Why you should give cyclists a wide berth when passing.
Discussion
TwistingMyMelon said:
walm said:
Storer said:
If you are in a group, especially lycra clad, I give the barest minimum of room.
They walk among us. 
Not just childish but outright dangerous.
"I didn't realise my cycling was inconveniencing someone until that punishment pass. I will cycle how THEY want from now on..." said no one, ever.
Conscript said:
Because you're misinterpreting what is meant by a "race". It's not like NASCAR or something. It's usually just that the riders are timed and riding against the clock, rather than directly against each other. There is no expectation that participants should do anything other than obey rules of the road, and given that even the fittest rider is probably not going to be averaging more than 20MPH, it means that the participants are very unlikely to be breaking any speed limits.
There's a little bit more to the need for speed than just going quicker. One factor I have seen many times is a perceptible decrement in safety margins observed by the racing cyclist i.e., swerving to avoid potholes etc without checking over their shoulder, pulling out to overtake other cyclists without looking, not even slowing for busy roundabouts and taking the racing line across them often undertaking as they exit the roundabout. I see these antics most Wednesdays on the roads near me, and, true to form, virtually every other week some local paper features a sad story involving one of these cyclists. When I think how vulnerable that cyclist was and how heavy the HGV was he undertook on the roundabout I shudder... .Storer said:
I knew my post would annoy the byciclist brigade.
They think they have the right to do what they want, especially if they are in a group.
If you are a single cyclist, or especially a child I will give you yards of room and courtesy. If you are in a group, especially lycra clad, I give the barest minimum of room.
The trio in the above picture would get a long blast of the horn and then overtaken, especially if I lived on that road.
I struggle to understand why cyclist are allowed to 'race' on the public highway when no other vehicle is allowed to. Rent a track!
Oh, and for the chap that said he has 3 cars he taxes. Well I tax 9, so I win!
Your dreadful pig-ignorance is pissing a few of us drivers off, I can tell you, and I think it's this ignorance that winds you up so much. If only you knew something about motoring, you'd understand so much better.They think they have the right to do what they want, especially if they are in a group.
If you are a single cyclist, or especially a child I will give you yards of room and courtesy. If you are in a group, especially lycra clad, I give the barest minimum of room.
The trio in the above picture would get a long blast of the horn and then overtaken, especially if I lived on that road.
I struggle to understand why cyclist are allowed to 'race' on the public highway when no other vehicle is allowed to. Rent a track!
Oh, and for the chap that said he has 3 cars he taxes. Well I tax 9, so I win!
Cyclists don't behave any different from any other road user, however they don't cause the bazillions of hours of congestion and waste that we drivers do.
Cyclists have a right to the road. We drivers don't.
I suspect the 'racing' you refer to is time-trialling. Drivers are allowed to do pretty much the same and it's called road rallying, where drivers compete against the clock on public roads (albeit at night). Cambridgeshire is a brilliant area for it - I think it's there where one particularly legendary and car-breaking event takes place though the name of it escapes just right now.
Btw when I was a cyclist, many years ago, I was paying £3000 a year in vehicle tax and roughly £100 a day in fuel tax, so I think I win.
popeyewhite said:
There's a little bit more to the need for speed than just going quicker. One factor I have seen many times is a perceptible decrement in safety margins observed by the racing cyclist i.e., swerving to avoid potholes etc without checking over their shoulder, pulling out to overtake other cyclists without looking, not even slowing for busy roundabouts and taking the racing line across them often undertaking as they exit the roundabout. I see these antics most Wednesdays on the roads near me, and, true to form, virtually every other week some local paper features a sad story involving one of these cyclists. When I think how vulnerable that cyclist was and how heavy the HGV was he undertook on the roundabout I shudder... .
Very true, however I see exactly the same behaviour from drivers on every journey I do.heebeegeetee said:
Very true, however I see exactly the same behaviour from drivers on every journey I do.
I don't particularly, for sure the odd bad example from car drivers and motorcyclists...but cyclists are so much more vulnerable so why the crazy behaviour? Because they're racing. I'd be quite happy if they shut the roads to let them race, but racers and the general public mixing on an open road is not a good idea. This business of riding 2 abreast (or more!), I accept that there is some shred of logic in it being safer, in particular circumstances (not all), but by god it winds me up! The reason being that I'm lucky enough to NOT have encountered any large groups of cyclists - which seems to be the scenario where riding two abreast and shortening the overall queue length is most appropriate. No, I generally encounter just the two of them, riding side by side, where should they ride single file instead the length of them together is just about as inconsequential and poses little difference to my overtaking time.
Quite simply, I will give a cyclist plenty of room, but the fact is that the less I have to stray in the the oncoming lane, and the quicker I can move out (still giving adequate space for the cyclist of course), get past and move back in again the better for everyone on the road. We all agree on that I'm sure. It can make the difference between me being able to take advantage of suitable road conditions to pass them safely with plenty of room and at a safe speed, should they be in single file, or not being able to pass because the road is not wide enough to do so safely. Of course it's not a hard and fast rule, the circumstances can vary so much, but generally speaking from my experience I would much rather they would just stick to single file when there are only a couple of them.
And if you go out in a massive group, again riding two abreast might shorten the queue, but that's a bit like comparing overtaking an HGV Vs a LGV - both might be impossible to overtake in many places. So surely the common sense courteous thing to do, as a group, would be to keep plenty of distance between riders so that any following cars can pick their way through the queue rather than having to wait, and wait, and wait until they gun it past the whole lot of you at 60mph at the only opportunity they get? I apply the same logic if I'm stuck in a queue of traffic on a flowing NSL road where things are moving slower due to a lorry/sunday driver - I hang back and leave a gap so that if someone impatient enough wants to go for it, they can at least use that gap as a safety margin. Because we all know there will be that one guy - I've been that guy myself - that gets fed up with the queue of lemmings (all playing follow the leader at -20mph under the NSL just because nobody at the front of the queue will dare an overtake) and goes for the risky long overtake and then has to try and squeeze back in to the queue dangerously when things don't go to plan.
So in summary, 2 abreast makes some sense in some circumstances for large groups. But I'd rather they just split up and left big gaps for passing cars rather stick together in their lycra clad imaginary HGV. Riding 2 abreast when it's just the pair of you, just fecking pointless and annoying (and as someone mentioned earlier, more than likely because they just want to natter), and is comparable to a car driving as far out from the pavement/verge as it can do without hindering oncoming traffic.
Quite simply, I will give a cyclist plenty of room, but the fact is that the less I have to stray in the the oncoming lane, and the quicker I can move out (still giving adequate space for the cyclist of course), get past and move back in again the better for everyone on the road. We all agree on that I'm sure. It can make the difference between me being able to take advantage of suitable road conditions to pass them safely with plenty of room and at a safe speed, should they be in single file, or not being able to pass because the road is not wide enough to do so safely. Of course it's not a hard and fast rule, the circumstances can vary so much, but generally speaking from my experience I would much rather they would just stick to single file when there are only a couple of them.
And if you go out in a massive group, again riding two abreast might shorten the queue, but that's a bit like comparing overtaking an HGV Vs a LGV - both might be impossible to overtake in many places. So surely the common sense courteous thing to do, as a group, would be to keep plenty of distance between riders so that any following cars can pick their way through the queue rather than having to wait, and wait, and wait until they gun it past the whole lot of you at 60mph at the only opportunity they get? I apply the same logic if I'm stuck in a queue of traffic on a flowing NSL road where things are moving slower due to a lorry/sunday driver - I hang back and leave a gap so that if someone impatient enough wants to go for it, they can at least use that gap as a safety margin. Because we all know there will be that one guy - I've been that guy myself - that gets fed up with the queue of lemmings (all playing follow the leader at -20mph under the NSL just because nobody at the front of the queue will dare an overtake) and goes for the risky long overtake and then has to try and squeeze back in to the queue dangerously when things don't go to plan.
So in summary, 2 abreast makes some sense in some circumstances for large groups. But I'd rather they just split up and left big gaps for passing cars rather stick together in their lycra clad imaginary HGV. Riding 2 abreast when it's just the pair of you, just fecking pointless and annoying (and as someone mentioned earlier, more than likely because they just want to natter), and is comparable to a car driving as far out from the pavement/verge as it can do without hindering oncoming traffic.
heebeegeetee said:
Cyclists don't behave any different from any other road user, however they don't cause the bazillions of hours of congestion and waste that we drivers do.
Cyclists have a right to the road. We drivers don't.
Btw when I was a cyclist, many years ago, I was paying £3000 a year in vehicle tax and roughly £100 a day in fuel tax, so I think I win.
Cyclists cause lots of congestion and waste by holding up traffic at a speed at which they pollute more and have higher fuel consumption. Ever seen cyclists reach 50mph? They also speed up and slow down far more for hills, causing more braking/acceleration for traffic behind them.Cyclists have a right to the road. We drivers don't.
Btw when I was a cyclist, many years ago, I was paying £3000 a year in vehicle tax and roughly £100 a day in fuel tax, so I think I win.
How exactly do cyclists have a right to the roads? That drivers don't?
You were paying tax for your cars/motorbikes, not to be a cyclist.
Edited by spookly on Tuesday 23 August 12:10
spookly said:
1. Cyclists cause lots of congestion and waste by holding up traffic at a speed at which they pollute more and have higher fuel consumption. Ever seen cyclists reach 50mph? They also speed up and slow down far more for hills, causing more braking/acceleration for traffic behind them.
2. How exactly do cyclists have a right to the roads? That drivers don't?
3. You were paying tax for your cars/motorbikes, not to be a cyclist.
1. That is completely untrue. I don't know if you're lying, or trolling or just being plain stupid, but compared to what we as motorists do, cyclist achieve sweet f2. How exactly do cyclists have a right to the roads? That drivers don't?
3. You were paying tax for your cars/motorbikes, not to be a cyclist.
Edited by spookly on Tuesday 23 August 12:10
k all. It's us that grinds the country to a halt twice a day by taking to the roads in our cars at the same times each day. It's us that causes enormous road building. It's us that kills and maims thousands a year. It's us that pollutes the atmosphere.It's due to drivers (of which I am one) who causes by journey times to and from work to vary by 100%.
You say cyclists cause lots of congestion, so explain this: I've been driving extensively for getting on 40 years yet have never been delayed by cyclists to any degree; whereas I'll easily lose an hour every day to cars. The congestion we cause by using cars in the daytime is *massive*. Have you ever seen the traffic those m'way widening schemes can cause? *Massive* congestion, literally for years. I might lose a minute a year to cyclists, but I'll lose hours every week to cars, and the same applies to you.
Radio stations have traffic bulletins because of what we do. Sally Traffic can be on for what seems an age per bulletin, yet I do not recall her ever saying a word about any congestion caused by cyclists.
So come on, admit you know you are talking complete b
ks with this one. It's like comparing a drip to an ocean.2. It's the law. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to the road. Drivers are licenced.
3. You can't pay a tax to be either a driver or a cyclist and you can't pay a tax to use or pay for the roads. Nevertheless I pay vehicle tax, but who cares what I'm doing when not using those vehicles? You don't pay tax to be a pedestrian either. Fact is, whoever pays the most tax is paying the most, and if you could avoid it by riding a bike we'd all be riding 'em.
popeyewhite said:
I don't particularly, for sure the odd bad example from car drivers and motorcyclists...but cyclists are so much more vulnerable so why the crazy behaviour? Because they're racing. I'd be quite happy if they shut the roads to let them race, but racers and the general public mixing on an open road is not a good idea.
Why? Has it ever caused a real problem? We have time trialing near us, I'm unaware that it cause me anything to do anything other than overtake a cyclist or three. What's the issue? If drivers are incapable of overtaking individual cyclists then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.Storer said:
I knew my post would annoy the byciclist brigade.
They think they have the right to do what they want, especially if they are in a group.
If you are a single cyclist, or especially a child I will give you yards of room and courtesy. If you are in a group, especially lycra clad, I give the barest minimum of room.
The trio in the above picture would get a long blast of the horn and then overtaken, especially if I lived on that road.
I struggle to understand why cyclist are allowed to 'race' on the public highway when no other vehicle is allowed to. Rent a track!
Oh, and for the chap that said he has 3 cars he taxes. Well I tax 9, so I win!
Frankly your post shows a lack of maturity that should prohibit you from driving on the public road. They think they have the right to do what they want, especially if they are in a group.
If you are a single cyclist, or especially a child I will give you yards of room and courtesy. If you are in a group, especially lycra clad, I give the barest minimum of room.
The trio in the above picture would get a long blast of the horn and then overtaken, especially if I lived on that road.
I struggle to understand why cyclist are allowed to 'race' on the public highway when no other vehicle is allowed to. Rent a track!
Oh, and for the chap that said he has 3 cars he taxes. Well I tax 9, so I win!
Even if you took the stance that the cyclists were 100% in the wrong why would you potentially risk getting into a situation where you could hit one?
Do you think that if you did hit one it would be a matter that was sorted quickly? Would you be happy to have an injury or even a death on your conscience even if it was technically someone elses fault? The reality is that by your actions you are putting yourself at greater risk of being involved in an incident that exposes you to a risk of prosectution or even prison.
You sound like a danger to yourself and other road users.
PoopahScoopah said:
This business of riding 2 abreast (or more!), I accept that there is some shred of logic in it being safer, in particular circumstances (not all), but by god it winds me up! The reason being that I'm lucky enough to NOT have encountered any large groups of cyclists - which seems to be the scenario where riding two abreast and shortening the overall queue length is most appropriate. No, I generally encounter just the two of them, riding side by side, where should they ride single file instead the length of them together is just about as inconsequential and poses little difference to my overtaking time.
Quite simply, I will give a cyclist plenty of room, but the fact is that the less I have to stray in the the oncoming lane, and the quicker I can move out (still giving adequate space for the cyclist of course), get past and move back in again the better for everyone on the road. We all agree on that I'm sure. It can make the difference between me being able to take advantage of suitable road conditions to pass them safely with plenty of room and at a safe speed, should they be in single file, or not being able to pass because the road is not wide enough to do so safely. Of course it's not a hard and fast rule, the circumstances can vary so much, but generally speaking from my experience I would much rather they would just stick to single file when there are only a couple of them.
And if you go out in a massive group, again riding two abreast might shorten the queue, but that's a bit like comparing overtaking an HGV Vs a LGV - both might be impossible to overtake in many places. So surely the common sense courteous thing to do, as a group, would be to keep plenty of distance between riders so that any following cars can pick their way through the queue rather than having to wait, and wait, and wait until they gun it past the whole lot of you at 60mph at the only opportunity they get? I apply the same logic if I'm stuck in a queue of traffic on a flowing NSL road where things are moving slower due to a lorry/sunday driver - I hang back and leave a gap so that if someone impatient enough wants to go for it, they can at least use that gap as a safety margin. Because we all know there will be that one guy - I've been that guy myself - that gets fed up with the queue of lemmings (all playing follow the leader at -20mph under the NSL just because nobody at the front of the queue will dare an overtake) and goes for the risky long overtake and then has to try and squeeze back in to the queue dangerously when things don't go to plan.
So in summary, 2 abreast makes some sense in some circumstances for large groups. But I'd rather they just split up and left big gaps for passing cars rather stick together in their lycra clad imaginary HGV. Riding 2 abreast when it's just the pair of you, just fecking pointless and annoying (and as someone mentioned earlier, more than likely because they just want to natter), and is comparable to a car driving as far out from the pavement/verge as it can do without hindering oncoming traffic.
How is going twice as far in length yet only half way into the opposite lane overtaking two cyclists riding line astern any quicker or safer than going wholly into the opposite lane for half the length overtaking two cyclists riding side by side? Have a proper think about that one before you reply.Quite simply, I will give a cyclist plenty of room, but the fact is that the less I have to stray in the the oncoming lane, and the quicker I can move out (still giving adequate space for the cyclist of course), get past and move back in again the better for everyone on the road. We all agree on that I'm sure. It can make the difference between me being able to take advantage of suitable road conditions to pass them safely with plenty of room and at a safe speed, should they be in single file, or not being able to pass because the road is not wide enough to do so safely. Of course it's not a hard and fast rule, the circumstances can vary so much, but generally speaking from my experience I would much rather they would just stick to single file when there are only a couple of them.
And if you go out in a massive group, again riding two abreast might shorten the queue, but that's a bit like comparing overtaking an HGV Vs a LGV - both might be impossible to overtake in many places. So surely the common sense courteous thing to do, as a group, would be to keep plenty of distance between riders so that any following cars can pick their way through the queue rather than having to wait, and wait, and wait until they gun it past the whole lot of you at 60mph at the only opportunity they get? I apply the same logic if I'm stuck in a queue of traffic on a flowing NSL road where things are moving slower due to a lorry/sunday driver - I hang back and leave a gap so that if someone impatient enough wants to go for it, they can at least use that gap as a safety margin. Because we all know there will be that one guy - I've been that guy myself - that gets fed up with the queue of lemmings (all playing follow the leader at -20mph under the NSL just because nobody at the front of the queue will dare an overtake) and goes for the risky long overtake and then has to try and squeeze back in to the queue dangerously when things don't go to plan.
So in summary, 2 abreast makes some sense in some circumstances for large groups. But I'd rather they just split up and left big gaps for passing cars rather stick together in their lycra clad imaginary HGV. Riding 2 abreast when it's just the pair of you, just fecking pointless and annoying (and as someone mentioned earlier, more than likely because they just want to natter), and is comparable to a car driving as far out from the pavement/verge as it can do without hindering oncoming traffic.
heebeegeetee said:
spookly said:
1. Cyclists cause lots of congestion and waste by holding up traffic at a speed at which they pollute more and have higher fuel consumption. Ever seen cyclists reach 50mph? They also speed up and slow down far more for hills, causing more braking/acceleration for traffic behind them.
2. How exactly do cyclists have a right to the roads? That drivers don't?
3. You were paying tax for your cars/motorbikes, not to be a cyclist.
1. That is completely untrue. I don't know if you're lying, or trolling or just being plain stupid, but compared to what we as motorists do, cyclist achieve sweet f2. How exactly do cyclists have a right to the roads? That drivers don't?
3. You were paying tax for your cars/motorbikes, not to be a cyclist.
Edited by spookly on Tuesday 23 August 12:10
k all. It's us that grinds the country to a halt twice a day by taking to the roads in our cars at the same times each day. It's us that causes enormous road building. It's us that kills and maims thousands a year. It's us that pollutes the atmosphere.It's due to drivers (of which I am one) who causes by journey times to and from work to vary by 100%.
You say cyclists cause lots of congestion, so explain this: I've been driving extensively for getting on 40 years yet have never been delayed by cyclists to any degree; whereas I'll easily lose an hour every day to cars. The congestion we cause by using cars in the daytime is *massive*. Have you ever seen the traffic those m'way widening schemes can cause? *Massive* congestion, literally for years. I might lose a minute a year to cyclists, but I'll lose hours every week to cars, and the same applies to you.
Radio stations have traffic bulletins because of what we do. Sally Traffic can be on for what seems an age per bulletin, yet I do not recall her ever saying a word about any congestion caused by cyclists.
So come on, admit you know you are talking complete b
ks with this one. It's like comparing a drip to an ocean.2. It's the law. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to the road. Drivers are licenced.
3. You can't pay a tax to be either a driver or a cyclist and you can't pay a tax to use or pay for the roads. Nevertheless I pay vehicle tax, but who cares what I'm doing when not using those vehicles? You don't pay tax to be a pedestrian either. Fact is, whoever pays the most tax is paying the most, and if you could avoid it by riding a bike we'd all be riding 'em.
The idea that Cyclists cause the traffic jams is one of the biggest cases of "I'll believe any old nonsense if it supports by point of view" that I have heard on a long time.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I had one this morning, the utter spunktrumpet passed me @circa 60MPH with less than 2" to spare 
That's fking out of order. 
Most people are absolutely fine, this one was an utter . I know when they're too close as the hairs on my legs (I'm not that committed) get dragged by their slipstream 
heebeegeetee said:
popeyewhite said:
I don't particularly, for sure the odd bad example from car drivers and motorcyclists...but cyclists are so much more vulnerable so why the crazy behaviour? Because they're racing. I'd be quite happy if they shut the roads to let them race, but racers and the general public mixing on an open road is not a good idea.
Why? Has it ever caused a real problem? We have time trialing near us, I'm unaware that it cause me anything to do anything other than overtake a cyclist or three. What's the issue? If drivers are incapable of overtaking individual cyclists then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.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.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.
heebeegeetee said:
1. That is completely untrue. I don't know if you're lying, or trolling or just being plain stupid, but compared to what we as motorists do, cyclist achieve sweet fk all.
It's us that grinds the country to a halt twice a day by taking to the roads in our cars at the same times each day. It's us that causes enormous road building. It's us that kills and maims thousands a year. It's us that pollutes the atmosphere.It's due to drivers (of which I am one) who causes by journey times to and from work to vary by 100%.
You say cyclists cause lots of congestion, so explain this: I've been driving extensively for getting on 40 years yet have never been delayed by cyclists to any degree; whereas I'll easily lose an hour every day to cars. The congestion we cause by using cars in the daytime is *massive*. Have you ever seen the traffic those m'way widening schemes can cause? *Massive* congestion, literally for years. I might lose a minute a year to cyclists, but I'll lose hours every week to cars, and the same applies to you.
Radio stations have traffic bulletins because of what we do. Sally Traffic can be on for what seems an age per bulletin, yet I do not recall her ever saying a word about any congestion caused by cyclists.
So come on, admit you know you are talking complete bks with this one. It's like comparing a drip to an ocean.
2. It's the law. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to the road. Drivers are licenced.
3. You can't pay a tax to be either a driver or a cyclist and you can't pay a tax to use or pay for the roads. Nevertheless I pay vehicle tax, but who cares what I'm doing when not using those vehicles? You don't pay tax to be a pedestrian either. Fact is, whoever pays the most tax is paying the most, and if you could avoid it by riding a bike we'd all be riding 'em.
1. Try cycling through any road in a picturesque scenic areas with lots of NSL and report back how you get on.k all. It's us that grinds the country to a halt twice a day by taking to the roads in our cars at the same times each day. It's us that causes enormous road building. It's us that kills and maims thousands a year. It's us that pollutes the atmosphere.It's due to drivers (of which I am one) who causes by journey times to and from work to vary by 100%.
You say cyclists cause lots of congestion, so explain this: I've been driving extensively for getting on 40 years yet have never been delayed by cyclists to any degree; whereas I'll easily lose an hour every day to cars. The congestion we cause by using cars in the daytime is *massive*. Have you ever seen the traffic those m'way widening schemes can cause? *Massive* congestion, literally for years. I might lose a minute a year to cyclists, but I'll lose hours every week to cars, and the same applies to you.
Radio stations have traffic bulletins because of what we do. Sally Traffic can be on for what seems an age per bulletin, yet I do not recall her ever saying a word about any congestion caused by cyclists.
So come on, admit you know you are talking complete b
ks with this one. It's like comparing a drip to an ocean.2. It's the law. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to the road. Drivers are licenced.
3. You can't pay a tax to be either a driver or a cyclist and you can't pay a tax to use or pay for the roads. Nevertheless I pay vehicle tax, but who cares what I'm doing when not using those vehicles? You don't pay tax to be a pedestrian either. Fact is, whoever pays the most tax is paying the most, and if you could avoid it by riding a bike we'd all be riding 'em.
I don't live in the South East, or within 20 miles of a city, so the roads here are generally not nose to tail with cars outside of the peak of rush hours in urban areas. There are many times when I'll get caught behind cyclists which have a train of cars behind them. They might not directly spew out pollutants, but by slowing the average speed of the traffic behind them and by braking/accelerating more on hills they cause the traffic to be more polluting.
Nothing you have said negates the fact that I and many others are often held up by cyclists on NSL roads where it is near impossible to overtake safely (oncoming traffic + bends), and traffic would be going at a far more efficient speed if it weren't for the presence of the packs of lycra monkeys.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the lycra bunch don't tend to go for the urban/city crawl, they're more likely to be found in packs on rural NSL roads. Nobody is saying cyclists have an impact where traffic is near immobile already.... are you a bit simple? your whole riposte hinges on the exact opposite scenario to where people are complaining cyclists are a menace.
I recently drove a 50mph a road on a journey that was about 20 miles. If I hadn't have had several packs of cyclists on the road I would have driven at 50mph all the way, as would all the other cars on that road. Due to limited safe places to overtake, and several packs of cyclists, the journey took almost an hour and I suspect my average speed was down nearer 20mph.No cars were holding me up, they all went at 50mph too, just the cyclists.
2. The law does not give a 'right' to cyclists that isn't available to motorists who are legally licensed, so your point effectively means nothing. Legally licensed drivers have every legal right to the road that cyclists do.
3. Agreed. So why were you trying to make a big deal of how much tax you paid when it had no relevance to the roads?
And disagreed, I won't be donning lycra and holding up traffic to try and avoid a few quid in either fuel duty or VED. I'd feel very antisocial if I was getting in everybody's way on free flowing NSL roads.
But I have, and sometimes do, use a bike to pop into town or go mountain biking as neither of these cause me the embarrassment I would feel at holding up traffic on a free flowing road with a speed limit I couldn't dream of reaching.
HTH.
Edited by spookly on Tuesday 23 August 13:25
Antony Moxey said:
How is going twice as far in length yet only half way into the opposite lane overtaking two cyclists riding line astern any quicker or safer than going wholly into the opposite lane for half the length overtaking two cyclists riding side by side? Have a proper think about that one before you reply.
When you are stuck behind a slow moving object with a HGV, overtaking at opportunity will give a very low speed differential due to the slow acceleration of the HGV, so fairly safe even at a little closer gap, and much easier to do if you can overtake a narrower object than a wider object.It's not ideal, but many times it's the only option.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff