upsetting drivers is the most stupid thing you can do on a bike.
Actually I can think of quite a lot of more stupid things, including putting yourself in such a position that they knock you off without upsetting themselves.
Chat Forum
Riding two abreast on a two-lane road: yay or nay? (video)
-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
are you suggesting they wouldn't be upset if they knocked you off? you've really gone too far. they are HUMANS.
Posted 5 months ago # -
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger
In your opinion. Thankfully whilst road rage incidents do happen they're extremely rare, meanwhile lots more people get knocked off their bikes due to plain inattention and not looking properly or judging things incorrectly. Personally I'll take irritating somebody if it makes them see me and are forces them to pay attention to me.
Posted 5 months ago # -
scu98rkr - Member
If I hear a big/loud vehicle behind me I sometimes move out into the road more then pull in as I feel them start to overtake.I tend to hop up onto the pavement when I get that "feeling" that something big is working up to an overtaking manoeuvre, 9/10 times that gets a "thank you" single hazard light flash.
My thinking is that I can change my position quicker, easier and more safely than a truck and although I acknowledge my "rights" as a road user I also acknowledge my courtesy and common sense as a human being
Posted 5 months ago # -
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger.
Therefore, the safest option is NOT TO UPSET THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.Then the safest option to do is not ride on the road at all because that is the only way you'll avoid upsetting drivers.
Honestly road rage is a problem, granted, but we're not yet at a point where more cyclists are injured by road rage than by careless accidents.
If we ever get to that sad point then we should think about placing upsetting drivers above riding in the safest position.
can you move me back to undecided again please.
I see what you're doing shrimpy.
Totals: 33 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 17 UNDECIDED.
Be warned that efforts to disrupt the voting process will result in the exclusion of voting rights!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Well you dont irritate me aracer, and I've noticed you. It can be done!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Personally I'll take irritating somebody if it makes them see me and are forces them to pay attention to me.
Yes completely agree, but you can do that without riding two abreast.
Riding two abreast sends a clear signal "I'm exercising my right to do this and If you get annoyed, I'm still in the right so tough!"
That will wind drivers up and increase the risk of aggressive reactions.
Posted 5 months ago # -
clearly i haven't been swayed by any arguments. the whole thread is pointless. i'd like to be removed from the voting process. all 3 people in the video were losers.
no. wait. put me down for the opposite to tandem jeremy because i don't like his tone.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Then the safest option to do is not ride on the road at all because that is the only way you'll avoid upsetting drivers.
Nope, that's being absurd.
Upset drivers cause accidents. If you want to be the person in that accident then fine.
Posted 5 months ago # -
theshrimp abstains.
Totals: 33 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 16 UNDECIDED.
Upset drivers cause accidents.
Oh is that what causes accidents?
I always thought SMIDSY was the main cause.
How far do you take this philosophy?
Many drivers also get upset at Advanced Stop Lines, should we avoid using them?
How about Overtaking cars in jams? They don't like that. Using Toucan Crossings? Riding in cycle lanes? Not riding in cycle lanes? Using lights that are "too bright"? Wearing lycra? Going too slowly? Going too fast?Posted 5 months ago # -
Can we have a single transferable vote system instead?
Posted 5 months ago # -
I hear both arguments based in safety, and both make valid points. I think moving to the primary position for negotiating roundabouts etc (after checking over your shoulder for any rapidly approaching motorists) is probably an excellent idea, as traffic speeds around these obstacles would generally be slower and driver attention higher. If the pair in the vid were doing that, then I'm perilously close to joining the for camp... However! This pair are not in the primary position, they are abreast, which reduces their escape routes significantly, and they are too far from the roundabout to be adopting it anyway, given their somewhat lackadaisical pace.
My main problem with cyclists using the primary position at all times is that it violates my personal road safety rule number 1: never trust another road user with your life! Assume that they are all blind idiots until proven otherwise.
Posted 5 months ago # -
How far do you take this philosophy?
I have nothing more to add.
I've probably spent more time road riding in traffic than most on here* and feel confident in my point of view.
Edit: *cos I am teh AWESOME!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Ridiculous. They were being selfish.
You have no way of proving this have you it is just you repeating your view again – is everyone who obeys the laws being selfish or just cyclists?
Ride defensively, ride assertively, but above all ride considerately.
Thats a lovely message to the car drivers and i thank you for making the roads safer for cyclists
Antagonising motorists, and I think WE ALL KNOW that this will antagonise them, is always a bad move.
OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THE CAR IS KING WHAT WERE WE THINKING OF – WE SHOULD OF COURSE GIVE WAY TO THEM AT ALL [even though we are not breaking the law] TIMES AND NEVR IMPEED THEIR PROGRESSIf you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger.
Therefore, the safest option is NOT TO UPSET THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
It is better to upset them as they have seen you than let them pass close to you and not upset IMHO /IMERiding two abreast sends a clear signal "I'm exercising my right to do this and If you get annoyed, I'm still in the right so tough!"
You are just repeating what you think it means and trying to make your opinion a fact by just repeating it – it does not work for TJ and i doubt it will work for you
Poor car driving made me ride defensively I did not start out this far out- sometimes I will hug the kerb if I deem it safe to pass but not on a dual carriageway as it is the car behind you need to worry aboutPosted 5 months ago # -
Poor car driving made me ride defensively I did not start out this far out- sometimes I will hug the kerb if I deem it safe to pass but not on a dual carriageway as it is the car behind you need to worry about
What does this have to do with riding two abreast? Nothing.
Stick to the topic.Actually, ***copies and pastes***
I have nothing more to add.
I've probably spent more time road riding in traffic than most on here and feel confident in my point of view.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Junkyard obviously has anger issues. Shouting and everything.
Posted 5 months ago # -
To me one of the problems here is that the antis are taking a very car-centric viewpoint. I fully accept the point about not upsetting people, both from wishing to be courteous to others and from a safety perspective. But... all these guys are doing is riding down the road. They are barely, if at all, holding anyone up.
I was riding along today when a car overtook me (safely) went 50 yards up the road and then had to stop because there was a line of parked cars with traffic coming the other way. I had to pull up behind and stop (no way past). Without the car being there I could have continued the road past the parked cars as there was bags of space. As it was I WAS DELAYED BY AT LEAST 20 SECONDS !!!. If I took my cue from WVM I should've leapt off the bike and had a go at the driver for being so inconsiderate as to delay me. Even before he overtook me it was obvious he would have to stop.
The problem is:
Bike delays car/van = froth rant 'why don't you pay road tax' etc
car delays bike = situation normal.I don't think it is terribly sensible to ride 2 abreast in this case, but there is no doubt that the perception that the car driver has more right to be there seems to play an awful lot in how this situation is viewed.
Posted 5 months ago # -
'kin 'ell - it made 400 with consummate ease!!
Posted 5 months ago # -
Oldgit I was joking...a lost art on here it seems
Clearly.
Still think there's nothing to it, I have a sweet relationship with drivers.
Like I said the irony was that the day I thought to stand my ground was the day I eventually got hit by a car. And it's seems the folk who bang on about the rights and wrongs seem to have the most trouble.IME just riding out enough to clear drains ect so you can keep a constant predictable line is the safest. I would think a motorist would overtake just as close to you if you were 50 or 100 cm out? Then the problem is that if there's a car coming the other way you effectively squeeze the car into a tighter gap, and I'd imagine that a motorist would instinctivly hit the smaller object i.e you rather than have a head on. No?
Posted 5 months ago # -
I think that being 'car-centric' is quite a sensible position for a cyclist using the road network to take, purely because there are lots of them its best to assume that they are all driven by blond idiots and they kill cyclists. Not worshipping the car, just respecting their otential for harm.
Posted 5 months ago # -
hang on, how many in the "lost the will" category?
Posted 5 months ago # -
I'm feeling fresh, but then I can't get on during the day anymore.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Poor car driving made me ride defensively I did not start out this far out
Indeed - if I get overtaken too close my instinctive reaction is to move right - a reaction which has 100% success rate in getting the following drivers to give me lots of room IME.
They are barely, if at all, holding anyone up.
A point I made earlier and nobody disputed. So I take it we all agree that the cyclists aren't being discourteous to other road users, it's just that some of the idiot drivers think they are. I do always love the irony of a motorist stopping his* vehicle to berate cyclists for holding him up.
* I feel no need to use a gender neutral term here.
Posted 5 months ago # -
OK oldgit, but what do you do when a car comes up behind you at a pinch point? not enough space to overtake safely but just enough for a driver to try it if they are unwilling to wait 2 seconds? Do you still stay in a position which encourages them to try?
Posted 5 months ago # -
'Own' them with Bombers, IMO
Posted 5 months ago # -
If drivers had to change lanes completely each time they came across a rider in the middle of the lane or a pair riding two abreast.. do you think,if the line of traffic behind them was 15-20 cars long,the cars at the back of the queue would still be calm and drive past safely without booting it or maybe get out and do what the white van man did in the video? If you drive into a city and all cyclists rode defensively like this.. you wouldnt believe what would get posted on the net. Not to mention the rise in accidents and assaults. Its not right i know.. but i really do believe this is the way things would turn out. Anyone agree?
Theres some right nutters out there and remember its not like its another cyclist. Some of these headers could easily aim for you on purpose if you peeve them off enough.They wont be nudging the rear wheel. You probably wont even remember the accident (if your lucky and live) You are on the road for a reason. It might be heading to work or heading home. Possibly a training ride or just getting around town. You dont go out on the bike to get closer to death or to stress out every ride.. you do it for other reasons so ride considerately. So why do these riders add to it?
I dont think risking it all by riding two abreast in the city is going to change the way drivers respect the cyclist.Quite the opposite.I wouldnt continue this riding style in hope of it changing. Its going to take a different approach.. without ending up in a wheelchair or losing your life.
Maybe with laws put in place like someone mentioned earlier on how the gap should be a certain distance would be the way to go. If the drivers dont follow the rules and get caught passing a cyclist too close then points or a fine might be the right way to go about it.
I know the folk on here that ride two abreast or down the middle of the road will disagree with this "giving in" attitude. Standing up for what you believe in and hoping that every cyclist will follow is just wishful thinking.If you climb inside the mind of the stressed out nutter thats sitting 20 cars behind you whose already 10 mins late for work or whatever.. just remember that he might crack some day and nail you.
Posted 5 months ago # -
If drivers had to change lanes completely each time they came across a rider in the middle of the lane or a pair riding two abreast.. do you think,if the line of traffic behind them was 15-20 cars long,the cars at the back of the queue would still be calm and drive past safely without booting it or maybe getting out and doing what the white van man did in the video?
So your solution to this is what? Riding in a position so that drivers don't have to move into the other lane to overtake the cyclists? I'm struggling to think of another one, but if you have something creative I'm sure we'd all love to know.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Its opening up another can of worms. Like i said.. the stresshead waiting to finally crack at the back of the pack might do something on purpose. If they rode more considerably they wouldnt be bringing this danger to themselves quite as much as a close passing car.
If you think that this scenario is impossible.. you are wrong. Drivers will pass close as possible to prove a point once they get pizzed off enough. Havent you noticed this happening?
Posted 5 months ago # -
As has been mentioned above, I've noticed lots of cyclist being killed due to inattention, none due to road rage.
You haven't answered the question - you seem to be implying that the cyclists should be far enough over to the left that a car can pass without changing lanes. Is this what you really think is the safest thing to do?
Posted 5 months ago # -
As has been mentioned above, I've noticed lots of cyclist being killed due to inattention, none due to road rage.
Hear, hear. I was taken out by a motorist pulling out of junction, broad daylight. He didn't even slow down as he approached the give way lines, he just went. After I'd picked myself up from the ground and was screaming "WATDAFUCK MAN, WATDAFUCK!" he said "Smidsy."
By and large, I really don't think it's our fault as cyclists that we get run over. It's the impatient, aggressive, careless and reckless motorists. It is motorists that need to be lectured to, not cyclists. And it sickens me slightly that so many motor-apologists on here are so keen to be doing the anti-bike lecturing.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Then theres the drivers than have poor judgement/lack of confidence during overtaking manoeuvres. They stress a bit,judge things wrong and squeeze past cyclists as they nearly clip the car on the other side. They didnt mean to nearly kill the cyclist.. "i didnt mean to,it was an accident" Does that make it all O.K? I dont want to ride in a fashion all the time that could bring that on to be honest. From what ive seen in my life it seems that folk make more mistakes and drive closer to me if i`m more central.Whether it be on purpose or not.
I am not saying that gutter hogging or riding defensively is right or wrong. I just think we have to do what is best for the conditions. Sometimes one might be safer than the other. For the folk that think central position or two abreast is the way to go 100% of the time.. Good luck. The idea that its going to be safe all the time is fine if you believe that all drivers are looking ahead,full concentration,and accept that they really will have to make an effort towards a proper manoeuvre to get past but thats not the case.
Some are on a mission.They will squeeze past on purpose,some might squeeze past by mistake,some might be reasonably good drivers but decided to open up a text message and plough into the back of you,some might be speeding and have no option but to plough into you.. some might not be concentrating enough and only clip you. In some of those circumstances gutter hogging will see you live another day. Thats the way i see it. The folk that want to ride in the middle will have to accept that they might be struck full-on by one of these nuggets in the future. I would rather be clipped.
Posted 5 months ago # -
By and large, I really don't think it's our fault as cyclists that we get run over. It's the impatient, aggressive, careless and reckless motorists. It is motorists that need to be lectured to, not cyclists. And it sickens me slightly that so many motor-apologists on here are so keen to be doing the anti-bike lecturing.
But it's not that at all, is it. Of course, you are right, it's the motorists at fault 9 times out of 10, but can you change that? Or can you just stay out of the nutters and the blind eejits way? Of course a car should overtake giving a whole lanes space, BUT THEY DON'T. You can't change that fact as a cyclist, and to ride taking up more space and in the path of dozy motorists is just asking for trouble and likely to make the dickheads pass you closer, not further away.
Posted 5 months ago # -
And it sickens me slightly that so many motor-apologists on here are so keen to be doing the anti-bike lecturing.
I'm not convinced that there is actually much anti-bike lecturing going on within this thread. Pretty much all the opinions I've seen proffered seem quite reasonable.
I do get the feeling that we all suffer from a natural tendency to sort of automatically project the antithesis of an argument on someone who doesn't agree 100% with our own thesis. So people who comment that riding two abreast may not always be appropriate become projected as rabidly anti-bike car lovers, and those who point out that it's perfectly reasonable to ride two-abreast are painted militant trouble makers.Posted 5 months ago # -
For the folk that think central position or two abreast is the way to go 100% of the time.
Name me one...
The folk that want to ride in the middle will have to accept that they might be struck full-on by one of these nuggets in the future. I would rather be clipped.
Risk assessment. My judgement is that you're far, far more likely to be clipped by somebody trying to overtake without changing lanes than hit full on by somebody not paying any attention at all. The severity isn't all that much lower for being clipped. Risk = likelihood x severity
Posted 5 months ago # -
Yes, you're probably right Ian. I think it may well be only the odd person who is really a rabid motorist, but there is still a lot of car-centric thinking going on. Likewise, there isn't anyone here who thinks
central position or two abreast is the way to go 100% of the time.
is right either. I suppose as someone who rides everywhere all the time, I reject utterly the idea that it is cyclists that are to blame, and believe we need to challenge bad motorists at every opportunity, as long as that won't put us in danger. I don't think their behaviour in the video put them in danger. The only thing I criticise them for is meekly saying sorry, not, "**** off you stupid poor driver" or words to that effect
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
