basthards!
I have to slow down for ducks every now and then (there's a river nearby).
Would it be a good idea to have a sub forum where we could report all incidents of road inconvenience of no conceivable interest to anybody?


----------



## AJB Temple (13 May 2016)

I like the idea of a duck forum. Our neighbour has ducks and they are a total hazard on the road. The leader is a brown one and all the white ones follow it around. Their pond is on a blind bend, near the entrance to our drive. I am thinking of starting a petition for a duck registration scheme and road safety accreditation. It might sound quackers but could be an eggcellent contribution to road safety and stop the ducks coming up before the beak.


----------



## BearTricks (13 May 2016)

John Brown":1bc11crp said:


> I thought the cheaper insurance for women was a casualty of EU regulation(well, I only thought that since someome mentioend it on Woman's Hour this morning), but that could be apocryphal. As a teenager, I used to cycle and smoke frequently, but then I wasn't cycling as a fitness exercise, just as a practical means of transport. Back then we didn't have a mummy that'd drop us off in the Range Rover, we had to walk, cycle, or take the omnibus.



I actually read the opposite: that the EU actually made it illegal to offer different prices to men and women. From what I understand they adjusted the womens' insurance to be in line with mobile phone related accidents, then the EU came along and cemented it in place anyway.

To be completely honest, if phones didn't exist I'd feel sorry for the female drivers as they'd have their premiums artificially inflated in line with the men as a result of some kind of unfair application of gender equality. With the phones, however, it really didn't make much difference in the end. 

As for cycling at the gym, I'd probably prefer it because there's less chance of getting knocked off. Most gyms I've been in do tend to have people cycling five or six abreast though.

Edit: I should probably add that I'm only learning to drive at the moment. I had a few run ins with cyclists on my lesson today as we started in the town centre then moved on to country roads. Nothing too serious. I did have some serious problems with van drivers, however. One nearly ran me off the road because he realised he was in the wrong lane coming in to a roundabout, another couldn't be bothered to wait as one of those vans that ferries elderly people around dropped a couple off, and decided to squeeze past them without slowing down. He clipped the wingmirrors of that van, and the BMW parked on the opposite side of the road. A cyclist would have zipped through no problem.


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2016)

AJB Temple":36jh87lc said:


> ... stop the ducks coming up before the beak.


The old bill first.


----------



## Bm101 (13 May 2016)

Thought the male/female insurance cost thing was more to do with the insurance companies. On being told they couldn't be gender biased on pricing, rather than drop male rates to female equivalent they simply hiked the female costs to match the male ones.


----------



## Finial (13 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":29y05ef6 said:


> To get this back on track, guess what I saw yesterday ?
> Yup, a large peloton with 4 of them abreast, passing a point in the road with parked cars on both sides, effectively blocking the road both ways for a short section.



What was blocking the road, the bikes or the parked cars?

When I cycle between parked cars I have to keep clear of the ones on the left in case of doors being opened carelessly. Drivers come up behind and want to pass, but want to keep clear of the cars on the right for the same reason. I don't know about the road you are talking about, but on many that would put them dangerously close to me. Sometimes that deters them, sometimes not. So I keep right out in the middle until I come to a section where the road is not obstructed. I find that some oncoming drivers think they should have priority over bikes and will not give way. In situations like those, riding four abreast would be safer, but there are too few bike riders round my way.

If the traffic behind is heavy I may stay out in the lane even where there are gaps between the parked cars. That's because many drivers fail to see bike riders as legitimate road users (apparently they don't pay road tax so don't have rights). If I move out of the main flow to let them pass, I am likely to get cut up at the next blockage.

This country really does have the cyclists it deserves.


----------



## NazNomad (13 May 2016)

Jacob":5khise7v said:


> I suffered mild inconvenience recently when I had to slow down to let two old people with sticks across the road. I bet they don't pay road tax and insurance the basthards



To quote you earlier in this thread, ''there is no such thing as road tax'' ... You did say that, right?


----------



## John Brown (13 May 2016)

NazNomad":2jhqx87x said:


> Jacob":2jhqx87x said:
> 
> 
> > I suffered mild inconvenience recently when I had to slow down to let two old people with sticks across the road. I bet they don't pay road tax and insurance the basthards
> ...


I think Jacob may have been role-playing when he wrote that...(the "bet they don't pay road tax" bit)


----------



## MIGNAL (13 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":31r8cz1h said:


> To get this back on track, guess what I saw yesterday ?
> Yup, a large peloton with 4 of them abreast, passing a point in the road with parked cars on both sides. . . .



I bet that peloton had read the UKWorkshop general section and just came to the conclusion: f' em.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

Finial":f5stolv8 said:


> mind_the_goat":f5stolv8 said:
> 
> 
> > To get this back on track, guess what I saw yesterday ?
> ...


Agree. 
_What was blocking the road, the bikes or the parked cars?_ Very good point - I'll remember that one!

It's all about riding "assertively" and not creeping along the edges apologetically as though you shouldn't be there, which is dangerous.


----------



## NazNomad (14 May 2016)

I remember when bikes sounded like proper bikes and smelled of Castrol R. :-D


----------



## Fatboy (14 May 2016)

Jacob":dywrpg3w said:


> I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.


Lol, answered like a true cyclist

Really Jacob, really?? have you not done much road cycling? 4 or more cyclists abreast is quite common once you get outside of the cities. Just put 'UK cyclist abreast images' into google images to see what it looks like from another road users view. 

Like most motorists I have no problem sharing the road with cyclists, but races or 'time trials' as they like to call them to get around the law should be restricted to tracks. I used to race a high performance car and I'm sure cyclists would be just as fed up with me if I decided to use the Queens highway as a race track and put their safety at risk by using the road like I owned it


----------



## Bm101 (14 May 2016)

:roll:


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

Bm101":eihixzkg said:


> :roll:


Are they coppers or something? On an empty road?


----------



## Bm101 (14 May 2016)

I think it was for the Olympic Torch Jacob. Just pulling your leg a wee bit.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

Fatboy":2rv5lm9b said:


> Jacob":2rv5lm9b said:
> 
> 
> > I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.
> ...


Fer gawds sake it really isn't an issue (except to J Clarkson fans). I googled as you suggest and it just shows dozens of cyclists harmlessly pedalling about - occasionally bunched up but this is always temporary. There's even a diagram explaining that it may be easier to overtake a bunch rather than a line one by one.
Comparing bike racing to car racing is ridiculous. Very few cyclists can get up even to 30mph for long except downhill with the wind behind.
Have to say my fastest ever was 50mph, down Mont Ventoux in fact, wide empty road, long steep hill! But 25mph on a flat road is about the limit for most. The target for a 25 mile time trial is one hour
Time trials ban bunching up - not for the sake of road users but to make the time trial fairer - nobody wants to be tailed as it gives an unfair advantage.

Get a life! Or get a bike you might enjoy it.

Mont Ventoux:


----------



## Logger (14 May 2016)

Takes a steady hand to photo the lady in front at 50mph


----------



## Stiggy (14 May 2016)

Cyclists are the bane of my life where I live - there have been many cycle paths created to get them off the roads to stop accidents and lower the build up of traffic - do they use them? Do they eck!

I give cyclists a full 3' when I pass so they don't hit my vehicle when I overtake (as quite a few round here have done) and I got a mouth full of the latest silly person as I didn't go completely into the opposite lane... hasten to add I had to stop my vehicle in front of him to educate the poor fool on road use - he now uses the cycle path.

The fact that if there is an accident the vehicle owner has the blame is BS, in my opinion any vehicle that is allowed on the roads should have an annual check to ensure it is road safe and insurance in case of accidents. They should also go through training so all signals given are standardised and other road users don't have to guess what different arm flapping is meant to mean - I am more than happy to let cyclists off road tax due to the amount of wear they produce on the road surface - I think that's common sense.

I must admit though, should I ever get stuck behind a the cyclist in Jacob's photo, I may not want to overtake at all!


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

Stiggy":pnhjq1dm said:


> ......- there have been many cycle paths created to get them off the roads to stop accidents and lower the build up of traffic - do they use them? Do they eck!....


There's a good reason for that - many of them are absolutely hopeless and even potential death traps. They appear to have been designed by clowns, or as a deliberate ploy to put people off cycling.

Take a look through some of these. Click the arrows at top of page.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... the-month/

There are quite a few of these in our neighbourhood and nobody takes any notice of them, quite rightly.

OTOH you do encounter some good ones and they get well used.


----------



## Finial (14 May 2016)

Stiggy":17ktfx68 said:


> Cyclists are the bane of my life where I live - there have been many cycle paths created to get them off the roads to stop accidents and lower the build up of traffic - do they use them? Do they eck!
> 
> I give cyclists a full 3' when I pass so they don't hit my vehicle when I overtake (as quite a few round here have done) and I got a mouth full of the latest silly person as I didn't go completely into the opposite lane... hasten to add I had to stop my vehicle in front of him to educate the poor fool on road use - he now uses the cycle path.
> 
> The fact that if there is an accident the vehicle owner has the blame is BS, in my opinion any vehicle that is allowed on the roads should have an annual check to ensure it is road safe and insurance in case of accidents. They should also go through training so all signals given are standardised and other road users don't have to guess what different arm flapping is meant to mean..



If those tracks go where people want to go, if they are direct routes, if they are designed and built and maintained for cycling on and if they aren't blocked by parked cars or full of pedestrians, then they are very unusual. If they meet those criteria, and with drivers like you behind, why would people not use them?

It seems odd that you think vehicle owners should not be blamed for collisions. Never? The victim's fault every time? Also odd that quite a few bikes have hit your vehicle while you are overtaking. Why do you think that might be? Could it have something to do with your inability to share the road with other traffic? It's also strange that cyclists are the bane of your life. In town or country, I've never been inconvenienced by someone on a bike. I've never been held up by one. Never felt I needed to educate one. Never been hit by one, either. Incompetent drivers though.....


----------



## iNewbie (14 May 2016)

Finial":207s0ywf said:


> Also odd that quite a few bikes have hit your vehicle while you are overtaking. Why do you think that might be?.


[/quote]

I nearly hit one only recently. Muppet had his ipod on full-blast as he weaved on the road like nobody was behind him. Same as the Jay-walkin' ipoders... Now, wheres Dave Prowse our Green Cross Code Man too wake these muppets up...


----------



## AJB Temple (14 May 2016)

Ballooning is a much better and more serene way of getting from A to B. 




As long as you don't mind where B is.


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2016)

Fatboy":21my8cux said:


> Jacob":21my8cux said:
> 
> 
> > I've been cycling all my life and I've never seen anyone cycling four abreast (except in the tour de france etc). Just somebody having a moan about cyclists as usual. If you don't like sharing the road with cyclists then you should use public transport and/or motorways only.
> ...



IIRC Jacob always cycles on his tod (for some reason  ) So Not much chance of being 4 abreast.

BugBear


----------



## Finial (14 May 2016)

iNewbie":1gtpg64u said:


> I nearly hit one only recently. Muppet had his ipod on full-blast as he weaved on the road like nobody was behind him. Same as the Jay-walkin' ipoders... Now, wheres Dave Prowse our Green Cross Code Man too wake these muppets up...



Maybe Stiggy would have hit him. But how do you know he had is Ipod on full blast? Could you hear it above your car radio?

What are you saying here? Is your point that if you had hit him, he would have been to blame for being in your way? That people cycling are a serious problem to you? That incompetent drivers don't exist? 

How do some drivers manage to overtake bikes safely and without difficulty, weaving or not, while others are unable to overtake stationary street signs and bollards without hitting them? Would it be worth providing proper separate bike tracks to get bike riders out of your hair?


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

bugbear":1xkgnjgc said:


> Fatboy":1xkgnjgc said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1xkgnjgc said:
> ...


Your recollection is wrong BB, as usual. You ought to get a bike you know - I'm sure it would do you good.

I've ridden with all sorts of groups from large to small for about 60 years (started when I was about 10).
Many thousands of miles. Non competetive - mostly touring and the occasional Audax. All over Britain & Europe. A bit in Oz


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2016)

Finial":2kkgs4v4 said:


> iNewbie":2kkgs4v4 said:
> 
> 
> > I nearly hit one only recently. Muppet had his ipod on full-blast as he weaved on the road like nobody was behind him. Same as the Jay-walkin' ipoders... Now, wheres Dave Prowse our Green Cross Code Man too wake these muppets up...
> ...


Leave 'im be Finial, 'es not worth it!!
Some muppet drivers should be on public transport only.


----------



## Fatboy (15 May 2016)

Jacob":38xt2vle said:


> Fatboy":38xt2vle said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":38xt2vle said:
> ...


I have a bike, in fact I have two, a roadbike and an off road, and cycle an average of 150 miles per week with my son and grandson. I also scuba dive regularly, tried my hand at microlighting recently, go skiing three times per year, and enjoy my life to the full. 

What I don't enjoy is hearing people like you who try to portray a very different image of cyclists by defending behaviour that many of us who do cycle regularly know to be true and is sadly widespread amongst the community. I'll never join another cycle club because of that behaviour, bunching up IS regular in almost every cycling club I've ever been a member of as well as intolerable attitudes towards every other road user - I once saw some people I had consdered friends abuse a disabled driver to the point she ended up in tears all because she nearly hit a bike while reversing because of her inability to look over her shoulder, and laughed about it on the ride home. That was the day I vowed never to ride with another group again 

Some drivers are turds of the highest degree but I've heard enough abuse hurled at innocent drivers to know that some cyclists are too and pretending that isn't the case is disingenuous.


----------



## Jacob (15 May 2016)

Fatboy":2qmcv624 said:


> ....
> Some drivers are turds of the highest degree but I've heard enough abuse hurled at innocent drivers to know that some cyclists are too and pretending that isn't the case is disingenuous.


Nobody is pretending that cyclists are angels. They are normal human beings. But generally they don't start threads like this one, attacking motorists (most of them are motorists) and they don't think they own the roads.
Threads like this are bloody boring except that it does give an opportunity to explain to some very ignorant motorists what the issues are for cyclists.
Possibly all motorists should have to do some cycling as a compulsory part of their driving test.

Motorists and cyclists who can't share the road in a civilised way should stick to public transport.

As i tried to point out earlier - reports of cyclists and/or motorists behaving less than perfectly is about as interesting as reports of ducks crossing the road.


----------



## bugbear (15 May 2016)

Jacob":3mo6ia6a said:


> Fatboy":3mo6ia6a said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



You're pretending they never ride 4 abreast. Or have you moved away from that ridiculous claim?

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 May 2016)

Bye bye thread


----------

