Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing

[FiF]

To attempt some sort of summary, all classes of road user can contain diamonds or dheads with every shade of the spectrum in between. It's unfortunate that the dheads cause such of an image problem for the rest.

Most people from whichever group are reasonable, manage and tolerate mistakes and a bit of thoughtlessness by others. However when that behaviour turns into deliberately obstructive and/or confrontational behaviour then folks get irritated. Some will not outwardly react and show restraint, unfortunately a few do something silly.

[Rick101]

Mr2Mike said:

You'd have to be properly weird to GPS track every single journey you made as a private motorist. Fortunately not every car driver is a dashcam wker.

I think you are somewhat naive.

There may be Dashcam wkers, but some don't even need a Dashcam.

Edited by Rick101 on Wednesday 24th August 14:27

[saaby93]

walm said:

julian64 said:

The number of posters on here who seem to be backing them up suggesting that behaviour on the road is acceptable.

Citation needed.

walm said:

Along with the OP you are just making things up.
I have never EVER seen a wannabe in the countryside with headphones. (Nor considered their brand of phone even remotely relevant, even as an Android user.)

I am not saying it doesn't happen - I just think that when it does, there is also a blue moon, preceded by 30 days all called Sunday.

[Osinjak]

SteveSteveson said:

No diffrent to the tt in a Volvo the other day that was doing 30 on a 50 limit DC. As he saw me comming past he put his foot down, so that as the back of my car was at his bonnet he started to undertake me, forcing me to brake and pull back in behind him where the road went to one lane for a roundabout, and giving me the waggy finger. As we then pulled off the roundabout he did 30, so I went to overtake him he put his foot down again. Does this mean all drivers are responsible for him being a tt?

People are properly weird, I'd really like to sit some of these twunts down and find out what goes on inside their thick, dimwitted skulls sometimes.

[walm]

saaby93 said:

walm said:

julian64 said:

The number of posters on here who seem to be backing them up suggesting that behaviour on the road is acceptable.

Citation needed.

walm said:

Along with the OP you are just making things up.
I have never EVER seen a wannabe in the countryside with headphones. (Nor considered their brand of phone even remotely relevant, even as an Android user.)

I am not saying it doesn't happen - I just think that when it does, there is also a blue moon, preceded by 30 days all called Sunday.

In no way am I "backing up" a bunch of cyclists blocking an overtake for 8 miles and 50 minutes in that quote.

And I can't remotely see how you think what you have quoted is even vaguely close to that preposterous suggestion.


I was saying I have never seen anyone wearing headphones. (Which bloody WinstonWolf promptly gave a counter-example to.)

[CS Garth]

I think we're all agreed then.

All modes of transport are accessed by nice and not so nice people and we are all patient.

Although I would like to add that anyone who rides a unicycle is a total tt - bar none

[GetCarter]

CS Garth said:

I think we're all agreed then.

All modes of transport are accessed by nice and not so nice people and we are all patient.

Although I would like to add that anyone who rides a unicycle is a total tt - bar none

Hey!... I ride a unicycle! (well I used to). Watch it

[SilverSixer]

FiF said:

Didn't contribute to the other thread because I'm a firm believer in the behaviour which was the purpose of that OP, namely provide enough room that if the cyclist falls sideways you don't drive over their head. Wasn't helped on that thread by the numerous "drunk old git at fault" remarks.

So I'm patient behind cyclists, but really some don't help themselves at all.

Anecdotally the other day there was a cycling club outing, one of the older farts was riding well ahead of the pack, on his own, seemed to be dawdling along waiting for the rest to catch up. He had a bit of a shout at a couple of vehicles ahead that squeezed past, so I waited, wide stretch a bit further on, so passed leaving a car width.

Short time later, some traffic lights, and of course he filters to the front of the queue. On green sets off slowly, really slowly, everyone gets past him again, I'm well clear past him approaching a "All traffic turn left" junction into a narrow one way system, have been tracking the old duffer's progress and saw him putting a spurt on, to me it seemed as if he was deliberately trying to put himself close to my n/s rear and in danger of being trapped by a left turning vehicle. Taking a very wide turn dealt with that.
Quarter of a mile further on traffic is slowing for a right turn at a roundabout, nobody is stopped, we are all moving reasonably, still tracking Bob on his bike, and just as I get to the island he comes hacking past on my left, flings it over close to n/s front quarter, sticks a right turn desultory hand signal after he's done the manoeuvre, enters the roundabout and now rides round it deliberately slowly. WTF!

Concluded it was just some stroppy old tt just set out for an argument, which was going to be with me.

All you reasonable cyclists out there, you are being done no favours by idiots like that, just as reasonable drivers suffer from the image given by dangerous antics of other drivers.

/rant, yeah not enough swearing.

I was here in my car the other day, very slow heavy rush hour traffic.

https://goo.gl/maps/n5c1gZN9oF42

Cars in all three lanes, I'm in the middle lane intending to follow the straight ahead arrow and take the first exit in to the outside lane, as per the road markings. As I approach the roundabout entrance, I check my mirrors and there's a cyclist filtering between my lane and the one to the left. I've put my indicator on (mirror signal manoeuvre) to show I'm taking exit 1 (as per the road markings this is quite correct), and as I pull away, cyclist puts a spurt on and overtakes me on the inside, and, you guessed it, turns RIGHT across my bows, without a hand signal or anything, causing me to brake to avoid running him down.

Mental. Probably because he's 'clipped in' or something and can't (or doesn't want to) stop. Breathtaking stupidity.

Edited by SilverSixer on Wednesday 24th August 15:18

[RobM77]

Mr2Mike said:

Rick101 said:

Calling BS on this. 8 miles? No chance.

Dashcam footage?
Google Phone tracker data?

You'd have to be properly weird to GPS track every single journey you made as a private motorist. Fortunately not every car driver is a dashcam wker.

I can't speak for others, but I own a dashcam for insurance and safety reasons and it runs automatically, filming and GPS tracking everywhere I drive (and whilst the car's parked). It's been professionally installed into my car and there's zero interaction from me, so why is it a bit weird? It's just my way of making sure that if there's an accident or a dispute in any way that the truth can be established quickly, easily and reliably, rather than relying on tall stories from third parties (or over-zealous policemen!) - not just for my own accidents but also others that I may witness. In the time I've been driving I've had a car vandalised whilst parked once and someone try to stitch me up by lying on their insurance form - both were resolved, but were a massive headache that would be prevented by me just having a simple video file of the incident. £300 well spent!

[je777]

julian64 said:

je777 said:

Regarding your last line, I agree: that is how all rules should be made. Whatever happens to you in an isolated incident should be the basis for all laws that are applied to everyone.

Sarcasm aside, I quite agree and as I have posted before no one would change the law for me. But up until that point I'd never really met bloody minded cyclists before. If you read my posts though the reason I suggest a change in the law is two fold

1) If their behaviour was duplicated in a busy area like London it would cause untold frustration to all other road users.

2) The number of posters on here who seem to be backing them up suggesting that behaviour on the road is acceptable. Demonstrating that those two cyclist are not alone in their anti car/car frustrating thinking.

I have to say I don't commute in London so have no idea. I do see loads of posts on PH about road warrior cyclists in london and consider them almost always to be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other when angry driver meets annoyed cyclist. I considered myself to be rather on the fence and swayed by the fact we are over legislated already.

Having met said road warriors in their country form I consider them to be the unacceptable face of cycling if they were to appear in a busy area would be dangerous but in my country lane obviously just very frustrating.

because of 1) and 2) I have therefore come off the fence.

Is that clearer? Apologies for other readers where this is simply a reiteration of the posts so far.

I haven’t read all your other excuses and backtracking – but I have read the many, many responses pointing out what nonsense you’re spouting.
But aside from the title, you said:
‘After that little meeting I'm now of the opinion that cyclists should not have equal access to the road as cars.’
Also, you say:
‘1) If their behaviour was duplicated in a busy area like London it would cause untold frustration to all other road users.’ – this has only happened in your imagination, which you even admit to later (‘I have to say I don't commute in London so have no idea’). Most people aren’t like this.
‘2) The number of posters on here who seem to be backing them up suggesting that behaviour on the road is acceptable. Demonstrating that those two cyclist are not alone in their anti car/car frustrating thinking.’ – no matter how may times you repeat this lie, it won’t become true. And we can all read – ergo we can all see that no-one has done this. (And do you really imagine many people on this site are ‘anti-car’?)
Many don't believe the story and suspect that you just have an axe to grind.
Your 'evidence' is decidedly suspect. When that's pointed out, you say nothing.
Some cyclists are idiots, some drivers are idiots.
And with this:
‘Having met said road warriors in their country form I consider them to be the unacceptable face of cycling if they were to appear in a busy area would be dangerous but in my country lane obviously just very frustrating.’
you are STILL saying that this one incident is indicative of the behaviour of others.

[je777]

walm said:

julian64 said:

The route was from my house in ash kent through pease hill toward stanstead and then onto trottiscliffe, but I could simply have scoured the map for any section of road for your nonsensical request.

Ash to Trottiscliffe is 4.2 miles.

The first bit along "The Street" has a dashed white line down it - plenty of room to overtake, not a single track road at all.

Perhaps if you took the faster route google recommends (via the M20 rather than via single track road) you wouldn't have these problems.

It probably would have been better to scour the map for something that at least vaguely backed up your lies!

This sort of thing is why people are crying BS.

And whilst I haven't read a single post defending the actions of these two cyclists I have read a few posts that encourage aggressive driving against cyclists.

The garbage you're spreading here just adds to that kind of dangerous ignorance.

[Antony Moxey]

julian64 said:

Those particular cyclist need their moral responsibility not to hold up faster traffic put into law in the same way a middle lane moron can now be bought to book.

You genuinely want it to be illegal to hold up a vehicle going faster than you?

[saaby93]

je777 said:

I have read a few posts that encourage aggressive driving against cyclists.

where?

[julian64]

you knit picking bunch of tosspots



5.6 miles time 15 mins suggested by the AA

Actual time 10mile per hour on the straights, so lets say a bit less round the corners. 8mile per hour average being generous

5.6miles/8mph*60 minutes

= 42 minutes for what should have been a fifteen minute journey.

AND I LIVE OPPOSITE PEASE HILL for anyone else who would've overtaken them as I pulled out my drive.

I do bloody apologise for wrongly estimating 8 miles when it was 5.6 miles and only 42 minutes of my time. I realise that this level of estimation has completely voided my argument, and you cyclists when typing are accurate to a couple of feet!!!

Now how about one of you warriors going through the google street map and telling me where you think it would be safe to over the two cyclist abreast down those roads

Standard of proof on pistonheads seems to be rising daily
Its like having a conversation with the flat earth society

[walm]

julian64 said:

you knit picking bunch of tosspots

Now that's the truth!

[walm]

saaby93 said:

je777 said:

I have read a few posts that encourage aggressive driving against cyclists.

where?

Just a couple for you:

macky17 said:

Even if it was only a mile that's still 6 minutes - a pretty long time if you sit and time it. The ops argument would still apply. As someone else said, I'd have been past one way or another long before that.

irocfan said:

he's a nicer person than I as I'd have been past them like a rat out of an aqueduct

[SilverSixer]

julian64 said:

you knit picking bunch of tosspots

Nit picking.

[RobM77]

julian64 said:

you knit picking bunch of tosspots



5.6 miles time 15 mins suggested by the AA

Actual time 10mile per hour on the straights, so lets say a bit less round the corners. 8mile per hour average being generous

5.6miles/8mph*60 minutes

= 42 minutes for what should have been a fifteen minute journey.

AND I LIVE OPPOSITE PEASE HILL for anyone else who would've overtaken them as I pulled out my drive.

I do bloody apologise for wrongly estimating 8 miles when it was 5.6 miles and only 42 minutes of my time. I realise that this level of estimation has completely voided my argument, and you cyclists when typing are accurate to a couple of feet!!!

Now how about one of you warriors going through the google street map and telling me where you think it would be safe to over the two cyclist abreast down those roads

Standard of proof on pistonheads seems to be rising daily
Its like having a conversation with the flat earth society

As most of us have said, the cyclists riding two abreast on a thin road was the problem.

What I (and others) were reacting to was this statement by you:

julian64 said:

After that little meeting I'm now of the opinion that cyclists should not have equal access to the road as cars.

The reason I posted in response to that was because if the cyclists had been following common sense and the Highway Code, you should have been able to pass them just fine. The same applies to every moron you see driving a car from day to day without signalling, tailgating etc - you're not going to ban cars because of it!

[tigger1]

julian64 said:

you knit picking bunch of tosspots



5.6 miles time 15 mins suggested by the AA

Linky no worky.

And it's "nitpicking".

I'd also call BS on 8-10mph if I'm being really picky. There's a few on here who run that quickly for 5.6 miles, nevermind cycle.

The only way this whole story can be true (IMHO) is if you're known by these cyclists, and they've deliberately done it because of you. Otherwise so little of it makes sense.

[walm]

julian64 said:

5.6 miles time 15 mins suggested by the AA
8 mile per hour average being generous.

No way. What you really meant was "being unrealistically ungenerous to help salvage the shreds of my OP".

I just checked the hilliest section (I think - can't actually see your image).
That's Stansted Hill.
Mid-range strava shows 9mph up there.
The rest is MUCH flatter and presumably has some down hill.

These are lycra-louts remember.
So more realistically... what 10-15mph average?
Call it 12.5mph BEING CONSERVATIVE.
That is really super-slow even for my fat ass.

vs. the average 22mph the AA suggest.

So 5.6 miles takes 27 mins.

Which means you were held up by 12 mins (27 minus the 15 it would have taken you).

Rather than the original 50.


Oh and for the avoidance of doubt - the lycra-louts in question were still craven douches.