Bl***y Cyclists

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Dai

Postby Dai » 29 Jan 2007, 9:57am

I've just come back from a ride to Brecon to get milk and papers. I was held up for about five minutes by a flock of sheep. 'Get into single file and let me pass', I demanded, but they said it was a critical ba's.
I'll now have to spend twenty minutes hosing sheep [inappropriate word removed] off the bike.
Sheep's inappropriate is bloody sticky when it's fresh.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 29 Jan 2007, 10:47am

Dai wrote:Sheep's inappropriate is bloody sticky when it's fresh.

But tastes better if left for a day or two :0)

JamesAC

Postby JamesAC » 29 Jan 2007, 11:15am

Sometimes I'm held up (on my bike) by a queue of traffic at the junction/TL's - cars pulled too far over the the left to let me scrape through and so on. It's outrageous. My journey (average speed about 15 MPH) reduced to zero because of thoughless, selfish car drivers. They should be off the road, in the meseums where they belong

James :)

Dai

Postby Dai » 29 Jan 2007, 11:58am

reohn2 wrote:
Dai wrote:Sheep's inappropriate is bloody sticky when it's fresh.

But tastes better if left for a day or two :0)

Especially when 'drizzled' - all the best chefs drizzle these days.

Sheep's inappropriate is very good for tomato plants by the way.

David
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 5:13pm

Postby David » 29 Jan 2007, 8:54pm

But surely, if you got to the front of the queue everybody else must have got past the cyclists so was the obstruction that great really ?

Did you see they were three abreast all the time ?

Just playing Satan's solicitor here :twisted:

sharpy
Posts: 129
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 7:07am
Location: Sheffield

Postby sharpy » 30 Jan 2007, 7:11pm

[quote="David"]But surely, if you got to the front of the queue everybody else must have got past the cyclists so was the obstruction that great really ?

Did you see they were three abreast all the time ?[quote]

I certainly did David. The road was uphill and with long graceful curves, this offered me a good view of the antics of the 3 abreast crew. They stayed in this configuration for several minutes before eventually turning off the road. How long they had been riding like this before I joined the traffic queue I do not know.

Cheers
Paul

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Postby hubgearfreak » 30 Jan 2007, 8:25pm

sharpy wrote:several minutes


i take back all i said, i didn't realise that you'd been inconvenienced to such an extreme degree. i share your rage & fury

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 30 Jan 2007, 9:05pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
sharpy wrote:several minutes


i take back all i said, i didn't realise that you'd been inconvenienced to such an extreme degree. i share your rage & fury

Hubbers,you are aweful but I like you! (said like Dick Emery)

sharpy
Posts: 129
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 7:07am
Location: Sheffield

Postby sharpy » 30 Jan 2007, 11:11pm

reohn2 wrote:
hubgearfreak wrote:
sharpy wrote:several minutes


i take back all i said, i didn't realise that you'd been inconvenienced to such an extreme degree. i share your rage & fury

Hubbers,you are aweful but I like you! (said like Dick Emery)


OK, OK I enjoy a bit of good humoured micky taking as well as the next man. I now rest my case :lol:

Best wishes
Paul

2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Postby 2Tubs » 31 Jan 2007, 12:27pm

Go on, tell me I'm a blind fool but someone here raised a good point that appears to have gone unanswered.

Was there room to pass a single cyclist safely?

If not, cycling 3 abreast to discourage a dangerous manoeuvre from an impatient motorist was not just justified, it was a bl**dy good idea. In the same situation, I'd have done (and have done) exactly the same.

Gazza

2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Postby 2Tubs » 31 Jan 2007, 12:47pm

reohn2 wrote: . . .
Riding THREE abreast is also illegal . . .

No it's not.

The highway code only suggests that you ride no more than 2 abreast, it isn't a legal requirement.

Highway Code Section 51 (Part of Rules for Cyclists)

51: You should
    keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
    keep both feet on the pedals
    not ride more than two abreast
    ride in single file on narrow or busy roads
    not ride close behind another vehicle
    not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
    be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell.


If vehicles can't overtake with a single cyclist or two riding abreast, what difference doesn it make if 3 ride abreast?

Gazza

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50940
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Postby Mick F » 31 Jan 2007, 1:03pm

BUT, and it's a big But, sometimes cyclists should APPEAR to be helpful to other road users.

If a following car, eager to get past, can't get past, riding three abreast MAY NOT give out the right messages. The car driver MAY think the cyclists are being deliberately obstructive to his progress. How does he KNOW that you're interested in his safety?

Mick F. Cornwall

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 31 Jan 2007, 9:33pm

2 Tubs,
I'll concede that riding three abreast is in the strictest sense is not breaking the law but I would not like to have to fight a case of inconsiderate cycling (as Daniel Cadden has just succesfully done)if I were riding three abreast.
Riding in such a way is not the way IMHO to conduct ourselves on the roads, it is antaganistic in the extreme.
If the road in question is not wide enough for a car to overtake a single cyclist then I think it is appropriete to ride in either the primary position or two a breast but to expect a car driver to even understand why cyclists need to use such tactics is to show a lack of understanding of Mr Average car driver,let alone to ride three abreast.
We have got to ask ourselves what are we trying to achieve,is it to ride safely or show car drivers that we can show them a thing or two when in command of the road.If the manouvre was holding traffic up for several minutes(say five or more)would it not have been more courtious to stop by the side of the road and let the seemingly numerous cars pass.
In fact today a group of eight of us whilst cycling along a single track road had a line of three cars approach from behind they couldn't get past but when we came to a wide enough part we all stopped by the side and waved them through they waved and smiled back at us, minimum fuss or time cost to either parties.If we hadn't we could have kept them behind us for at least another threequarters of a mile,no real hardship caused if we had but by stopping the cause of cycling may, just may ,have been furthered slightly.Whereas if we hadn't had stopped cycling's cause may,just may, have been put back some way.The point being that we sometimes have it in our power to tip the scales one way or the other, some times we do have the power but its up to us how we use it or abuse it.
Iam quite aware that some car drivers abuse their "might is right" power
on our roads but that gives us no excuse to get them back for it or to go on some eco warrior war path.
As I've said on another thread we ALL have to coexsist on our roads and IMHO I don't think choking up roads unnecceserily is the way forward for our cause.Bullying doesn't work on us,so why should it work on car drivers, we would do better to get them on our side if we can and I can't see how riding three abreast can achieve that whatever the circumstances.

2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Postby 2Tubs » 1 Feb 2007, 1:35pm

reohn2 wrote:2 Tubs,
I'll concede that riding three abreast is in the strictest sense is not breaking the law but I would not like to have to fight a case of inconsiderate cycling (as Daniel Cadden has just succesfully done)if I were riding three abreast.
Riding in such a way is not the way IMHO to conduct ourselves on the roads, it is antaganistic in the extreme.


I have to say, that's not my experience. OK, I'm not really talking about riding three abreast but whenever I have taken the primary riding position or ridden two abreast in a move of self preservaion, I have always signalled a thank you when I move back into the secondary position (or back behind my co-rider if riding two abreast). The majority of the time I receive a wave or thumbs up from the motorist.

If the road in question is not wide enough for a car to overtake a single cyclist then I think it is appropriete to ride in either the primary position or two a breast but to expect a car driver to even understand why cyclists need to use such tactics is to show a lack of understanding of Mr Average car driver,let alone to ride three abreast.


Yes, it would upset the odd motorist. Jermey Clarkson would devote a whole article to it. But most get the picture. Look at this thread as a case in point, it ain't just Mr Average Motorist who doesn't get it. I think it's agreed that it would have been dangerous to overtake the cyclists. Yet we are arguing about how it might look. The underlying facts that the cyclists held up the traffic no more than had they been single file seems to count for nothing. Rather than adjust our behaviour to address an issue that lies in the mond of the motorist, maybe we should encourage them to engage their brain.

In an ideal world we'd be able to educate the minority of motorists who believe they have supreme road privilages, but we don't have the time and they won't listen. So perhaps the question of image is an important one.

We have got to ask ourselves what are we trying to achieve,is it to ride safely or show car drivers that we can show them a thing or two when in command of the road.If the manouvre was holding traffic up for several minutes(say five or more)would it not have been more courtious to stop by the side of the road and let the seemingly numerous cars pass.


Good points raised. I think both parts of your question address the same point and you hit the nail on the head with the word "courtious". And I thnik the answers to your questions are (what are we trying to achieve?) safety and (Is it better to be courtious?) of course it is! Its polite not to hold up traffic when unecessary. I couldn't care less about holding up traffic if it keeps me safe. And as a motorist, I don't mind being held up by other road users if it means we all get to our destinations safely. On very narrow country lanes I have pulled into side roads to allow traffic to pass. It's all part of being a patient, courtius road user. As we teach in the NCTS (or rather bikeability, I hate that name change and refuse to mention it to my adult trainees), we are part of the traffic stream, not on the sidelines looking in. We share our roads and respect motorised traffic. We simply expect the same respect.

In fact today a group of eight of us whilst cycling along a single track road had a line of three cars approach from behind they couldn't get past but when we came to a wide enough part we all stopped by the side and waved them through they waved and smiled back at us, minimum fuss or time cost to either parties.If we hadn't we could have kept them behind us for at least another threequarters of a mile,no real hardship caused if we had but by stopping the cause of cycling may, just may ,have been furthered slightly.Whereas if we hadn't had stopped cycling's cause may,just may, have been put back some way.The point being that we sometimes have it in our power to tip the scales one way or the other, some times we do have the power but its up to us how we use it or abuse it.


I quite agree. I wouldn't suggest blocking the road where there is no threat to safety in allowing traffic to pass. I think I am misunderstood in my first posting, but then, I'm a bit "Right On" (or in the accusations of my father-in-law a "loony left winged do-gooder". I still can’t believe I married the daughter of a tory voter) and can be a bit militant. Perhaps I should've elaborated.

As I write this I notice that we are talking of "preventing people from making dangerous manouvres". It seems odd that we have to cycle this way in the first place. If a minority of motorists didn't drive in such an antisocial and dangerous manner we wouldn't be havng this debate. We wouldn't need to cycle so defensively as nobody would put us in harms way. What is it about society that tolerates the danger caused by such reckless driving that we have to cycle in such a way as to prevent harm to others? Why does society tolerate the injuries and loss of life so that we can all get home in time for Neighbours? Let's be honest, cyclists don't really hold up traffic over the average journey. Other motorised traffic holds up traffic as any cycle commuter will tell us. I really don't get it. Why are we expected to be coutrious when so many motorists don't do us the courtesy of respecting our safety? So on the whole, if a few people are delayed by a minute or two by an oversensetive cyclist, so be it. Better that than the polar outcome of a few more dead cyclists.


Iam quite aware that some car drivers abuse their "might is right" power
on our roads but that gives us no excuse to get them back for it or to go on some eco warrior war path.


As I say above, not my intention at all. Though I do fancy myself as an activist as I was thinking of skipping a few baths anyway.

As I've said on another thread we ALL have to coexsist on our roads and IMHO I don't think choking up roads unnecceserily is the way forward for our cause.Bullying doesn't work on us,so why should it work on car drivers, we would do better to get them on our side if we can and I can't see how riding three abreast can achieve that whatever the circumstances.


I agree with the sentiment. It appears that we are talking about the perception rather than the reality of our actions.

Myself, I don't think it makes that much difference. I am reminded of an altercation I had with a bus driver. I was in a bus lane (marked for cycles) and he couldn't get around me. I was about one third of the way across the lane and as close as I was getting to the kerb because of a porr road surface on the inside. He sounded his horn and when I turned he made wild gesticulations.

I pulled over at the stop and asked him if he could get passed me if I was in the gutter without crossing into the next lane. He said he couldn't but didn't apologise for his intimidation. I let him go first. Then overtook just before a traffic island and never saw him again. I'm willing to bet he still thinks I held him up. Perception, you see? Or was it bigotry? He'd decided that it's all the fault of the cyclists and he wasn't going to let facts change his mind.

Blimey, I kind of got carried away typing there. To summarise my thoughts, don't be a selfish road user unless being selfless is likey to comprimise your safety. Sort of fair, wouldn't ya think?

Gazza

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 1 Feb 2007, 6:27pm

Gazza
On the first point,me too

The second point,if three riders were riding in single file in the primary position it would have a totally different effect on the mind of motorists than if they were riding abreast,that IMHO is a fact.That is the situation as it is because of the perception of motorists toward cyclists.There have been times in my life when I had upto ninety men working under me,I found out PDQ that I could get more out of them simply by the way I talked to them.It is the same pschological game on the road,only the talking is done with the vehicle and perhaps a wave of the hand as has been stated in your reply.
Broadly I think we agree on most points it is the perception and the reaction to that perception that counts too.

As for bigotry it seldom lets fact get in the way of its perception,But perceptions can be changed by courtesy and a bit of good pschcology.

As i've learned safety first is paramount.