[Closed] Commuter "Non Cyclists" W@nkers

Google "Daniel Caddon"

p.s. You don't "drive" a bike.

That's an example I'd agree with. In my case, 2 roadies were cycling slowly (not downhill), 2 abreast with the cycle lane right next to them and unobstructed. Also deep in conversation with no idea what was going on around them. I doubt that judge would have found in favour of these pricks.

Taking legality out of it - I do have to ride on the road between trails and I would never dream of driving in a way that would hold other road users up. Basically because I'm not in the habit of acting like a prick who thinks he owns the road (whether in a car or on a bike).

They are still in the right to do so. thats what the law is. Bikes are traffic - they don't "hold up traffic"

Its no wonder that bikes get a hard time on the roads when even someone who claims to be a cyclist will not give them the consideration the law says they should have.

There's no legal obligation for me to do so, so shut up. Bibbing your horn at me well I'll ride even slower and you can bloody well sit there for a bit longer all in a hurry you'd only get another ten yards further anyway selfish knob

What a cock!

So you think that 2 people are entitled to hold up other road users, just so they can have a chat? There was no good reason to not use the cycle lane. There was no reason they couldn't have rode 1 abreast to let other road users past. They just thought, with the same cockhead attitude as you, I can do it so I will - f*ck 'em.

And you wonder why drivers give you no grace?

gwj72, the Caddon case shows that your point about the cycle lane is moot - there is no requirement to use it. Nor should there be.

Just because you perceive them to be acting inconsiderately, doosn't mean they were breaking the law.

It's a national disgrace!

[img] [/img]

And you wonder why drivers give you no grace?

Some drivers give us no grace because some drivers refuse to accept that we have a right to use the road. Our behviour does not make the slightest bit of difference to this attitude.

They are still in the right to do so. thats what the law is. Bikes are traffic - they don't "hold up traffic"

Its no wonder that bikes get a hard time on the roads when even someone who claims to be a cyclist will not give them the consideration the law says they should have.

So because you think you can then you should? Despite it being of no real inconvenience to you to move out of the way? Do you not see that is a bit selfish?

Is this the militant wing of the CTC I'm addressing here or something?

gwj72, the Caddon case shows that your point about the cycle lane is moot - there is no requirement to use it. Nor should there be.

Just because you perceive them to be acting inconsiderately, doosn't mean they were breaking the law.

No it doesn't. It says in that particular example he was acting legally. If the cycle lane was actually right next to them, not 3 lanes away, then the judgement may have been different.

Acting inconsiderately is judged on its merits. In this case I don't think the guy was. In the case I saw, I think they were.

So your need to overtake means that the cyclist must be inconvenienced / put at risk? Cyclists are second class citizens that must get out of the way of the great god car?

Or perhaps cyclist are legitimate road users with whom you need to share the road.

you have admitted you dont cycle on the roads so clearly you cannot judge if what they are doing was appropriate and your arguments about the legality of it have been comprehensivly refuted

I was riding with a friend 2 abreats a couple of months back. We were on a wide road enought for traffic to get past. Some old dear came up behind us and started tooting her horn. She had room to get past but obviously was imcompotent, therefore we stayed 2 abreats and slowed down 🙂

NORMALLY, we are two abreast and if there is a norrow road ill drop behind or go up front, let the traffic past and drop to chat. If they get all inpatient and beep, well, why should I move?

66

You should

* never ride more than two abreast, and[b] ride in single file on narrow or busy roads[/b] and when riding round bends

It could have been a busy road, they [b]should[/b] have been in single file............. 😈

No it doesn't. It says in that particular example he was acting legally. If the cycle lane was actually right next to them, not 3 lanes away, then the judgement may have been different.

There is no requirement to use a cycle lane. Full stop.

It could have been a busy road, they should have been in single file...

"Should" is not the same as "must".

Doesn't the highway code say you can cycle two abreast unless you are causing an obstruction?

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

If I am riding two abreast to have a chat, it's narrow and a car comes along, I get back in line sharpish. I don't want to annoy anyone, cos I'm nice.

Actually, just because I can apparently. The next bunch of roadies that come up behind me in the peaks are going to struggle to get past. As an MTB rider I have as much right to ride on that road at my chosen speed as them. So I'll use Schumaker-esque roadcraft to force them into oncoming traffic. Because apparently I can 😀

Oh dear

Doesn't the highway code say you can cycle two abreast unless you are causing an obstruction?

Rule 66 Highway code

You should

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

You should

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

Should rather that must.

Its also often safer to ride 2 abreast rather than single file.

So your need to overtake means that the cyclist must be inconvenienced / put at risk? Cyclists are second class citizens that must get out of the way of the great god car?

How were these guys being inconvenienced? I'm not expecting them to dismount or get off the road. They should just for 10 seconds or whatever, got in single lane in the unobstructed cycle path to let other road users past. It's just common decency.

Instead they refused to and then picked on an old woman for having the audacity to try and overtake. How in the name of **** can you defend these people?!

Was she overtaking too close? I find it hard to beleive that a guy would kick off for being overtaken?

Because you are attacking cyclists for merely being on the road acting legally and responsibly. They shouted at her becuase her incompetence and impatience put them at risk.

It take the same amount of road to overtake a bike in single file as it does two abreast if you are obeying the highway code. You are wanting the cyclist to squeeze into the edge of the road so the car can push past where there is not room to overtake safely.

if there's room to pass a single cyclist safely, there is generally room to pass a pair.

likewise if it is not safe to pass a pair then it *normally* isn't safe to pass even if they were in single file.

you should give as much room as you would a car which means even in single file you will normally be crossing the central line to pass so 1 versus a pair is pretty much the same thing.

I think what I'm trying to say is, just wait until it is safe to pass, they are well within their right (legally and morally) to be two abreast.

what would you do if it were horses?

people sometimes cyclist are idiots too sometimes drivers are
Two abreast does seem to annoy car drivers I rarely do it.When I do it is usually to stop them overtaking me/us. The fact they still try shows you just how stupid some drivers are IMHO
IME cycle paths are rubbish OOP north last for 150 yds then stop dead take you on the pavement then back on to the road give you very odd angles to look at to see if it safe to rejoin the road etc.
i tend to avoid using them

You're on a loser here I'm afraid gwj72, and once again I'm amazed that someone on a 'cycling' forum, who claims to ride a bike, holds such a view.

Yep, the fact that most cyclepaths are rubbish is a good reason to avoid using them. Let's face it, no-one wants to pay for Dutch-style facilities, so instead of stupid white lines down narrow pavements, lets focus on making the roads safer for us to use.

Because you are attacking cyclists for merely being on the road acting legally and [b]responsibly[/b]

Not necessarily. I don't believe it's always responsible to ride two abreast.

Aside from the highway code, we all have a responsibility to get along with each other. For instance, you don't HAVE to let people out of junctions, but you do, don't you?

Not often that I join in on these threads, and very rare that I agree with TJ (...sorry 😉 ...) but as a club we ride two abreast for our own safety. It stops car drivers from trying to squeeze past when there is no room - cyclists are entitled to the same room as that given to a motor bike or other motorised vehicles - this means that when a car overtakes a cyclist they should give at least 3 foot space. It also forces drivers to slow down and not pass at high speeds 👿

We will, however, thread down to single file if were are causing an obstruction - but sometimes 10 or 12 riders in a single line is harder to pass than two lines of 5 or 6...what ever we/I/you do you'll get knobbers getting all angry at you 🙄

Was she overtaking too close? I find it hard to beleive that a guy would kick off for being overtaken?

You should ask jeremy, apparently he witnessed it too!

No, these guys had no idea she was there. They were trundling along yakking and looking at each other not the road. When the safest spot came to overtake she tried (after following for about 1/2 mile), and muppet on the right decided to swerve to his right for no particular reason other than shit balance. She didn't hit him as she was well aware of where he was, but they came too close for his comfort. So he raged at an old woman, presumably with the same indigence being shown here.

There was absolutely no excuse for it. I'm not saying they are indicative of all cyclists (although my mind is being wavered now) or that in every case the driver is correct. I am saying in cases like this, the cyclist should be aware of their surroundings and try showing some of the respect they want from drivers.

I feel weird talking about cyclists as another group here. I thought I was one. And I have raged against motorists who haven't given me room. But I know what's right and I'm not the type to exercise some perceived legal right just to be a dick towards drivers.

Junkyard,agree with your views on cyclepaths. So many near me put you into pinch points etc, so I dont use many of them.

There is a stretch of roadworks on a road I use to go home and to stop cars squeezing past me and putting me in danger I ride in the middle of the road. Ive been doing this for about 5 months and only had one person complain, the rest realise what I am doing and that it will only hold them up for 2 mins MAX.

but they have a point get off the road and have some fun down the trail centre sicko 😉
those of us who commute learn where is dangerous and sometimes act aggressively for our own safety.
I had a spot with a parked cars on my side then a blind bend in a 30 zone. i have had people overtake me with their vehicles entirely on the wrong side of the road and speeding to get past me - donehil so iam doing about 30 anyway. When it goes all wrong for them - vehicles coming towards them...this then becomes my fault apparently as I made them do this. the number of times I had to slam on when I realised what they were trying to do is a large number.

Not necessarily. I don't believe it's always responsible to ride two abreast.

Isn't it a problem of perception? If there isn't room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn't pass even if they go into single file.

gwj72 - You're on to a loser here mate.

Everybody is a roadie on this forum these days, didn't you know?

On the rare occasion I drove the car back from work today (yes, I normally bike it!), an obviously very intelligent and not at all inbred cyclist, who was attempting to negotiate a route across a set of traffic lights, questioned me through the car window as I was driving past, somewhat aggressively I might add, "What the **** are you doing, you ****ing d**k?".

I was very shocked by this question, especially as I was the one going through the set of traffic lights that were on green.

Did I miss something here, has the general rules that apply to road crossing and the whole theory behind red and green lights been changed over night.If so, it's no wonder cyclists are crossing on red!

Or is it that nobody seems to be bothered about the what other people are doing on the roads. Maybe that's why the council has started putting up signs at roundabouts, reminding people that you have to give way to traffic from the right.

Can't help think sometimes, has the general intelligence of todays motorists and cyclists really fallen to an all time low.

Interesting how quickly we resort to quoting the rulebook when it suits us, and yet a page or 2 back, people were talking about they quite happily break the rules when it suits them.

It's not hard to ride safely and still be courteous, some of you come across as real selfish pricks.

If there isn't room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn't pass even if they go into single file

Not convinced by that.

You're on a loser here I'm afraid gwj72, and once again I'm amazed that someone on a 'cycling' forum, who claims to ride a bike, holds such a view.

Holds what view? As far as I am aware I'm the only witness to this incident.

Although apparently everyone seems to know the width of the road, the condition of the cycle path, the speed being travelled, the skill and consideration of the driver etc...

It's one incident that the militant cycle clip brigade have jumped on to air their own grievances. Well if you all feel better now, shall we move on?

i suspect you are right but given the number of near misses I would rather be seen as that and get home safely than be a polite corpse.

gwj72

Isn't it a problem of perception? If there isn't room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn't pass even if they go into single file.

amedias - Member

if there's room to pass a single cyclist safely, there is generally room to pass a pair.

likewise if it is not safe to pass a pair then it *normally* isn't safe to pass even if they were in single file.

you should give as much room as you would a car which means even in single file you will normally be crossing the central line to pass so 1 versus a pair is pretty much the same thing.

I think what I'm trying to say is, just wait until it is safe to pass, they are well within their right (legally and morally) to be two abreast.

what would you do if it were horses?

This is the bit you are missing. cyclists are road users adn are entiltled to use the roads. they do not have to get out of the car drivers way.

Not convinced by that.

The Highway code says you should give as much room to cyclists as you would to a car...

As it happens, I do the same as you - pull into single file if there's traffic behind, but on reflection, I wonder if it's safer to continue riding abreast?

"It's not hard to ride safely and still be courteous, some of you come across as real selfish pricks."

Hits nail on head.

Don't upset the STW bullies, will you?

cyclist generally do it to be safer for themsleves

Don't agree with that. Some do, but many cyclists flaunt the rules because a) they can't be bothered to stop at red lights and b) they can get away with it.

If there isn't room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn't pass even if they go into single file
Not convinced by that.

hence the qualifier 'probably', I know in some circumstances the reduction of a single person/bikes width will make all the difference and it can be totally safe.

It's just in general I think that most people leave far too small a gap when passing cyclists (one or two abreast). If they were doing it *properly* and leaving them enough room then unless on wide enough road with nothing coming the other way an extra persons worth of width makes little difference and in some cases its safer fro the cyclists as it makes motorists think about if they really can overtake safely rather than just going for it and squeezing through.

P.S I am a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and occasional skipper and not militant about any of it

For any that know it on my way to work today i was coming down Ketley bank in telford (good gradient mucho speed on road tyres) when not one but two guys walk out into the road from opposite side infront of me, not only do these darwin wannabe's see me as crossing,but the sight of me approaching at fair speed catches them in rabbit form and stops them dead in my carriage way, some how avoided both ( passing between them) and can only shake my head as doing so at the pure stupidity of some pedestrians

This is the bit you are missing. cyclists are road users adn are entiltled to use the roads. they do not have to get out of the car drivers way.

Jeremy I'm missing nothing. Your point is completely moot. Each and every incident is different. I live in the bloody peak district for god's sake - have you any idea how many journeys I make that include waits behind horses, tractors, cattle and cyclists? Bloody loads!

And I am always courteous and safe whether in car or on bike. These dick heads were neither, whether you wish to believe that or not. And just because you believe they had a legal right to act like that (which I refute), doesn't make it right does it?

You defend their picking on a little old woman in her micra too? Because their your lycra brothers you'd be lining up to give her a dig eh?

Ever crossed a pedestrian crossing when its a red man?