Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing
Discussion
Antony Moxey said:
Finlandia said:
Antony Moxey said:
Perhaps those are the only roads available to him. If he's on the road, which he's perfectly entitled to be, then everywhere you can go - with the exception of motorways - he can go too. Instead of chastising his choice of road, why don't YOU find an alternative?
There are cycle lanes or other smaller roads next to, or close to the 2+1 roads, for this very reason. Are you suggesting buses and other bigger vehicles use the cycle lanes then?yonex said:
You're clutching at straws.
Then the Swedish police, healthcare and insurance companies are clutching at the same straws.Here is the short version of a study made by Folksam, a renowned insurance company with decades worth of accident investigating. As a side note, Volvo uses these studies when making their cars safer.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fler-skadas-i-cyk...
Nästan hälften av alla som skadas allvarligt i trafiken gör det i cykelolyckor. Det är långt fler än de som skadas i bilolyckor.
Google translate: Nearly half of all seriously injured in traffic are injured in cycling accidents. That is far more than those injured in car accidents.
Surely one issue is that it all depends on the circumstances, eg environment and speed issues. In other words there will be some where 2 or more abreast really doesn't matter, others where it does. Equally there will be some where there is not the space for two abreast, but cracking along at a decent pace minimises interference and wouldn't be an issue for many, alternatively same situation but dribbling along at not even running speeds is not being considerate.
Unfortunately this thread once again demonstrates that whilst the majority may be reasonable there are subsets at opposite ends of the debate who are determined not to be reasonable, sorry but that's how it reads.
Unfortunately this thread once again demonstrates that whilst the majority may be reasonable there are subsets at opposite ends of the debate who are determined not to be reasonable, sorry but that's how it reads.
Finlandia said:
Antony Moxey said:
Finlandia said:
Antony Moxey said:
Perhaps those are the only roads available to him. If he's on the road, which he's perfectly entitled to be, then everywhere you can go - with the exception of motorways - he can go too. Instead of chastising his choice of road, why don't YOU find an alternative?
There are cycle lanes or other smaller roads next to, or close to the 2+1 roads, for this very reason. Are you suggesting buses and other bigger vehicles use the cycle lanes then?yonex said:
You're clutching at straws.
Then the Swedish police, healthcare and insurance companies are clutching at the same straws.Here is the short version of a study made by Folksam, a renowned insurance company with decades worth of accident investigating. As a side note, Volvo uses these studies when making their cars safer.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fler-skadas-i-cyk...
Nästan hälften av alla som skadas allvarligt i trafiken gör det i cykelolyckor. Det är långt fler än de som skadas i bilolyckor.
Google translate: Nearly half of all seriously injured in traffic are injured in cycling accidents. That is far more than those injured in car accidents.
As I've said before, do you think when planning a ride a rider is wondering how many people's backs he can get up before he leaves the house? Of course not, and as we know you truckers have never held a single person up anywhere, on the planet, ever. Good job too, because those of limited intelligence amongst us might think you're doing it deliberately just to inconvenience other road users because getting those chicken nuggets to Iceland on time is all that matters.
FiF said:
Surely one issue is that it all depends on the circumstances, eg environment and speed issues. In other words there will be some where 2 or more abreast really doesn't matter, others where it does. Equally there will be some where there is not the space for two abreast, but cracking along at a decent pace minimises interference and wouldn't be an issue for many, alternatively same situation but dribbling along at not even running speeds is not being considerate.
Unfortunately this thread once again demonstrates that whilst the majority may be reasonable there are subsets at opposite ends of the debate who are determined not to be reasonable, sorry but that's how it reads.
Well saidUnfortunately this thread once again demonstrates that whilst the majority may be reasonable there are subsets at opposite ends of the debate who are determined not to be reasonable, sorry but that's how it reads.
RobM77 said:
The idea that these cyclists should pull in and let you past is just laughable 
The roads are provided by the government for everyone to use: horses, bikes, tractors, combines, walkers, cyclists, steam engines, lorries and cars, and we all need to share them together, which is perfectly possible if you're considerate and follow the HC. How do you cope with cows being walked down the road? Or a tractor at 15mph? The idea that you have some sort of priority and expect the waves to part for you is rather bizarre to put it at its mildest!
Isn't there a HC rule that requires slow moving vehicles (like farm vehicles, etc.) to pull over after a few miles should they be impeding traffic flow? The roads are provided by the government for everyone to use: horses, bikes, tractors, combines, walkers, cyclists, steam engines, lorries and cars, and we all need to share them together, which is perfectly possible if you're considerate and follow the HC. How do you cope with cows being walked down the road? Or a tractor at 15mph? The idea that you have some sort of priority and expect the waves to part for you is rather bizarre to put it at its mildest!Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 23 August 16:03
and stupidWinstonWolf said:
Smokey32 said:
Next time just overtake the selfish lycra faggots. If they dont wanna go single file thats there problem.
Welcome to PH. You're an utter asshat...People WILL take risks (well, they're not risky for the driver!), or squeeze by or consider letting a rear tyre rub against their bumper to f
k up the cyclist's ability to ride or throw things at them or something else I haven't instantly thought of. The popularity of cycling as a sport is increasing and this will result in more people being annoyed. Most people are rational and sensible but more easily irritated people will take action at some point. The cyclist might be in the right and they might have the law on their side but the only way the law can protect them is if they cycle in an armoured shell made of law books at the moment of impact.It's up to cyclists, really.
If I started doing yoga on the A3, I'm sure I'd catch a can of coke in the face if not a bumper.
If I'm cycling, I'll stick to cycle paths and try not to hold people up.
Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 27th August 19:01
johnxjsc1985 said:
Antony Moxey said:
What is your definition of slow?
sitting behind two fat women on equally fat horses two a breast now I wonder why motorists don't go behind them an keep their hand on the horn.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff