Cycling UK Forum

aprildavy wrote:Unfortunately on this forum you will get a biased view rather than an objective one - IMHO!

You're so right! Particularly from people joining just to grind axes.

I actually sympathise with the answers from Mick F and others. I find that cyclists who often ride together tend to be better at it (i.e. a group from the same club will tend to be better than an ad hoc group, even though everyone has the same amount of experience). The group who ride together regularly will make a better job of singling out if that is needed, or drifting into smaller groups to allow motorists to "hop" past a few riders at a time (if the motorist is skilled enough to see what is happening, of course).

However, it's true that it's not necessarily a good idea to single out when overtaking would be unsafe, which often means when there is no clear run in the opposing carriageway (as in the Highway Code photograph already referenced). It's also true that two pairs of riders can look four abreast from the back if they are only slightly out of line, someone moving up the line is going to seem three abreast in the same sense as overtaking another driver makes you two abreast, and so on.

Also this is worrying:

... as I was taught at school, that you are entitled to use up to approx 1mt from the kerb and that if you wobble into the path of a car, you’re going to get hurt, simple !!!

Kids in Cycling Proficiency were taught a very defensive style of riding which is not the safest, and is not what is now taught in cycling safety classes. In particular, a bike is a vehicle and, on a single-carriageway road, it defines the main traffic lane (because there can only be one lane of traffic, so the bike must be in it). Any car coming past is overtaking, by definition, and therefore not in the main traffic lane. The duty is on the overtaking road user to do so safely (although obviously the one being overtaken should not be unduly obstructive).

There is no concept of the road user being overtaken not sitting too far out in case of being hit; rather, the overtaker must still choose a safe spot. There is a general injunction to all traffic to keep as far left as is consistent with safety, but nothing specific to cyclists (who are, again, just traffic like everyone else). There is also an injunction to drivers to expect cyclists to be dealing with potholes and so on at the side of the road (i.e. expect to have to give extra space).

Well put, drossall, but I suspect it will convince few of the drivers who get agitated at being 'obstructed' by cyclists. I fancy that anybody who cannot appreciate that when they are driving a car the reason they need all that space is because it's as wide as several cyclists, largely to provide accommodation for occasional passengers sitting side-by-side: a convenience they would deny cyclists. By the same logic, it's acceptable to abandon a car just about anywhere, obstructing everybody, when it is not immediately required, and people like traffic wardens are portrayed as throwbacks to the 3rd Reich.

Any driver who questions the space taken up by a couple of cyclists before accepting their own contribution to the problem has the blinkers wedged on. IMO.

(One of the benefits of a ride along the York to Riccall Sustrans path along the route of the old London to York railway line is to be able to observe how economical of space a railway line is, compared with a motorway.)

Well said thirdcrank, my views entirely. The only point I would add is that keeping to the left often only encourages a faster and more dangerous overtaking.

(I might add that we are accepting without much question on this thread the idea that a motorist is obviously and reasonably frustrated by a few seconds' delay. Why? What is it about driving a fast vehicle that makes any delay frustrating?)

Turbo10 wrote:followed them for 3 or 4 miles on country road,

If you really did follow them for that distance, they should at some stage have made arrangement to let you overtake, just as the driver of a slow moving motor vehicle would be expected to do the same, even although the queue consisted of only one vehicle, Highway Code 169.
There are selfish sods in all walks of life.

I really do sympathise with the points about helping motorists to get past. I've ridden in ad hoc groups, often in Audaxes, with motorists stuck behind, and wished people would either drift apart or single out (depending on which is more appropriate to the conditions). I've also ridden in such groups where they did it beautifully.

It actually spoils the ride to have a motorist trying to join on the back of the group for some distance as though pretending to be a cyclist too - I'd rather they went past and let us get back to enjoying the cycling I've also seen genuine three abreast riding and thought "Why?"

However, the points on the thread title are right. The Highway Code is fundamentally about two things - safety, and consideration. It is quite important to be able to tell the difference. Holding up others may be inconsiderate (though not necessarily), but is unlikely to be dangerous. It is attempting to overtake inappropriately when held up that can be dangerous. It's fundamental to road use that someone else's inconsideration does not justify your creating danger.

I'm not that convinced, though, that "motorists" and "cyclists" are two breeds apart. For a start, most cyclists plainly are motorists. The ones who dumped their bikes blocking a junction are probably the same types as, er, dump their cars blocking a junction while going to the post box, when there is a perfectly good parking space 20 metres away. The ones who don't ever do anything about a car behind waiting to overtake are, perhaps, the same types as don't mind parking on yellow lines and holding up the traffic.

And the lycra louts stereotype is just ignorant. Lycra is worn these days by people out for a Sunday spin with friends, who would never go near organised cycling, by club riders, by MTB types who have started their own clubs independently of the traditional scene, by commuters who don't use bikes much for anything else. Which group do you mean? And most of those groups also have constituents who would never touch the stuff. How are they different? Maybe, however, lycra makes you more visible - that would explain why its wearers get noticed...

horizon wrote:(I might add that we are accepting without much question on this thread the idea that a motorist is obviously and reasonably frustrated by a few seconds' delay. Why? What is it about driving a fast vehicle that makes any delay frustrating?)

They have paid loadsamoney, and continue to pay loadamoney, to buy into various dreams. Dreams of empty roads, freedom, green credentials, admiration from the opposite sex and cyclists, and effortless comfort.

They did not pay to be obstructed by lesser oiks wearing stupid clothing who don't even pay road tax, for heaven's sake. Being held up in motoring traffic isn't so bad, because these are fellow motorists. But having the dream spoiled by oiks who probably paid less for their machines than the Mazda driver is taxed every year upsets the natural order.

In a nutshell: poor weak people shouldn't get in the way of rich powerful people.

Not so sure. Going back to my point about cyclists and motorists being the same people, don't cyclists also dislike being held up? There are road works at the moment, closing a main road round here. As a result, my normally-quiet back-road route to work is blocked by a queue of slow-moving vehicles (that's when it's good - when it's bad, it's blocked by not-at-all-moving vehicles ). That's frustrating too - though I hope I don't react by calling the queue "dangerous" and overtaking inappropriately.

Actually, some of the motorists are really good at leaving gaps for me to go into as I leap-frog them - just like some groups of cyclists

Yes, we all dislike being held up. Some inconsiderate cyclists leap onto pavements to avoid queues. Conversely, the majority of motorists I encounter have no problems in slowing down, patiently waiting, and overtaking when safe.

My post above was a parody of what I frequently see on t'internet, something that amounts to a class struggle, if not out-and-out warfare. Each class sees the other as receiving financial and other privileges, and as obstructing them in their struggle towards their own class goals.

Most cyclists are also motorists, but few (UK) motorists are also cyclists. This makes the struggle somewhat one-sided.

It is touching that the OP is concerned for our welfare

It is so dangerous for the cyclist

Presumably they have equal concern for pedestrians and will be swapping their current car for something that scores better than "poor" on the NCAP rating (that's 1 star out of 5 "despite the MX5 benefiting from not having to have the leading edge of its bonnet tested because of its low profile.")

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/mazda_mx_5_2002/120.aspx

Along with most others on here I am generally uncomfortable if I am delaying traffic and will look for opportunities to allow a pass, but I still dream of the Utopia where all road users give due consideration to each other

Why don't you go out into the country and get a bit of exercise. Walking or cycling. You get to see far more than from inside a car. You never know, you might enjoy it.

I can sympathise a bit on A roads, though with the nature of A roads you can normally get past a group of cyclists after about 3 or 4 mins. But B and C roads, ! were you in a rush for an emergency . All groups I ride with minimise their time on A roads, to avoid the heavy traffic .

I ride with groups from CTC to big racing groups. I have never seen riders riding more than 2 abreast. The CTC riders dont touch A roads and barely B roads and even stop to let cars by on single tracks. The big racing groups out on training rides will use C and B roads and the odd bit of A roads , but its a Sunday, most the drivers are wondering around looking at the views as well

I get fed up by drivers slowing me down everyday. I am doing a trraining ride to work at 20 mph on a single track lane, they overtake at 25 mph and then have to stop completely for another car in the opposite direction, often stopping for a chat in the country. They overtake a few yards before traffic lights and then stop in front of me.

Well I was sympathetic to Turbo10, that is until he started shouting, then he just lost it as far as I was concerned.
Do you all remember, not all that long ago we had another motorist pop his head up and have a go at us, I wonder what happened to him?
Anyway, our friend spoke of consideration and blocking the road. Last Friday afternoon I needed to cycle into the nearest big town at about most peoples going-home-time. The road in and several junctions were absolutely gridlocked. Only a couple of cars at a time could get across traffic lights because the exit's were stuffed. All of these cars hogging a ridiculous amount of road space, and nearly all of them had just one occupant. I had to go into stop-start mode, pulling my feet out of the clips as soon as I put them in and then stand for absolutely ages whilst this crocodile of cars inched forward in 1st gear, burning goodness knows how much of the dwindling oil reserves and choking up the air that we breath. It took me ages to travel the few miles that I needed to go, and all because these cars were in the way. Now what was the word that Turbo10 used? Ah yes, that's it "INCONSIDERATE"
I tried to be reasonable in my last posting, I hope I was. Now I think that he is just in a hurry to get to his own funeral.

Meh - Go drive fast on your segregated paths...

Or pay to go on a track if you want to "hang the back out" and "smell the smoke from the discs"

on narrow B and C roads, effectively totally blocking the road from pavement to the central white line

On narrow B and C roads I believe that, to overtake safely, a driver would need to wait until there was no traffic coming the opposite way. Cyclists filling the lane, that they were legally entitled to use, "from pavement to central white line" did not cause any more delay than cyclists in single file. It was probably safer too as drivers would be forced to wait "until the road ahead is clear" rather than forcing their way through between a cyclist and opposing traffic.

The OP mentions inconsiderate cyclists. What about inconsiderate motorists who, when stuck in rush-hour traffic, drift into on-road cycle lanes causing an unnecessary obstruction? They don't gain anything but cause considerable inconvenience.

In my opinion, Turbo10's post appears to be a rant from a motorist who wrongly seems to think he has a right to unhindered use of the roads