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

[WinstonWolf]

spookly said:

PHmember said:

I've seen the hills. I live there. 99% of my rides are there, including a fair bit on country lanes & Dartmoor, I'd struggle find a ride averaging less than 14mph let alone 10mph & can't think of a single road where a car couldn't get by me without any cooperation from myself for 8 miles.

I don't care if you are doing 14mph, 10mph or even 25mph. If the speed limit is 50mph or more and there are limited overtaking opportunities then you are getting in the way.

You can justify that to yourself as much as you like. You are still holding someone up. If you can convince yourself that it is fine to be doing that then great for you. Personally I'd be embarrassed to be out holding up traffic for my own enjoyment.

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

[blueg33]

WinstonWolf said:

spookly said:

PHmember said:

I've seen the hills. I live there. 99% of my rides are there, including a fair bit on country lanes & Dartmoor, I'd struggle find a ride averaging less than 14mph let alone 10mph & can't think of a single road where a car couldn't get by me without any cooperation from myself for 8 miles.

I don't care if you are doing 14mph, 10mph or even 25mph. If the speed limit is 50mph or more and there are limited overtaking opportunities then you are getting in the way.

You can justify that to yourself as much as you like. You are still holding someone up. If you can convince yourself that it is fine to be doing that then great for you. Personally I'd be embarrassed to be out holding up traffic for my own enjoyment.

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

If they are slow moving and at the front of the line of traffic then just like the cyclists at the start of the thread they are being inconsiderate. If they are doing 10mph or less they should move over when possible as per the Highway Code.

Its not a hard concept. The speed differential between cars and bikes is pretty large as a rule, holding anyone up because you are an inconsiderate bellend is wrong whether you are driving, riding, walking etc. Slow amblers 5 abreast on Londons pavements and in tube tunnels do my head in

[WinstonWolf]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

spookly said:

PHmember said:

I've seen the hills. I live there. 99% of my rides are there, including a fair bit on country lanes & Dartmoor, I'd struggle find a ride averaging less than 14mph let alone 10mph & can't think of a single road where a car couldn't get by me without any cooperation from myself for 8 miles.

I don't care if you are doing 14mph, 10mph or even 25mph. If the speed limit is 50mph or more and there are limited overtaking opportunities then you are getting in the way.

You can justify that to yourself as much as you like. You are still holding someone up. If you can convince yourself that it is fine to be doing that then great for you. Personally I'd be embarrassed to be out holding up traffic for my own enjoyment.

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

If they are slow moving and at the front of the line of traffic then just like the cyclists at the start of the thread they are being inconsiderate. If they are doing 10mph or less they should move over when possible as per the Highway Code.

Its not a hard concept. The speed differential between cars and bikes is pretty large as a rule, holding anyone up because you are an inconsiderate bellend is wrong whether you are driving, riding, walking etc. Slow amblers 5 abreast on Londons pavements and in tube tunnels do my head in

Cyclists have only ever held me up for a tiny portion of a journey, it's always the other vehicles that cause me the most delay...

[spookly]

WinstonWolf said:

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

I'm not sure we need to do anything with them unless they are similarly driving at less than 25mph in a 50mph+ limit, then they should probably not be on the road either.

It is a false equivalence and a silly argument to make. You just make yourself look silly.

Most cyclists are incapable of doing the speed limit in a 30mph let alone a 50mph or NSL, whereas a car or motorbike is easily capable of these speeds when the roads are free flowing.
If you live somewhere so congested that you never see free flowing traffic doing at or near the speed limits then I'd rather not live where you live.

[WinstonWolf]

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

I'm not sure we need to do anything with them unless they are similarly driving at less than 25mph in a 50mph+ limit, then they should probably not be on the road either.

It is a false equivalence and a silly argument to make. You just make yourself look silly.

Most cyclists are incapable of doing the speed limit in a 30mph let alone a 50mph or NSL, whereas a car or motorbike is easily capable of these speeds when the roads are free flowing.
If you live somewhere so congested that you never see free flowing traffic doing at or near the speed limits then I'd rather not live where you live.

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

In the rush hour I take the bike because it's quicker...

[Finlandia]

WinstonWolf said:

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

There are many places with open roads and not much, or any traffic.

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

There are many places with open roads and not much, or any traffic.

Then overtaking should be a doddle...

[spookly]

WinstonWolf said:

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

I'm not sure we need to do anything with them unless they are similarly driving at less than 25mph in a 50mph+ limit, then they should probably not be on the road either.

It is a false equivalence and a silly argument to make. You just make yourself look silly.

Most cyclists are incapable of doing the speed limit in a 30mph let alone a 50mph or NSL, whereas a car or motorbike is easily capable of these speeds when the roads are free flowing.
If you live somewhere so congested that you never see free flowing traffic doing at or near the speed limits then I'd rather not live where you live.

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

In the rush hour I take the bike because it's quicker...

What makes you look silly is assuming that roads are similarly congested everywhere, despite it having been pointed out to you several times that this isn't the case everywhere. That isn't the reality where I live.
There are actually roads that have traffic flowing at around the speed limit when there are not cyclists in the way.

Like I said, I'd rather not live where you do if all you see is nose to tail traffic. Sure, we get some traffic jams here and there, and on Bank Holidays the tourists make the roads loads busier and jam the motorway, but generally even at busy times the traffic is moving far faster than cyclists would keep up with.

HTH

[Finlandia]

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

There are many places with open roads and not much, or any traffic.

Then overtaking should be a doddle...

It usually is, unless the cyclists are taking up most of the road so it becomes unsafe to overtake.

[WinstonWolf]

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's funny, every time I pass cyclists I then get held up by.... Other cars. What are we to do about all these other drivers using the road?

I'm not sure we need to do anything with them unless they are similarly driving at less than 25mph in a 50mph+ limit, then they should probably not be on the road either.

It is a false equivalence and a silly argument to make. You just make yourself look silly.

Most cyclists are incapable of doing the speed limit in a 30mph let alone a 50mph or NSL, whereas a car or motorbike is easily capable of these speeds when the roads are free flowing.
If you live somewhere so congested that you never see free flowing traffic doing at or near the speed limits then I'd rather not live where you live.

What makes you look silly is the belief that once past this mythical cyclist a nirvana of open roads exists. It doesn't, you'll just end up sitting in more traffic.

In the rush hour I take the bike because it's quicker...

What makes you look silly is assuming that roads are similarly congested everywhere, despite it having been pointed out to you several times that this isn't the case everywhere. That isn't the reality where I live.
There are actually roads that have traffic flowing at around the speed limit when there are not cyclists in the way.

Like I said, I'd rather not live where you do if all you see is nose to tail traffic. Sure, we get some traffic jams here and there, and on Bank Holidays the tourists make the roads loads busier and jam the motorway, but generally even at busy times the traffic is moving far faster than cyclists would keep up with.

HTH

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

[blueg33]

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

[WinstonWolf]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

[Conscript]

spookly said:

Most cyclists are incapable of doing the speed limit in a 30mph let alone a 50mph or NSL, whereas a car or motorbike is easily capable of these speeds when the roads are free flowing.
If you live somewhere so congested that you never see free flowing traffic doing at or near the speed limits then I'd rather not live where you live.

But the fundamental basis of our road system is that it can be used by vehicles of all abilities for whatever purpose - the only expectation (in this regard) is that if you are significantly slower than others that you make a respectable allowance for them to pass you (note, a respectable allowance...this doesn't mean immediately getting out of your way the moment a faster vehicle approaches), and most cyclists do this. You seem to have this bee in your bonnet that most cyclists aren't living up to this allowance, purely by their existence on the road, which shows a level of intolerance which is really not becoming of anyone who holds a driving licence.

Some road users are inconsiderate dheads, yes...like the ones on bikes in the OP. But please stop making these blanket statements about how cyclists are just "getting in the way" or are somehow an affront to your perceived vision that no one on the road should ever encounter a vehicle which prevents them from maintaining the speed limit at all times. Motorways/DCs aside, it is not in line with how our road system works. Most people know this and are mature enough to act accordingly without getting so annoyed about it; the fact that you can't is frankly making you look very self entitled and ignorant.

[blueg33]

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

The point he was making is that you may not catch up with traffic for some time. I had an example this morning, not cyclists but a combine harvester. I was behind it for 10 minutes, it didn't pull in where it could, after I passed it I didn't come up to another vehicle for 20 mins circa 30 miles. So it definitely held me up. The next vehicle was on DC so I passed it with no delay. Not all of the country is nose to tail traffic.

[WinstonWolf]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

The point he was making is that you may not catch up with traffic for some time. I had an example this morning, not cyclists but a combine harvester. I was behind it for 10 minutes, it didn't pull in where it could, after I passed it I didn't come up to another vehicle for 20 mins circa 30 miles. So it definitely held me up. The next vehicle was on DC so I passed it with no delay. Not all of the country is nose to tail traffic.

Shouldn't we be directing our anger at food production vehicles then?

A combine harvester != a bicycle.

[blueg33]

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

The point he was making is that you may not catch up with traffic for some time. I had an example this morning, not cyclists but a combine harvester. I was behind it for 10 minutes, it didn't pull in where it could, after I passed it I didn't come up to another vehicle for 20 mins circa 30 miles. So it definitely held me up. The next vehicle was on DC so I passed it with no delay. Not all of the country is nose to tail traffic.

Shouldn't we be directing our anger at food production vehicles then?

A combine harvester != a bicycle.

I give up, you fail to read and put your own bizarre twisted spin on what people say.

Life is too short, I will engage in debate with folk who aren't so hard of thinking

[WinstonWolf]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

The point he was making is that you may not catch up with traffic for some time. I had an example this morning, not cyclists but a combine harvester. I was behind it for 10 minutes, it didn't pull in where it could, after I passed it I didn't come up to another vehicle for 20 mins circa 30 miles. So it definitely held me up. The next vehicle was on DC so I passed it with no delay. Not all of the country is nose to tail traffic.

Shouldn't we be directing our anger at food production vehicles then?

A combine harvester != a bicycle.

I give up, you fail to read and put your own bizarre twisted spin on what people say.

Life is too short, I will engage in debate with folk who aren't so hard of thinking

So this morning you *weren't* held up by a cyclist and you had twenty minutes of perfectly free roads and you're still not happy?

Scheesh, you want the moon on a stick...

[spookly]

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you a spectacularly dumb.

If I pass a cyclist who has been holding me up, and the traffic ahead is flowing at the speed limit, then upon overtaking the cyclist I will never catch the traffic up unless I break the speed limit.
Even if I break the speed limit and catch the traffic then I will still be able to stay at the speed limit behind the traffic, who will not hold me up at 14mph like the cyclist.

If I happen to then meet another cyclist, as is common around here on weekends, then I have to repeat the whole process and wait for another opportunity to overtake. See too many cyclists on your route and your average speed is woeful even if you manage to overtake.

Is that so hard to understand? Or do I need to draw you a crayon diagram?

[WinstonWolf]

spookly said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

So the traffic is moving faster than the cyclist

You may occasionally have to wait a few moments to pass a cyclist, you'll only end up back in the traffic once you pass them.

You didn't read what he wrote or are being deliberately obtuse

I'm simply pointing out that your overall journey will still take precisely the same time. You may be delayed momentarily, right until you catch up with the traffic again...

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you a spectacularly dumb.

If I pass a cyclist who has been holding me up, and the traffic ahead is flowing at the speed limit, then upon overtaking the cyclist I will never catch the traffic up unless I break the speed limit.
Even if I break the speed limit and catch the traffic then I will still be able to stay at the speed limit behind the traffic, who will not hold me up at 14mph like the cyclist.

If I happen to then meet another cyclist, as is common around here on weekends, then I have to repeat the whole process and wait for another opportunity to overtake. See too many cyclists on your route and your average speed is woeful even if you manage to overtake.

Is that so hard to understand? Or do I need to draw you a crayon diagram?

Would you be so kind...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Makes my point perfectly. Angry woman wants to pass bicycle *because bicycle* so she can sit in traffic

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

It usually is,

No problem then.

I agree that cyclists can cause an issue, but us motorists cause more problems at many levels at a rate of roughly a bazillion to one (and I'm not exaggerating).

So there's no issue here worth talking about and I think the OP is made up.