Spent today being grumpy about other cyclists

[LittleGreyCat]

Incident 1 - I cycle mainly on country lanes, quite a few of them single track. So I keep an eye open for cars approaching from behind and do my best to pull in and let them past as soon as there is a passing space. 99% of the time this gets an appreciative wave from the driver. Building a rapport with the drivers on your regular route can't do any harm either.

Apart from being polite to other road users, this also follows the advice in the Highway Code. One example:

"Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

Anyway, riding up a hill on a single track road and catching another cyclist I noticed a car behind. As I passed the other cyclist I told him there was a car coming. Round a bend, and I saw a passing place and pulled in. He blithely poddled past at about 10 mph with the car following him. I followed them for about a quarter of a mile until there was a wider bit of road and the car could finally get past. As I passed him for the second time I asked him if he enjoyed holding up cars. "I enjoy cycling" was his response. Taken as a "Yes". Bad behaviour not only puts him at risk, but can prejudice drivers against other more reasonable cyclist. Grump!

Incident 2 - I had just crossed the road on foot at a traffic light when a group of cyclists approached. Although the lights were on red the leader led the group through. "Are we allowed to go through red lights?" asked a rider at the back. "No, you are not!" said a voice from the pavement. Grump!

Seriously, how can cyclists demand to be treated as road users with the same rights as car drivers but then behave in a way that would not be tolerated if they were driving a car? Drive through red lights? Drive at 10 mph holding up other traffic? Grump!

[mercalia]

didn u have a good ride the your self?

[[XAP]Bob]

Is one car a long queue?

[BakfietsUK]

I don't think anyone actually has a right to drive, otherwise the courts would not be able to suspend someone's licence. I would like to know how the courts could reasonably withdraw one's access to cycling. Driving is surely a privilege that has to be earned through a competency test. Cyclists' don't have that (yet maybe) so I would presume anyone has a "right" to cycle. Maybe this along with not paying CAR tax is why cyclists seem to be resented.

If anyone asked me if I enjoyed "holding up" cars I would probably respond by saying I have every right to be using this piece of road in any lawful fashion. Not "holding up" cars is not on the top of my list of priorities and if I started to fret about how many I "held up" I would probably give up cycling. You might as well as ask pedestrians if they enjoyed holding up bikes, which to me would be ridiculous. I don't think anyone in their right mind would go out to deliberately impede anyone else's progress. Seems the poster is assuming the person in the first example was doing it on purpose though.

Please feel free to disagree.

[Slick]

I must admit to having a bit of a grump myself the other day. The only difference for me was I was in my car, but I would be interested to hear what others really thought. I was driving home at around 65mph, passing some 40 foot heavies on a dual carriageway. I suddenly became aware of traffic breaking heavily and veering from the inside to the outside lane. I soon realised there was a cyclist struggling against the wind cresting a fairly substantial hill and probably lucky to be doing much more than 10mph. I know that the cyclist has as much right as the 40 foot, 40 ton timber truck to be there but just over a stone wall, there is a lovely big cycle path that I use regularly which is designed to reduce the need for cyclists to share the same space as these monsters. Why would you choose the dual over the segregated path? Grump over.

[rfryer]

I'd share in the OP's grumps. I don't see cycling as an exercise of my rights or a battle with the motorists; it's sharing the road with other people, and treating them as you'd like to be treated yourself.

I ride a lot of single track roads, and most drivers are considerate, waiting for me to give them space at a passing place and exchanging a friendly wave. I wonder home much more likely they would be to pull closer and use the horn if they'd just encountered a series of cyclists like the one encountered by the OP?

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XT1039 using hovercraft full of eels.

[Psamathe]

I'd share in the OP's grumps. I don't see cycling as an exercise of my rights or a battle with the motorists; it's sharing the road with other people, and treating them as you'd like to be treated yourself.

I ride a lot of single track roads, and most drivers are considerate, waiting for me to give them space at a passing place and exchanging a friendly wave. I wonder home much more likely they would be to pull closer and use the horn if they'd just encountered a series of cyclists like the one encountered by the OP?

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XT1039 using hovercraft full of eels.

I would agree. It's about sharing. Nobody expects a cyclist to leap out of the way into a verge full of stinging nettles but given a significant speed difference it seems reasonable for a cyclist to pull in at next passing place/driveway. I do it all the time for motor vehicles and normally get a signal of thanks and I appreciate it when in the car and cyclists pull in for me. Treat others as you like to be treated. Starting the "it's my right" gets nobody anywhere (and gets no cooperation and less consideration).

Ian

[700c]

Rule 169 does not apply to bicycles.

[Pete Owens]

Reasnable comments on a couple of minor examples of bad behaviour by cyclists until we come to this old chestnut:

Seriously, how can cyclists demand to be treated as road users with the same rights as car drivers but then behave in a way that would not be tolerated if they were driving a car?

ie law abiding cyclists should be treated as second class citizens until every last person seen riding a bike complied fully with the law at all time and no cyclist was ever seen to show the slightest inconsideration to any other road user. This would be unreasonable even if ALL motorists were such paragons of virtue - religiously complied with 20mph limits, always changed lanes when overtaking cyclists, never ever parked on the pavement...

To claim the specific example you cite as ones that "we would not tollerate" is absurd in the extreme:

Drive through red lights?

Just stand at any set of lights and you will see that far from not being tollerated, red light jumpinmg is routine. The usual reaction on seeing amber is to accelerate rather than brake. Typically the first one or two cars will jump the red with the third stopping in the bike box.

Drive at 10 mph holding up other traffic? Grump!

The normal experience when driving along a busy single carriageway road is to be in bunch following a slower moving vehicle. This will often go on for mile after mile after mile and you never see nor expect that slower moving vehicle to pull over into every layby. How many seconds do you think that cyclist added to that motorists journey?

[Psamathe]

Rule 169 does not apply to bicycles.

It's not about rules and rights. It's about being considerate to other road users with different requirements just as we would like them to be considerate to us as cyclists. Easy to all cooperate and be considerate ... or we can dig our feels in and demand our rights and rules and regs.

Ian

[mjr]

I know that the cyclist has as much right as the 40 foot, 40 ton timber truck to be there but just over a stone wall, there is a lovely big cycle path that I use regularly which is designed to reduce the need for cyclists to share the same space as these monsters. Why would you choose the dual over the segregated path? Grump over.

Maybe they missed the entrance? Maybe it's their first time there and they didn't know the cycle TRACK (not path, please) wouldn't vanish, shrink to nothing, end in a fence or go on a long hairpin- filled detour or any of the other joys this country's governments routinely give us?

And why weren't the lorries changing lane to overtake properly instead of swerving? Grump over.

[Rich_Clements]

I used to get annoyed by other cyclists inconsiderate actions and I too used to have words, after getting threatened several times I came to the conclusion you cant educate idiots.

Just keep doing the right thing

[[XAP]Bob]

Why don't cyclists use 'perfectly good' paths.

Mostly because here are very few such things in the UK. They normally disappear, degenerate into a quagmire, suddenly change direction and go somewhere other than where you were trying to go, or a combination of all of the above.

Then they cede priority to all private driveways along a road,

There aren't many cycle paths I would use - and they are all local to me, because I know where they go. I can't know where remote ones go.

[Tom Richardson]

The main problem on the roads is other people.
There's nothing that can't be solved with a bit of patience but why bother when it's someone else's fault?!

[mjr]

Why don't cyclists use 'perfectly good' paths.

Mostly because here are very few such things in the UK. They normally disappear, degenerate into a quagmire, suddenly change direction and go somewhere other than where you were trying to go, or a combination of all of the above.

I object to the word "normally" there. The closest things we have to norms for cycle tracks don't allow any of those, or ceding to minor driveways or side roads, but one problem is that most UK cycle tracks are very sub-normal.

For all the time I spend nudging Norfolk County Council to improve their designs and get closer to what we enjoy in parts of Cambridge or London (themselves still nowhere near the Netherlands), I'm reminded when I visit places like Warwickshire or Gloucestershire (or see videos from cyclists elsewhere) that most of this country is currently so far below normal that it's subterranean.