cyclists, why so far from the kerb?
Discussion
yellowjack said:
I'm with Parsnip on this one. If I can create a safe space on the road by taking a more positive position relative to the edge of the carriageway and to other road users, I'm going to do it. If you are 'stuck behind' me, live with it. It won't be for long if you possess any kind of awareness and ability when it comes to planning a proper overtake. If it really bothers you so much to be 'forced' to overtake slower moving vehicles, the simple solution is to get up earlier, and use the roads before anyone else gets onto them. I pay all of the same tax and insurance as anyone else who works for a living, and I obey the same set of traffic laws as drivers have to, so, weirdly, I kind of expect to exercise my right to use the roads in exactly the same way as drivers do, without being punished for my choice of vehicle. Would you feel it necessary to force your way past some other kind of low or zero emission vehicle if it were dawdling along? Should I not be allowed to pass a Toyota Pious too closely, maybe even knock his offside mirror with my nearside one, simply on the basis that "he hasn't paid any 'road tax'". As far as I am aware, the traffic priorities to be obeyed are the ones painted onto the road or written into law, not the ones based on the principle of "my car is much larger/faster/more expensive than your's".
Put simply, there is no one answer to the question of 'correct' position when riding on the road. I will constantly tweek my position based on the information I have at hand. If I feel the need, I will ride in the centre of a lane, but if the situation changes, and there is a wide enough margin for error, I may well move to the left of the line at the edge of the carriageway. If I take the 'secondary' position nearer the kerb to allow following traffic more space to pass, yet still feel I'm being squeezed toward my left, then I WILL move out into the 'primary' position. All of the time I will amend the way I ride based on the state of the road, and the way in which drivers treat me. Quite often, if you consider that I am 'too far out into the road', mull this over: it's probably because I have had several cars/vans squeeze past inappropriately close, and that means I've moved further out to ensure my safety.
In simple terms, if all drivers gave me the respect I KNOW I deserve, I may be more inclined to give them the respect they THINK they deserve. As I've said before, elsewhere on this forum, the answer to a lot of the 'driver v cyclist' issues IMHO, would be a statutory requirement for any learner driver to have to undergo a period of cycle training, followed by an observed ride on a bicycle before being allowed anywhere near a steering wheel. If this were to be the case, it might educate those drivers who've never ridden in traffic as to how it feels to be the most vulnerable user on any given stretch of road. More access to better cycle training is also required, in order to raise the riding standards of some of the less able cyclists we see on the roads.
I recall as a youngster being taught to ride properly on the roads by my dad, who also taught 3 members of the family to drive. I was not allowed to take my bike out onto the roads unsupervised until I had demonstrated to him that I was a competent rider, and I'll hazard a guess that his standards were tougher than the cycling proficiency test. The problem we face on the roads, as both drivers and cyclists, is that many people who ride on the roads have never received any formal training, and some of them appear to have never even heard of the Highway Code, let alone have read it.
Very well said.Put simply, there is no one answer to the question of 'correct' position when riding on the road. I will constantly tweek my position based on the information I have at hand. If I feel the need, I will ride in the centre of a lane, but if the situation changes, and there is a wide enough margin for error, I may well move to the left of the line at the edge of the carriageway. If I take the 'secondary' position nearer the kerb to allow following traffic more space to pass, yet still feel I'm being squeezed toward my left, then I WILL move out into the 'primary' position. All of the time I will amend the way I ride based on the state of the road, and the way in which drivers treat me. Quite often, if you consider that I am 'too far out into the road', mull this over: it's probably because I have had several cars/vans squeeze past inappropriately close, and that means I've moved further out to ensure my safety.
In simple terms, if all drivers gave me the respect I KNOW I deserve, I may be more inclined to give them the respect they THINK they deserve. As I've said before, elsewhere on this forum, the answer to a lot of the 'driver v cyclist' issues IMHO, would be a statutory requirement for any learner driver to have to undergo a period of cycle training, followed by an observed ride on a bicycle before being allowed anywhere near a steering wheel. If this were to be the case, it might educate those drivers who've never ridden in traffic as to how it feels to be the most vulnerable user on any given stretch of road. More access to better cycle training is also required, in order to raise the riding standards of some of the less able cyclists we see on the roads.
I recall as a youngster being taught to ride properly on the roads by my dad, who also taught 3 members of the family to drive. I was not allowed to take my bike out onto the roads unsupervised until I had demonstrated to him that I was a competent rider, and I'll hazard a guess that his standards were tougher than the cycling proficiency test. The problem we face on the roads, as both drivers and cyclists, is that many people who ride on the roads have never received any formal training, and some of them appear to have never even heard of the Highway Code, let alone have read it.
"if all drivers gave me the respect I KNOW I deserve". I would substitute "demand". Any road user does not have to beg for consideration, it is his by right.
I fthis can be describes as being militant, well - live with it.
donfisher said:
Dude – you probably don’t mean to but you’re kinda coming across as one of those red faced ranting militants.
Seriously? Someone writes a clear, rational explanation of why they ride where they do on the road, and you think they come across as a red-faced ranting militant????I'd suggest that is the sort of attitude which tends to create red-faced ranting militants in the first place!
donfisher said:
Dude – you probably don’t mean to but you’re kinda coming across as one of those red faced ranting militants.
If the cap fits, I suppose I should wear it. 
However, the main thing that gets me red in the face at the moment is climbing hills, on account of how I haven't been getting the miles in of late. Oh, and I've been much better since the medication
yellowjack said:
I'm with Parsnip on this one. If I can create a safe space on the road by taking a more positive position relative to the edge of the carriageway and to other road users, I'm going to do it. If you are 'stuck behind' me, live with it. It won't be for long if you possess any kind of awareness and ability when it comes to planning a proper overtake. If it really bothers you so much to be 'forced' to overtake slower moving vehicles, the simple solution is to get up earlier, and use the roads before anyone else gets onto them. I pay all of the same tax and insurance as anyone else who works for a living, and I obey the same set of traffic laws as drivers have to, so, weirdly, I kind of expect to exercise my right to use the roads in exactly the same way as drivers do, without being punished for my choice of vehicle. Would you feel it necessary to force your way past some other kind of low or zero emission vehicle if it were dawdling along? Should I not be allowed to pass a Toyota Pious too closely, maybe even knock his offside mirror with my nearside one, simply on the basis that "he hasn't paid any 'road tax'". As far as I am aware, the traffic priorities to be obeyed are the ones painted onto the road or written into law, not the ones based on the principle of "my car is much larger/faster/more expensive than your's".
Put simply, there is no one answer to the question of 'correct' position when riding on the road. I will constantly tweek my position based on the information I have at hand. If I feel the need, I will ride in the centre of a lane, but if the situation changes, and there is a wide enough margin for error, I may well move to the left of the line at the edge of the carriageway. If I take the 'secondary' position nearer the kerb to allow following traffic more space to pass, yet still feel I'm being squeezed toward my left, then I WILL move out into the 'primary' position. All of the time I will amend the way I ride based on the state of the road, and the way in which drivers treat me. Quite often, if you consider that I am 'too far out into the road', mull this over: it's probably because I have had several cars/vans squeeze past inappropriately close, and that means I've moved further out to ensure my safety.
In simple terms, if all drivers gave me the respect I KNOW I deserve, I may be more inclined to give them the respect they THINK they deserve. As I've said before, elsewhere on this forum, the answer to a lot of the 'driver v cyclist' issues IMHO, would be a statutory requirement for any learner driver to have to undergo a period of cycle training, followed by an observed ride on a bicycle before being allowed anywhere near a steering wheel. If this were to be the case, it might educate those drivers who've never ridden in traffic as to how it feels to be the most vulnerable user on any given stretch of road. More access to better cycle training is also required, in order to raise the riding standards of some of the less able cyclists we see on the roads.
I recall as a youngster being taught to ride properly on the roads by my dad, who also taught 3 members of the family to drive. I was not allowed to take my bike out onto the roads unsupervised until I had demonstrated to him that I was a competent rider, and I'll hazard a guess that his standards were tougher than the cycling proficiency test. The problem we face on the roads, as both drivers and cyclists, is that many people who ride on the roads have never received any formal training, and some of them appear to have never even heard of the Highway Code, let alone have read it.
Do you wear a helmet-cam, by any chance?Put simply, there is no one answer to the question of 'correct' position when riding on the road. I will constantly tweek my position based on the information I have at hand. If I feel the need, I will ride in the centre of a lane, but if the situation changes, and there is a wide enough margin for error, I may well move to the left of the line at the edge of the carriageway. If I take the 'secondary' position nearer the kerb to allow following traffic more space to pass, yet still feel I'm being squeezed toward my left, then I WILL move out into the 'primary' position. All of the time I will amend the way I ride based on the state of the road, and the way in which drivers treat me. Quite often, if you consider that I am 'too far out into the road', mull this over: it's probably because I have had several cars/vans squeeze past inappropriately close, and that means I've moved further out to ensure my safety.
In simple terms, if all drivers gave me the respect I KNOW I deserve, I may be more inclined to give them the respect they THINK they deserve. As I've said before, elsewhere on this forum, the answer to a lot of the 'driver v cyclist' issues IMHO, would be a statutory requirement for any learner driver to have to undergo a period of cycle training, followed by an observed ride on a bicycle before being allowed anywhere near a steering wheel. If this were to be the case, it might educate those drivers who've never ridden in traffic as to how it feels to be the most vulnerable user on any given stretch of road. More access to better cycle training is also required, in order to raise the riding standards of some of the less able cyclists we see on the roads.
I recall as a youngster being taught to ride properly on the roads by my dad, who also taught 3 members of the family to drive. I was not allowed to take my bike out onto the roads unsupervised until I had demonstrated to him that I was a competent rider, and I'll hazard a guess that his standards were tougher than the cycling proficiency test. The problem we face on the roads, as both drivers and cyclists, is that many people who ride on the roads have never received any formal training, and some of them appear to have never even heard of the Highway Code, let alone have read it.
In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Disastrous said:
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle.
I disagree.Cars are sort of in the middle.
Although waiting behind a bicycle may slow you down, it usually doesn't delay you in getting to your destination. You get past it and catch up with the queue of vehicular traffic in front.
Conversely, there is often no way past the cars in front.
Imagine there are 1000 road users between you and your destination. Would you prefer that they were all cars or all bicycles?
HundredthIdiot said:
Disastrous said:
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle.
I disagree.Cars are sort of in the middle.
Although waiting behind a bicycle may slow you down, it usually doesn't delay you in getting to your destination. You get past it and catch up with the queue of vehicular traffic in front.
Conversely, there is often no way past the cars in front.
Imagine there are 1000 road users between you and your destination. Would you prefer that they were all cars or all bicycles?
I'd rather not uphold my right to use all the road right under the grill of a Range Rover or whatever.
Disastrous said:
Do you wear a helmet-cam, by any chance?
In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
ThisIn fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Disastrous said:
Do you wear a helmet-cam, by any chance?
In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Problem is, you are missing the point. If it comes down to me being safe or curteous, I will go for safe - as I said above (and I know it sounds millitant) I don't care whatsoever if I hold someone up for 30 seconds if it means I am safe.In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Give and take doesn't work here - the cyclist is giving up their saftey to save the driver a handful of seconds.
I am far from a lentilist and there are needlesly confrontational cyclists out there (like the critical mass bellends), but the majority of "millitant cyclists" out there aren't millitant cyclists - they are looking out for their safety - if I didn't ride the way I did, I would have been knocked off a lot more than 3 times during uni - the number of times I would have people on the horn trying to get round me on a roundabout was staggering - I cannot get my head around someone who can't work out the consequences of hitting a cyclist.
This one will run and run, funny thing is that this is a site for petrolheads, who I would hope would be of a higher driving standard than the general population - I have no problem safely overtaking safely - why people struggle with this concept I don't know - you would never dream of overtaking a slow car in a 30mph zone doing 28mph, far too close and on the horn, so why do it to a cyclist where the consequencses of your awful driving are much, much higher?
- Most* cyclists aren't doing 28 mph though. They're doing 12mph or so and yes, I'd overtake a car doing that.
Disastrous said:
*They're doing 12mph or so and yes, I'd overtake a car doing that.
The key word being "overtake" as in follow the highway code, wait for an opportunity and do it safely - if you can't overtake a bike because it is 1m out from the kerb, then the overtake was never on - thats the crux - if everyone understood the highway code and how to overtake properly, then a cyclist being 1m out should be a non issue.The problem is that a lot of motorists seem to think "ahh, a cyclist, i'll just nip past" rather than thinking "ahh, a cyclist, I better overtake properly" - when they come across Mr 1m out they think "fxxxxxking cyclist, sat in my way, slowing me up, I can't squeeze past" - so they are now wound up and hate cyclists (and often come here to vent their spleen
) but the cyclist acchieved what he set out to do - he stayed upright and forced the car to overtake him properly, when there was space to do so.Kermit power said:
Seriously? Someone writes a clear, rational explanation of why they ride where they do on the road, and you think they come across as a red-faced ranting militant????
I'd suggest that is the sort of attitude which tends to create red-faced ranting militants in the first place!
It was just a general observation, and I'm glad Yellowjack took it in the spirit it was intended. I'd suggest that is the sort of attitude which tends to create red-faced ranting militants in the first place!
I suppose I just object to this idea that somehow someone on a bike is in the right by default. People seem to trot the line out about so what if a bike is holding a car up by 30 seconds? It rare you’ll get someone from a cycling POV saying that they weren’t in too much of a rush so let a bus out or slowed to let someone out of a junction. It’s all preservation of momentum, god I hate having to get back up to speed etc. etc.
I find the whole bikes and cars sharing the road thing to be fundamentally flawed. If one or the other was invented today there’s probably no way the two would be allowed to use the same tarmac.
And also, let’s face it, if the road is unsuitable enough to cause you to regularly need to swerve by a metre or so then it’s not really a good place to be riding – obviously there isn’t an option on this and the fault lies with our infastructure not with bikes or cars.
The point pages back about riding a racing bike that due to the road condition meant you were unable to stick to a straight line without harming yourself coming a cropper on a pothole or smashing into the car coming alongside you – I thought was particularly salient.
Edited by donfisher on Wednesday 17th October 13:12
Parsnip said:
Disastrous said:
Do you wear a helmet-cam, by any chance?
In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Problem is, you are missing the point. If it comes down to me being safe or curteous, I will go for safe - as I said above (and I know it sounds millitant) I don't care whatsoever if I hold someone up for 30 seconds if it means I am safe.In fairness, I would be annoyed at any vehicle dawdling in front of me doing half the posted limit or so and want it to move over. It's just normal. I appreciate that you are a vehicle and pay the same tax as anyone else etc. I just think that a bit of understanding from both sides, would make life a lot easier. And by that I mean, cyclists moving over when cars are queuing behind and can't pass and cars not attempting dangerous overtakes.
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
Give and take doesn't work here - the cyclist is giving up their saftey to save the driver a handful of seconds.
I am far from a lentilist and there are needlesly confrontational cyclists out there (like the critical mass bellends), but the majority of "millitant cyclists" out there aren't millitant cyclists - they are looking out for their safety - if I didn't ride the way I did, I would have been knocked off a lot more than 3 times during uni - the number of times I would have people on the horn trying to get round me on a roundabout was staggering - I cannot get my head around someone who can't work out the consequences of hitting a cyclist.
This one will run and run, funny thing is that this is a site for petrolheads, who I would hope would be of a higher driving standard than the general population - I have no problem safely overtaking safely - why people struggle with this concept I don't know - you would never dream of overtaking a slow car in a 30mph zone doing 28mph, far too close and on the horn, so why do it to a cyclist where the consequencses of your awful driving are much, much higher?
Cyclists are not always slow, nor in the way. In an urban environment it is the cars that cause the congestion. When was the last time we saw a rant about a traffic jam "holding people up"? Never, because cars are seen as traffic (and accepted) and bikes aren't, even if the bikes are quicker than the cars. It is madness and completely unsubstantiated and irrational.
From my perspective, (as both a cyclist and a driver) the people who need to adjust their attitude are the drivers. They are, afterall, the ones who pose the highest risk to others yet the least risk to themselves. They have the responsibility for piloting a large, dangerous vehicle around vulnerable road users and are, in theory, trained to do what they do.
Drivers need to understand that, in an urban environment, getting wound up by being "held up" by cyclists is completely irrational. Yesterday a chap overtook me and a few other cyclists. He was too close, and was overtaking by a junction and had to panic (and jump on the horn) when a (police)car began to turn out of the junction. It was a dangerous, unnecesarry overtake. He then proceeded to overtake another group of cyclists into oncoming traffic, whilst approaching a traffic island and a queue of traffic. He ended up squeezing the cyclists towards the kerb as he couldn't complete his overtake. His moronic behaviour got him absoltuely no-where, as evidenced by the chat we managed to have 10 seconds later before I left him in the queue. I very much doubt whether he ever considers the bigger picture. It was the best example of the "must overtake" mentality I've seen for a while.
Ditto understanding why cyclists need space, and why cyclists riding two abreast (should) form no more of a barrier to a following car than a cyclist riding alone - because a good, proper, SAFE overtake requires the same room for one or two cyclists.
Ditto understanding why cyclists are safer at the front of traffic to avoid turning vehicles.
And don't start on the various tax/licencing/insurance arguments that have been done to death, all of which are (in my view) the result of small minded ignorance or bigotry (or both).
It is incredibly frustating that a site dedicated to those who love cars appears so often to be inhabited by bad, dangerous, selfish and inconsiderate drivers. Are people like that really driving enthusiasts? Not in my book.
For balance, cyclists as a group are not helped by those who fail to take responsibility for themselves, nor by the "militant" critical mass lentilists. They are not "all" cyclists by a long stretch, nor in fact "most" cyclists. I certainly find it frustrating to see the constant rants on here, caused either by igornance or sweeping generalisations. Education is required for the former, but the latter is based (somewhat) on (anecdotal) evidence. Whether we like it or not, we do rely on goodwill from drivers for our safety. We shouldn't have to, but we do.
But it is not "militant" to use the road. It is not militant to ride defensively. It is not militant to be angry when someone does something stupid or lazy which puts you at serious risk and doesn't benefit them one iota.
I think the key bit from the two above posts - which is absolutely right - is that "A bit of understanding goes a long way". In my opinion, most cyclists are drivers and probably have an "understanding" of driving. I don't think the opposite is true and is evidenced so often on here, which is a shame because my driving greatly improved when I started cycling on the road and everyone should be encouraged to do it. Ironically the reason most people don't is because of "danger" posed by the cars....
Disastrous said:
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
If I look at my commute into London, I can say with absolute certainty that I'm faster over the last 8 miles (which are the roads on which I actually encounter cars) than anyone in a car. This isn't because I'm holding cars up, it's because other cars are holding cars up. If anything, cars are holding me up.I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
As for motorbikes, yes, you will get to your final destination significantly faster, but that's far from the same as saying you don't get in anyone's way! There will be plenty of occasions on my daily commute where I get held up by motorbikes for the simple reason that they're wider than I am, so can't filter through traffic at points where I can still safely do so.
Even making allowances for that though, there are different motorbike riders! I actually overtook a 125 on L plates going uphill yesterday! My speed uphill is dismal at best, so you really have to go some to be overtaken by me! I don't mind motorbikes using cycle lanes to get round stationary cars so long as they match their speed to the cyclists around them, but if you're going to dawdle that much, f
k off into the queue of cars instead!Kermit power said:
Disastrous said:
I ride motorbikes, pedal bikes and drive a car so I think I have a fairly good understanding of how other people are affected by me.
I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
If I look at my commute into London, I can say with absolute certainty that I'm faster over the last 8 miles (which are the roads on which I actually encounter cars) than anyone in a car. This isn't because I'm holding cars up, it's because other cars are holding cars up. If anything, cars are holding me up.I see it as follows:
Motorbikes don't get in anyone's way and are faster than anything.
Cycles are slow and get in everyone's way.
Cars are sort of in the middle. Whatever I'm on, I'll try and spare a thought for the other traffic as I know what annoys me when I'm them, and drive/ride accordingly. A bit of understanding goes a long way, I think. Even if there's nowhere to pul over on a cycle, a wave of apology separates you hugely from militant helmet-cam who DEMANDS to use his road to the full and will NOT back down.
As for motorbikes, yes, you will get to your final destination significantly faster, but that's far from the same as saying you don't get in anyone's way! There will be plenty of occasions on my daily commute where I get held up by motorbikes for the simple reason that they're wider than I am, so can't filter through traffic at points where I can still safely do so.
Even making allowances for that though, there are different motorbike riders! I actually overtook a 125 on L plates going uphill yesterday! My speed uphill is dismal at best, so you really have to go some to be overtaken by me! I don't mind motorbikes using cycle lanes to get round stationary cars so long as they match their speed to the cyclists around them, but if you're going to dawdle that much, f
k off into the queue of cars instead! (there's a whole new thread)I take your point about being faster point to point. I am too. But only in congestion and I can't imagine that there are many cars overtaking you dangerously when they're in a jam?
Cars are quicker than me on an un-congested 30mph road. So I'd rather they passed me. And safely. So I try and facilitate that when I can...
Disastrous said:
I take your point about being faster point to point. I am too. But only in congestion and I can't imagine that there are many cars overtaking you dangerously when they're in a jam?
I find it's often worse, as on open roads people do take the view that they'll only lose a few seconds waiting to get past you.In London rush hour, however, motorists seem to take the view that if they can't get past you to catch up with the back of the jam right this very instant, then they might miss the lights, or have someone pull out in front of them turning right from a side road, or in any one of myriad other ways suddenly find themselves dozens of cars further back, apparently condemned never to get home!
Add to that the fact that on my route there are cyclists the whole way, so motorists don't think of it as just losing a few seconds but add it all up to seemingly reach a number of hours and it's not exactly unusual for them to try and squeeze past in pinch points and the like.
Kermit power said:
Disastrous said:
I take your point about being faster point to point. I am too. But only in congestion and I can't imagine that there are many cars overtaking you dangerously when they're in a jam?
I find it's often worse, as on open roads people do take the view that they'll only lose a few seconds waiting to get past you.In London rush hour, however, motorists seem to take the view that if they can't get past you to catch up with the back of the jam right this very instant, then they might miss the lights, or have someone pull out in front of them turning right from a side road, or in any one of myriad other ways suddenly find themselves dozens of cars further back, apparently condemned never to get home!
Add to that the fact that on my route there are cyclists the whole way, so motorists don't think of it as just losing a few seconds but add it all up to seemingly reach a number of hours and it's not exactly unusual for them to try and squeeze past in pinch points and the like.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff