Why you should give cyclists a wide berth when passing.

[ambuletz]

Storer said:

No one seemed to want to address the dedicated cycle paths question. Why is it necessary to still cycle on the road when there is a wide, dedicated cycle path beside the road? It is much safer than the road, so why not use them. Returning to the lycra lovers, I have never seen a lycra clad cyclist on the dedicated cycleway. Is it because it reduces their credibility as a 'serious cyclist'??

I don't know about the country but there are many reasons.

- it can be dirty/not cleaned often (where as the roads are cleaner). = more likely to get a puncture
- it might not be as smooth as the road.
- the route might be slower.

There's a small hill on my way to the gym that has a cycle lane move off the road and onto the pavement. I used it once and I will never use it again. It's more dirty AND is full of hidden bumps. Not safe. There's also the matter of merging back into traffic at the bottom of the hill when the lane goes back into the road, no thanks too slow. I stick to the road which is smoother, quicker, cleaner. In that direction there are no overtaking lines, but almost all people overtake and i've no problem with it. 99% of people don't either. There's always that 1% that THINK I shouldn't be there, but they're always fat, old, and mostly women who are PMSing at having to use a little bit of their brain power to think about how to do a safe overtake.

There are some cycle lanes in my area that I don't use because they're on pavements. If I'm heading down the road and need to do a right turn I'd have to stop at the edge of the road and cross, no thanks!! I know how to use the roads so would rather do that.

[Antony Moxey]

krarkol said:

Antony Moxey said:

Why is making you slow down for a bit either impeding your progress or not fair use? The way you put it implies that anything that wants to go faster than something slower - whether that be a cyclist, tractor, caravan, HGV, Doris bimbling her way to the shops - is making the more important journey.

Solo cyclists aren't typically a problem, I don't mind slowing down a bit for the odd one.

What I don't like is slowing down for an ignorant group or a solo cyclist every few hundred yards.

Cyclists have way more options of places to cycle, without any additional costs.

A car on the other hand, you either pay money to use a race track or you have the road.

I want to do the speed limit of a road on a nice country road and you're ruining that.

For now, you are the slowest vehicle in the way and you made the choice to be there, unlike a tractor or HGV, which is performing a job. I still get annoyed but not at the driver as he's just doing his job at the end of the day. So until you realise that it is in fact you being selfish, don't cry when people get mad.

Edited by krarkol on Wednesday 24th August 18:00

Actually, cyclists don't have that many options - pretty much they're restricted to roads and tracks too, the cycle path network is nowhere near extensive enough to complete a decent ride without leaving one at some point. You wouldn't expect someone to seriously get off and push between cycle paths would you?!

Your 'ignorant group' - ignorant in what way, because they're there? If you come round a corner and find a group in front of you unless they knew in advance you were coming and already moved out of the way you'd still need to slow down in order to let them get out of the way. But then again, perhaps it's YOU that's the selfish one expecting them to get out of the way instead of just living with the fact they're there. They have as much right as you to be there and just because you want to travel at the speed limit it doesn't mean everything else on the road has to accommodate that desire.

And again, so what if I'm the slowest, and so what if it's my choice, it's also yours, the HGV's and the tractor's, regardless of who's doing a job or not, and also who's to say I'm not, in my Lycra, on my bike?

Perhaps the solution is a bit more tolerance and just accept that there'll be stuff holding you up and stuff that you hold up. Unless every single journey you ever make or ever have made has been at the speed limit I'd suggest that at some point you've held someone up - did you move over?

[WinstonWolf]

Devil2575 said:

Mr2Mike said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ergo something else is causing it

Brilliant, now we're getting blamed for congestion even when we're not there.

Read again, sounds like your brains have been mashed into the saddle a bit too much.

On narrow, busy urban roads cyclists hold up traffic and cause congestion. The problem is worse when they hold up buses since buses have no way of overtaking safely. The considerable build up traffic this causes at peaks times does not magically vanish when the cyclist decides to let traffic past, or when traffic reaches a wider section of road, so this one act of selfishness causes congestion on the road for a considerable period.

But the actual problem is the heavy traffic in the first place, which is why the congestion remains afterwards.

He won't have it, even though there isn't a cyclist in front of the bus on these busy urban roads it's still the cyclists fault.

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

Read again, sounds like your brains have been mashed into the saddle a bit too much.

On narrow, busy urban roads some cyclists hold up traffic and cause congestion. The problem is worse when they hold up buses since buses have no way of overtaking safely. The considerable build up traffic this causes at peaks times does not magically vanish when the cyclist decides to let traffic past, or when traffic reaches a wider section of road, so this one act of selfishness causes congestion on the road for a considerable period.

A considerable period? Yes, I hear the reports each morning, cyclist causing severe delays. What a load of tosh. Of course motorcyclists being some of the most discourteous road users of all......

[anonymous-user]

krarkol said:

Solo cyclists aren't typically a problem, I don't mind slowing down a bit for the odd one.

What I don't like is slowing down for an ignorant group or a solo cyclist every few hundred yards.

Yeah, they're easy to pass, but what if I've caught up with a line of traffic because an old biddy/learner driver doesn't have the balls to overtake? Yeah, they're part of the problem, but the cyclist was the instigator. How hard is it to think "if I cycle on this road, chances are people will be stuck behind me and that can cause conflicts" but instead you are thinking "It's my hobby and I've got every right to be here". Not exactly the thoughts of someone with good self-preservation really is it?

It's nothing to do with who's journey is more important. I could be driving on that road for leisure aswell as the cyclist, but I can't enjoy myself when I'm slowing down to 20mph or less every minute or 2.

My dad's a cyclist. He sticks to routes with minimal cars when he's doing it for leiusre and when he cycles to work, he uses a cycle path and mentions that many others choose to still ride on the road which he thinks is odd.

Cyclists have way more options of places to cycle, without any additional costs.

A car on the other hand, you either pay money to use a race track or you have the road.

Also, around here there is a pretty busy country area with some excellent roads, probably used for around half a century by motorcyclists. Recently, every summer they do a cycling race on open public roads. Why is that even allowed? Surely racing on the public highway is illegal? If it's "fair use" surely I could host my own car racing event on the same open public roads?

Honestly, this thread just shows the typical attitudes of cyclists, everyone who is inconvenienced and speaks out is "the bad guy"

I want to do the speed limit of a road on a nice country road and you're ruining that. Yes there are other road users that impede my progress, but they aren't slowing me down as much.
Yes, I do have to slow down for people to cross [b] in a residential area/b] where I expect I have to slow down for pedestrians.

If the law changed and allowed you to use these electric assisted bikes that can do 30-40mph. I can guarantee you'd have less issues off people.

For now, you are the slowest vehicle in the way and you made the choice to be there, unlike a tractor or HGV, which is performing a job. I still get annoyed but not at the driver as he's just doing his job at the end of the day. So until you realise that it is in fact you being selfish, don't cry when people get mad.

Someone mentioned horses don't get the same flack.

I dislike them on the road just as much tbh. I just don't encounter them as much. It's just as irritating when I've slowed to a crawl and they are still waving me to slow down because their horse is unsettled. If it's scared, don't ride it on the road.

Can people not see how simple the solution actually is?

Also, why can mountain bikes go on off-road trails yet a off-road only motorcycle can't? Surely it's the same thing with the only difference being one is powered by internal combustion.

Throughout my time riding motorcycles and driving cars, I hear the phrase "use common sense" a lot, yet when it comes to riding an animal or a 2 wheeled contraption with half inch wide wheels on a bad road surface, common sense goes out the window and instead the argument goes more towards "we've got the right to be here"
I've got the right to express free speech and upset certain communities, nobody in their right mind would advise it though would they.

I should mention, when on the road and I encounter either cyclists or horse riders, I will treat them with courtesy and give them a wide berth even if I am tutting and moaning to myself. It doesn't mean I'm happy with it though.


Use common sense

I couldn't agree more. Cycle races have to have permission, as do marathons etc. In most countries this is celebrated, not in misery central. Your post just smacks of someone who is a little bitter about things, it's just such a waste of energy getting annoyed by these minor hold ups. As has been said time and time again, there are good and bad everywhere.

[Storer]

ambuletz said:

Storer said:

No one seemed to want to address the dedicated cycle paths question. Why is it necessary to still cycle on the road when there is a wide, dedicated cycle path beside the road? It is much safer than the road, so why not use them. Returning to the lycra lovers, I have never seen a lycra clad cyclist on the dedicated cycleway. Is it because it reduces their credibility as a 'serious cyclist'??

I don't know about the country but there are many reasons.

- it can be dirty/not cleaned often (where as the roads are cleaner). = more likely to get a puncture
- it might not be as smooth as the road.
- the route might be slower.

There's a small hill on my way to the gym that has a cycle lane move off the road and onto the pavement. I used it once and I will never use it again. It's more dirty AND is full of hidden bumps. Not safe. There's also the matter of merging back into traffic at the bottom of the hill when the lane goes back into the road, no thanks too slow. I stick to the road which is smoother, quicker, cleaner. In that direction there are no overtaking lines, but almost all people overtake and i've no problem with it. 99% of people don't either. There's always that 1% that THINK I shouldn't be there, but they're always fat, old, and mostly women who are PMSing at having to use a little bit of their brain power to think about how to do a safe overtake.

There are some cycle lanes in my area that I don't use because they're on pavements. If I'm heading down the road and need to do a right turn I'd have to stop at the edge of the road and cross, no thanks!! I know how to use the roads so would rather do that.

So it is your ability to travel at speed that prevents you using the cycle path!

If the government are going to spend substantial sums of money on these safer cycle ways there must be a penalty or abdication of responsibility.
If there is a cycle path then ALL cyclist should be compelled to use them. If they choose to use the road then any accident involving a cyclist should be seen as 'caused by the cyclist' leaving him open to claims for compensation.

We have seen a massive increase in cycling for pleasure and a similar increase in the 'cycle trials' on road racing. 26 years ago when I moved to where I live we never had road races in the area. Now groups of cyclists are a daily sight. Singles and pairs are almost 10 a penny.

The situation has changed but there has not been a reduction in traffic. It has probably doubled also. If the current spending on cycle ways continues we need to 'force' all cyclists to use them. Not just the old biddies/codgers (which you will all become) to use them.

Purpose made cycle ways didn't exist here 26 years ago, even 5 years ago. Habits need to be changed and judging by the comments on here the only way is by using a 'stick'.

[Antony Moxey]

Storer said:

If there is a cycle path then ALL cyclist should be compelled to use them.

Why?

[Storer]

Antony Moxey said:

Storer said:

If there is a cycle path then ALL cyclist should be compelled to use them.

Why?

If you need an explanation then Darwin is coming for you.

[anonymous-user]

Storer said:

If you need an explanation then Darwin is coming for you.

You don't cycle, obviously, so why make such a stupid comment?

[Conscript]

He's already admitted to getting too close to cyclists he deems unworthy of being on the road. Just another thinly veiled threat from an Internet hard man I hope. Otherwise he's the only one here who shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

[anonymous-user]

Conscript said:

He's already admitted to getting too close to cyclists he deems unworthy of being on the road. Just another thinly veiled threat from an Internet hard man I hope. Otherwise he's the only one here who shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

Really, FFS. I just do not understand. On a track day I doubt if people would act like this, yet on the road when passing in close proximity to a human in nothing but a layer of lycra it's 'sport' to endanger them, it's acceptable to label them PURELY due to a hobby, its just so messed up. These words are what I would expect from a teenager, but not an adult.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr2Mike said:

Read again, sounds like your brains have been mashed into the saddle a bit too much.

On narrow, busy urban roads some cyclists hold up traffic and cause congestion. The problem is worse when they hold up buses since buses have no way of overtaking safely. The considerable build up traffic this causes at peaks times does not magically vanish when the cyclist decides to let traffic past, or when traffic reaches a wider section of road, so this one act of selfishness causes congestion on the road for a considerable period.

This is absolute nonsense. As you say - peak times - that is the cause of the congestion, tens of millions of people taking to the roads at the same time, some 90% in cars of one occupant. The m'ways grind to a halt too and they have neither buses or bikes.

You are making the classic mistake of thinking you're stuck in traffic when in fact you are the traffic. If the road had the amount of traffic it was designed for then the odd bike, bus or hgv wouldn't make any difference, but because there is far too much traffic for the road then it grinds to halt for any/no end of immaterial reasons.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 24th August 22:30

[ambuletz]

Storer said:

ambuletz said:

Storer said:

No one seemed to want to address the dedicated cycle paths question. Why is it necessary to still cycle on the road when there is a wide, dedicated cycle path beside the road? It is much safer than the road, so why not use them. Returning to the lycra lovers, I have never seen a lycra clad cyclist on the dedicated cycleway. Is it because it reduces their credibility as a 'serious cyclist'??

I don't know about the country but there are many reasons.

- it can be dirty/not cleaned often (where as the roads are cleaner). = more likely to get a puncture
- it might not be as smooth as the road.
- the route might be slower.

There's a small hill on my way to the gym that has a cycle lane move off the road and onto the pavement. I used it once and I will never use it again. It's more dirty AND is full of hidden bumps. Not safe. There's also the matter of merging back into traffic at the bottom of the hill when the lane goes back into the road, no thanks too slow. I stick to the road which is smoother, quicker, cleaner. In that direction there are no overtaking lines, but almost all people overtake and i've no problem with it. 99% of people don't either. There's always that 1% that THINK I shouldn't be there, but they're always fat, old, and mostly women who are PMSing at having to use a little bit of their brain power to think about how to do a safe overtake.

There are some cycle lanes in my area that I don't use because they're on pavements. If I'm heading down the road and need to do a right turn I'd have to stop at the edge of the road and cross, no thanks!! I know how to use the roads so would rather do that.

So it is your ability to travel at speed that prevents you using the cycle path!

If the government are going to spend substantial sums of money on these safer cycle ways there must be a penalty or abdication of responsibility.
If there is a cycle path then ALL cyclist should be compelled to use them. If they choose to use the road then any accident involving a cyclist should be seen as 'caused by the cyclist' leaving him open to claims for compensation.

We have seen a massive increase in cycling for pleasure and a similar increase in the 'cycle trials' on road racing. 26 years ago when I moved to where I live we never had road races in the area. Now groups of cyclists are a daily sight. Singles and pairs are almost 10 a penny.

The situation has changed but there has not been a reduction in traffic. It has probably doubled also. If the current spending on cycle ways continues we need to 'force' all cyclists to use them. Not just the old biddies/codgers (which you will all become) to use them.

Purpose made cycle ways didn't exist here 26 years ago, even 5 years ago. Habits need to be changed and judging by the comments on here the only way is by using a 'stick'.

if you read my reason is 3 fold. the bridge in question merely has some lines painted on the (very poor quality) pavement and the need to unmount/mount the road on a bridge that probably only takes me 20sec to go over by road.

I have no problem using a cycle lane if it's suitable. you can't instantly blame a cyclist for being on a road they're allowed to be there, so are many other types of road users. People are meant to learn this as part of the highway code. as someone who's driven, used a motorbike, and cycled, I have no problem with all types of transport being on the road. The problem is impatient, rude, inconsiderate and poorly educated people that are dangerous (regardless of their mode of transport). Too many people have a strong sense of entitlement.

[spookly]

yonex said:

Really, FFS. I just do not understand. On a track day I doubt if people would act like this, yet on the road when passing in close proximity to a human in nothing but a layer of lycra it's 'sport' to endanger them, it's acceptable to label them PURELY due to a hobby, its just so messed up. These words are what I would expect from a teenager, but not an adult.

I would not do that to a cyclist. I'd be in the tutting to myself brigade.

But, surely you can see that these things happen because a significant number of drivers are getting frustrated with cyclists getting in their way. Most won't go as far as the aggressive behaviour described, but some will. Those are just a tiny sample of the people getting annoyed, most won't be baited into endangering other people. I certainly will not be, but I see people make reckless overtakes on cyclists with reasonable frequency.

You might think they do not have the right to be annoyed, and you can argue you have a right to be there.
They will still get annoyed as you will still be holding them up due to your choice of hobby.

You can argue that they should not be annoyed, you can argue that you don't hold them up much, that they should overtake.... but you've probably seen aggressive driving towards cyclists, and many more drivers are also annoyed by it but don't react so childishly.

The funny thing about saying people should just be able to overtake if they aren't a crap driver is that you are encouraging more risky overtaking.... which cyclists often complain about.

If people want to give you a wide berth when overtaking to avoid endangering you but end up getting delayed by you, and find it annoying - you criticise their overtaking skills.
If people go for reckless overtakes, not giving you much room, and endanger you - you criticise their attitude (rightly) and driving skills (rightly).

But you can't have it both ways, it really does become a circular argument. You create a situation where on some roads it will be difficult to find an opportunity to overtake safely - that leaves the driver two options if you don't let him pass by pulling in:

1. Try to make a close, aggressive overtake - the wrong option IMHO
2. Wait, and get annoyed that they are having to drive so damn slow when you could let them pass

I have noticed the argument that these situations simply don't happen, it's always possible to find somewhere to overtake safely etc etc.... but drivers saying otherwise and cyclists complaining of reckless overtakes and aggressive driving would seem to be at least some evidence to the contrary.

[ambuletz]

delayed by how much though? 5seconds? are they doing a time trial on public roads?

[spookly]

ambuletz said:

delayed by how much though? 5seconds? are they doing a time trial on public roads?

I have seen a full on organised race with 100 or more cyclists going up cheddar gorge with the road not being closed off, and cyclists trying to weave in and out of traffic. They were within inches of my wing mirrors overtaking, and I was only going slowly because of their mates crawling up the hill. To say they were endangering themselves would be an understatement, I was surprised none of them were flattened.
Although that is the worst I have seen, and I haven't seen that happen again in the same place.

But round this way on a weekend I'd bet you couldn't go more than a mile or two without finding a pack of 3 or more cycling together.

[ambuletz]

spookly said:

ambuletz said:

delayed by how much though? 5seconds? are they doing a time trial on public roads?

I have seen a full on organised race with 100 or more cyclists going up cheddar gorge with the road not being closed off, and cyclists trying to weave in and out of traffic. They were within inches of my wing mirrors overtaking, and I was only going slowly because of their mates crawling up the hill. To say they were endangering themselves would be an understatement, I was surprised none of them were flattened.
Although that is the worst I have seen, and I haven't seen that happen again in the same place.

But round this way on a weekend I'd bet you couldn't go more than a mile or two without finding a pack of 3 or more cycling together.

I was referring to motorists, any slow down they get from cyclists surely they can make by giving the gas a squirt once they overtake. I can't comment on the lycra lads, as someone in london I barely come across it. when driving I have not encoutered it either.

[WinstonWolf]

Storer said:

ambuletz said:

Storer said:

No one seemed to want to address the dedicated cycle paths question. Why is it necessary to still cycle on the road when there is a wide, dedicated cycle path beside the road? It is much safer than the road, so why not use them. Returning to the lycra lovers, I have never seen a lycra clad cyclist on the dedicated cycleway. Is it because it reduces their credibility as a 'serious cyclist'??

I don't know about the country but there are many reasons.

- it can be dirty/not cleaned often (where as the roads are cleaner). = more likely to get a puncture
- it might not be as smooth as the road.
- the route might be slower.

There's a small hill on my way to the gym that has a cycle lane move off the road and onto the pavement. I used it once and I will never use it again. It's more dirty AND is full of hidden bumps. Not safe. There's also the matter of merging back into traffic at the bottom of the hill when the lane goes back into the road, no thanks too slow. I stick to the road which is smoother, quicker, cleaner. In that direction there are no overtaking lines, but almost all people overtake and i've no problem with it. 99% of people don't either. There's always that 1% that THINK I shouldn't be there, but they're always fat, old, and mostly women who are PMSing at having to use a little bit of their brain power to think about how to do a safe overtake.

There are some cycle lanes in my area that I don't use because they're on pavements. If I'm heading down the road and need to do a right turn I'd have to stop at the edge of the road and cross, no thanks!! I know how to use the roads so would rather do that.

So it is your ability to travel at speed that prevents you using the cycle path!

If the government are going to spend substantial sums of money on these safer cycle ways there must be a penalty or abdication of responsibility.
If there is a cycle path then ALL cyclist should be compelled to use them. If they choose to use the road then any accident involving a cyclist should be seen as 'caused by the cyclist' leaving him open to claims for compensation.

We have seen a massive increase in cycling for pleasure and a similar increase in the 'cycle trials' on road racing. 26 years ago when I moved to where I live we never had road races in the area. Now groups of cyclists are a daily sight. Singles and pairs are almost 10 a penny.

The situation has changed but there has not been a reduction in traffic. It has probably doubled also. If the current spending on cycle ways continues we need to 'force' all cyclists to use them. Not just the old biddies/codgers (which you will all become) to use them.

Purpose made cycle ways didn't exist here 26 years ago, even 5 years ago. Habits need to be changed and judging by the comments on here the only way is by using a 'stick'.

Sorry to break this to you sunshine, the only stick is going to be against our cars, not bicycles.

Mountain bikes and hybrids are OK on cycle paths, ROAD bikes are for use on the roads.

[anonymous-user]

spookly said:

I would not do that to a cyclist. I'd be in the tutting to myself brigade.

But, surely you can see that these things happen because a significant number of drivers are getting frustrated with cyclists getting in their way. Most won't go as far as the aggressive behaviour described, but some will. Those are just a tiny sample of the people getting annoyed, most won't be baited into endangering other people. I certainly will not be, but I see people make reckless overtakes on cyclists with reasonable frequency.

You might think they do not have the right to be annoyed, and you can argue you have a right to be there.
They will still get annoyed as you will still be holding them up due to your choice of hobby.

You can argue that they should not be annoyed, you can argue that you don't hold them up much, that they should overtake.... but you've probably seen aggressive driving towards cyclists, and many more drivers are also annoyed by it but don't react so childishly.

The funny thing about saying people should just be able to overtake if they aren't a crap driver is that you are encouraging more risky overtaking.... which cyclists often complain about.

If people want to give you a wide berth when overtaking to avoid endangering you but end up getting delayed by you, and find it annoying - you criticise their overtaking skills.
If people go for reckless overtakes, not giving you much room, and endanger you - you criticise their attitude (rightly) and driving skills (rightly).

But you can't have it both ways, it really does become a circular argument. You create a situation where on some roads it will be difficult to find an opportunity to overtake safely - that leaves the driver two options if you don't let him pass by pulling in:

1. Try to make a close, aggressive overtake - the wrong option IMHO
2. Wait, and get annoyed that they are having to drive so damn slow when you could let them pass

I have noticed the argument that these situations simply don't happen, it's always possible to find somewhere to overtake safely etc etc.... but drivers saying otherwise and cyclists complaining of reckless overtakes and aggressive driving would seem to be at least some evidence to the contrary.

I stopped riding in big groups because I didn't like the aggro. In a smaller group, always, and I am not just making this up we wave cars through and will back off it it's safe to do so. The thing is sometimes you have to spend a few minutes on an A road to carry on to your B road of choice, nobody enjoys it, well I don't. The main thing though is as drivers, I am one, we need to chill out. I probably travel as quick, quicker than most of my friends when I am out for a drive in the toy, but I am very aware if I come across a horse, bike etc. The roads aren't mine, much as wish they were and I know what it's like being passed at 100 mph and feeling the frame flex into the vacuum, basically it's horrible.

Holding people up and being a knob aren't condoned, but you, and I, will encounter these folk. Life is too short to worry about it.

[Storer]

My comments are clearly falling on deaf ears here.

Your desire to continue to enjoy your lycra clad hobby (there must be some element of fetish involved here!) seem to over rule the element of common sense and personal risk prevention.

I am not sure of the abrasive, shock absorbing qualities of lycra as you are sliding along the tarmac, but I am sure you would wear something that offered maximum protection in the event of an accident! You would want to be as safe a possible, yes.

Look out for your own safety and use our overcrowded road network accordingly. If there is a cycle way, use it. Don't be too proud.

I think my work is done here, so this is my last post on this thread.