Why you should give cyclists a wide berth when passing.

[spookly]

WinstonWolf said:

So your hypocrisy doesn't extend to sticking to the law? I bet you regularly complain about cyclists safely jumping red lights too...

Cool post bro.

No hypocrisy. I'm not complaining because cyclists are breaking a law - so far as I am aware they aren't.

I am complaining because they are unnecessarily inconveniencing me by choice.

So please explain where the hypocrisy is?

[Devil2575]

spookly said:

Might be a bit of an unfair stereotype to put all those who wear lycra in the same bucket... but it mostly fits.

HTH

No, it's just a lot of bks that you made up to support your predjudice.

[spookly]

walm said:

Honestly, if you can't safely overtake a bunch of cyclists within 1-2 mins on an NSL road then you seriously need some driving lessons.

Even the 50mph limit roads round here it should be a cinch.

And if your roads are so empty then your claim that opposing traffic is preventing overtakes doesn't hold water. You can't have it both ways.

I think you have a very obvious case of negativity bias where you are easily recalling the negative experiences and forgetting all the times that you made the journey unencumbered.

Maybe if you quoted what I said it would help. I said free flowing. Which is different to empty.

Free flowing also implies I have to expect traffic coming from the opposite direction at or above the speed limit. Combine that with near constant gentle bends that prevent visibility, and yes.. you can't *safely* overtake even if you think you are a driving god.

If you like, I could *dangerously* overtake cyclists.... but actual *safe* opportunities to overtake bikes or cars are few and sods law usually means there is oncoming traffic in the places you could.

[walm]

spookly said:

If you like, I could *dangerously* overtake cyclists.... but actual *safe* opportunities to overtake bikes or cars are few and sods law usually means there is oncoming traffic in the places you could.

Yet in my London commute (20, 30 or rarely 40 limit) I would get overtaken all the time on narrow, congested roads. (Sometimes it was even safe!)

Do you have a google-maps link to an example of these free-flowing but filled with cyclists roads?

[spookly]

walm said:

spookly said:

Cyclists (caveat: those used solely for leisure purposes) and horses don't have to be on the road other than because that is where they are choosing to carry out their hobby.

You don't ever use your car for leisure purposes (perhaps visiting a friend or the pub)? It's only ever for work?

I don't take a vehicle onto public road that I know cannot get up to the speed limit and will definitely inconvenience others.

There is a big difference between travelling to a pub in a vehicle capable of exceeding the speed limit and taking a cycle onto a road where it cannot get close to the speed limit.

Even if I take my motorbike out for a ride I won't at any point become a rolling roadblock that a cycle will.

[WinstonWolf]

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

So your hypocrisy doesn't extend to sticking to the law? I bet you regularly complain about cyclists safely jumping red lights too...

Cool post bro.

No hypocrisy. I'm not complaining because cyclists are breaking a law - so far as I am aware they aren't.

I am complaining because they are unnecessarily inconveniencing me by choice.

So please explain where the hypocrisy is?

I take it you ride your motorbike for pleasure seeing as you've confirmed you don't use it for work?

[otolith]

Storer said:

I knew my post would annoy the byciclist brigade.

Of course you did, that was the entire point of everything you've written on this thread.

[Conscript]

spookly said:

Cool post bro.

No hypocrisy. I'm not complaining because cyclists are breaking a law - so far as I am aware they aren't.

I am complaining because they are unnecessarily inconveniencing me by choice.

So please explain where the hypocrisy is?

I find it incredible that people have developed such a self entitled attitude to road use.

When I was learning to drive, it was quite clear to me that the public highway was for the fair use of all, for whatever reason, in accordance with the highway code. I certainly don't remember there being any set of rules or regulations which ascribe more importance to any vehicle based on the perceived practicality of the journey being made. When I get held up by cyclists, I never crosses my mind to start getting annoyed because their journey is less important than mine. Some vehicles are slower and cause a little inconvenience, but surely you just accept that as part and parcel of choosing to travel on the road network, and deal with it accordingly.

It's like you think the cyclists deliberately go out of their way to inconvenience you personally, just by existing on the road you are using.

Edited by Conscript on Tuesday 23 August 14:20

[spookly]

walm said:

Yet in my London commute (20, 30 or rarely 40 limit) I would get overtaken all the time on narrow, congested roads. (Sometimes it was even safe!)

Do you have a google-maps link to an example of these free-flowing but filled with cyclists roads?

On your London commute I'd wager that overtakes that were that safe were in wide single lane or in multi-lane parts.

If an A road is not particularly wide, as many rural A roads are not, and you cannot use the opposite lane due to oncoming traffic or bends which could hide oncoming traffic, then you can't overtake safely.

Are you advocating me becoming someone who overtakes cyclists dangerously? Tempting...

Or are you unaware that there is a whole road network or A/B roads outside the South East that is nowhere near as congested, but is consequently also made up of roads that often aren't as wide or straight?

[spookly]

WinstonWolf said:

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

So your hypocrisy doesn't extend to sticking to the law? I bet you regularly complain about cyclists safely jumping red lights too...

Cool post bro.

No hypocrisy. I'm not complaining because cyclists are breaking a law - so far as I am aware they aren't.

I am complaining because they are unnecessarily inconveniencing me by choice.

So please explain where the hypocrisy is?

I take it you ride your motorbike for pleasure seeing as you've confirmed you don't use it for work?

I rarely use a motorbike for work. I don't get out on it often enough for pleasure either.

But whichever purpose I use it for I would not ever get accused of holding someone up when the road ahead of me is clear, which is the complaint I have with cyclists.

[Finlandia]

Devil2575 said:

Finlandia said:

Devil2575 said:

Finlandia said:

Devil2575 said:

The reality is that by your actions you are putting yourself at greater risk of being involved in an incident

This can be said about many cyclists too, and they not only risk fines and jail, but injury and death.

I'm not sure how cyclists on the road risk jail, at least to anyhting klike the same degree as car drivers, but I agree generally with what you say. However, what is your point?

One road user being stupid is not justification for another road user being stupid. If a cyclist came on here are said that they knowingly put other road users at greater risk because they were convinced they were in the right I'd expect them to be challenged just as hard as the clown under discussion here.

My point being that if you risk injury or death by doing something silly, why do it?

Because people do silly things all the time either because they don't realise the risk, they may a mistake or maybe they're just stupid.

The idea that someone would want to deliberately make the situation worse is what beggars belief.

The other part may not even know that the silly sod is there, or realise too late. There has to be more information about the dangers, ads in papers and on TV, billboards, training given in schools, and so on.

[walm]

spookly said:

I don't take a vehicle onto public road that I know cannot get up to the speed limit and will definitely inconvenience others.

So do you equally condemn:
- Caravanists.
- Anyone with a trailer.
- Classic cars.
- Leisure drivers who choose to go a little under the limit.
- The horrendous Yaris, the garage lent me as a "courtesy" car.
- Pedestrians. Particularly, those bearded rambler-types.
- People using zebra/pelican/pegasus crossings when not going to work.

Or is it just people on really narrow leisure vehicles that even a sub-par driver can overtake without much hassle?

[WinstonWolf]

walm said:

spookly said:

I don't take a vehicle onto public road that I know cannot get up to the speed limit and will definitely inconvenience others.

So do you equally condemn:
- Caravanists.
- Anyone with a trailer.
- Classic cars.
- Leisure drivers who choose to go a little under the limit.
- The horrendous Yaris, the garage lent me as a "courtesy" car.
- Pedestrians. Particularly, those bearded rambler-types.
- People using zebra/pelican/pegasus crossings when not going to work.

Or is it just people on really narrow leisure vehicles that even a sub-par driver can overtake without much hassle?

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

[walm]

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

[Conscript]

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

Yet how many threads are there on PH complaining about horses? Arguably they are much harder to pass because they require you slow to an absolute crawl both whilst you're waiting behind them and when passing them. Yet annoying as they are, most of us are able to accept their presence on the roads and deal with them like mature beings and not be too begrudging of their existence on the road. Why is the same attitude not extended to someone on a bike?

[WinstonWolf]

Conscript said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

Yet how many threads are there on PH complaining about horses? Arguably they are far, harder to pass because they require you slow to an absolute crawl both whilst you're stuck behind them and when passing them. Yet annoying as they are, most of us are able to accept their presence and not be too begrudging of them. Why is the same attitude not extended to someone on a bike?

"because cyclist" Spookly is more importantier when he's in his car don'tcha know.

[Finlandia]

Conscript said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

Yet how many threads are there on PH complaining about horses? Arguably they are far, harder to pass because they require you slow to an absolute crawl both whilst you're stuck behind them and when passing them. Yet annoying as they are, most of us are able to accept their presence and not be too begrudging of them. Why is the same attitude not extended to someone on a bike?

Not that many horses in city centres though

[Conscript]

Finlandia said:

Conscript said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

Yet how many threads are there on PH complaining about horses? Arguably they are far, harder to pass because they require you slow to an absolute crawl both whilst you're stuck behind them and when passing them. Yet annoying as they are, most of us are able to accept their presence and not be too begrudging of them. Why is the same attitude not extended to someone on a bike?

Not that many horses in city centres though

I thought the whole basis of his objection was people riding for pleasure on rural roads.

[walm]

spookly said:

Or are you unaware that there is a whole road network or A/B roads outside the South East that is nowhere near as congested, but is consequently also made up of roads that often aren't as wide or straight?

I live in rural Hampshire.
There are just two A-roads near me.
They are both a mixture of 50 limit and 30 limits through villages.
Cycling is becoming very popular owing to the MAMILs who either live here or come here from the cities to enjoy the South Downs hills.

I can count on one hand the number of times I have been held up by cyclists for more than 60 seconds on those roads.
And that includes me sticking to the double-solid-white rules when the chap was pushing 10mph+.

[Finlandia]

Conscript said:

Finlandia said:

Conscript said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

You forgot horses, I bet he hates horses using *his* road too

He already mentioned them I think. It was a given. Everyone hates the jodphur-wearing brigade.
How very dare they. [/D+ Pony Club badge and proud]

Yet how many threads are there on PH complaining about horses? Arguably they are far, harder to pass because they require you slow to an absolute crawl both whilst you're stuck behind them and when passing them. Yet annoying as they are, most of us are able to accept their presence and not be too begrudging of them. Why is the same attitude not extended to someone on a bike?

Not that many horses in city centres though

I thought the whole basis of his objection was people riding for pleasure on rural roads.

To be fair, the horses around here are very seldom seen riding on the roads.