Why you should give cyclists a wide berth when passing.
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
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.
Devil2575 said:
Indeed. For what is supposed to be a motoring forum the level of ignorance on this subject is astounding.
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.
That would be true, if that was what I was saying, but I wasn't... so it isn't.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.
The gripe everyone has with cyclists is that they hold up otherwise free flowing traffic, and make it difficult to overtake them, which mostly happens outside of areas of congestion given in his example.
He has tried to say that cyclists don't have an impact by ignoring the obvious example of how cyclists do exactly that. He instead offered his 40 years experience of sitting in traffic where cars have held him up as somehow being relevant to the effect cyclists have on free flowing roads... which it isn't.
Nobody is saying bikes hold up cars that are already held up by other cars, that would be nonsense. What is being said is that cars and other faster vehicles are often held up by slow moving cyclists on free flowing roads - which happens a lot. And it will have an impact on efficiency of each car behind them.
If you are too simple to understand the ridiculousness of his argument, then perhaps it is yourself who is ignorant.
spookly said:
I recently drove a 50mph a road on a journey that was about 20 miles. The journey took almost an hour and I suspect my average speed was down nearer 20mph.
You're obviously pretty sharp.I am very jealous of these roads where they are 50mph limits for 20 solid miles and you don't get any slow drivers or tractors or villages. Do you have a link to this driving/cycling nirvana?
walm said:
spookly said:
I recently drove a 50mph a road on a journey that was about 20 miles. The journey took almost an hour and I suspect my average speed was down nearer 20mph.
You're obviously pretty sharp.I am very jealous of these roads where they are 50mph limits for 20 solid miles and you don't get any slow drivers or tractors or villages. Do you have a link to this driving/cycling nirvana?
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 23 August 13:32
spookly said:
Devil2575 said:
Indeed. For what is supposed to be a motoring forum the level of ignorance on this subject is astounding.
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.
That would be true, if that was what I was saying, but I wasn't... so it isn't.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.
The gripe everyone has with cyclists is that they hold up otherwise free flowing traffic, and make it difficult to overtake them, which mostly happens outside of areas of congestion given in his example.
He has tried to say that cyclists don't have an impact by ignoring the obvious example of how cyclists do exactly that. He instead offered his 40 years experience of sitting in traffic where cars have held him up as somehow being relevant to the effect cyclists have on free flowing roads... which it isn't.
Nobody is saying bikes hold up cars that are already held up by other cars, that would be nonsense. What is being said is that cars and other faster vehicles are often held up by slow moving cyclists on free flowing roads - which happens a lot. And it will have an impact on efficiency of each car behind them.
If you are too simple to understand the ridiculousness of his argument, then perhaps it is yourself who is ignorant.
walm said:
spookly said:
I recently drove a 50mph a road on a journey that was about 20 miles. The journey took almost an hour and I suspect my average speed was down nearer 20mph.
You're obviously pretty sharp.I am very jealous of these roads where they are 50mph limits for 20 solid miles and you don't get any slow drivers or tractors or villages. Do you have a link to this driving/cycling nirvana?
Slow drivers... sometimes, very rarely below about 40mph though. Tractors, not often on that road, but they are doing their job rather than just holding up traffic for fun so they are not half as annoying. Tractors also seem to pull over and let traffic go by if they are going any long distance, which they rarely are.
GetCarter said:
walm said:
spookly said:
I recently drove a 50mph a road on a journey that was about 20 miles. The journey took almost an hour and I suspect my average speed was down nearer 20mph.
You're obviously pretty sharp.I am very jealous of these roads where they are 50mph limits for 20 solid miles and you don't get any slow drivers or tractors or villages. Do you have a link to this driving/cycling nirvana?
d.)WinstonWolf said:
spookly said:
Devil2575 said:
Indeed. For what is supposed to be a motoring forum the level of ignorance on this subject is astounding.
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.
That would be true, if that was what I was saying, but I wasn't... so it isn't.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.
The gripe everyone has with cyclists is that they hold up otherwise free flowing traffic, and make it difficult to overtake them, which mostly happens outside of areas of congestion given in his example.
He has tried to say that cyclists don't have an impact by ignoring the obvious example of how cyclists do exactly that. He instead offered his 40 years experience of sitting in traffic where cars have held him up as somehow being relevant to the effect cyclists have on free flowing roads... which it isn't.
Nobody is saying bikes hold up cars that are already held up by other cars, that would be nonsense. What is being said is that cars and other faster vehicles are often held up by slow moving cyclists on free flowing roads - which happens a lot. And it will have an impact on efficiency of each car behind them.
If you are too simple to understand the ridiculousness of his argument, then perhaps it is yourself who is ignorant.
I do notice when I go to the South East that the traffic is constantly absolutely terrible, tons of speed cameras and you can almost taste the traffic fumes. Do you live in the South East?
In my county we have 1 live speed camera which is near a school. There is a 'safety partnership' camera van, but they publish where they hide and are usually on Waze. Town centres might get a bit of heavier traffic with school runs/rush hour, but not South East style almost parked congestion.
In summer and bank holidays the tourists can cause a bit of a jam, but its predictable so I take my motorbike instead.
spookly said:
That in no way negates that the cyclists are still holding the traffic up though does it?
It means that your average speed would be below 50mph.So this:
spookly said:
I would have driven at 50mph all the way, as would all the other cars on that road.
Is just a massive exaggeration, like the rest of your post.spookly said:
WinstonWolf said:
spookly said:
Devil2575 said:
Indeed. For what is supposed to be a motoring forum the level of ignorance on this subject is astounding.
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.
That would be true, if that was what I was saying, but I wasn't... so it isn't.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.
The gripe everyone has with cyclists is that they hold up otherwise free flowing traffic, and make it difficult to overtake them, which mostly happens outside of areas of congestion given in his example.
He has tried to say that cyclists don't have an impact by ignoring the obvious example of how cyclists do exactly that. He instead offered his 40 years experience of sitting in traffic where cars have held him up as somehow being relevant to the effect cyclists have on free flowing roads... which it isn't.
Nobody is saying bikes hold up cars that are already held up by other cars, that would be nonsense. What is being said is that cars and other faster vehicles are often held up by slow moving cyclists on free flowing roads - which happens a lot. And it will have an impact on efficiency of each car behind them.
If you are too simple to understand the ridiculousness of his argument, then perhaps it is yourself who is ignorant.
I do notice when I go to the South East that the traffic is constantly absolutely terrible, tons of speed cameras and you can almost taste the traffic fumes. Do you live in the South East?
In my county we have 1 live speed camera which is near a school. There is a 'safety partnership' camera van, but they publish where they hide and are usually on Waze. Town centres might get a bit of heavier traffic with school runs/rush hour, but not South East style almost parker congestion.
In summer and bank holidays the tourists can cause a bit of a jam, but its predictable so I take my motorbike instead.
Just chill, if you're in a car you're only moving between jams. Life will be far less stressful if you relax.
walm said:
spookly said:
That in no way negates that the cyclists are still holding the traffic up though does it?
It means that your average speed would be below 50mph.So this:
spookly said:
I would have driven at 50mph all the way, as would all the other cars on that road.
Is just a massive exaggeration, like the rest of your post.I've made that journey before and averaged above 50mph, possibly far higher on my motorbike.
And still nothing you are saying negates the fact I regularly get held up by cyclists. Trying to nit pick because I'm right isn't a good look.
spookly said:
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.
spookly said:
In summer and bank holidays the tourists can cause a bit of a jam, but its predictable so I take my motorbike instead.
On a slight diversion, why do you (and others) keep going on about Lycra in such a disparaging fashion? It's the most practical attire for road cycling.Presumably you wear leather for motorcycling? Or at least, I bet you don't mock motorcyclists who wear leather, who arguably look just as ridiculous. To single them out based largely on their chosen clothing kind of backs up the point I was making about prejudice earlier.
spookly said:
walm said:
spookly said:
That in no way negates that the cyclists are still holding the traffic up though does it?
It means that your average speed would be below 50mph.So this:
spookly said:
I would have driven at 50mph all the way, as would all the other cars on that road.
Is just a massive exaggeration, like the rest of your post.I've made that journey before and averaged above 50mph, possibly far higher on my motorbike.
And still nothing you are saying negates the fact I regularly get held up by cyclists. Trying to nit pick because I'm right isn't a good look.
spookly said:
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.
Honestly, if you can't safely overtake a bunch of cyclists within 1-2 mins on an NSL road then you seriously need some driving lessons.Even the 50mph limit roads round here it should be a cinch.
And if your roads are so empty then your claim that opposing traffic is preventing overtakes doesn't hold water. You can't have it both ways.
I think you have a very obvious case of negativity bias where you are easily recalling the negative experiences and forgetting all the times that you made the journey unencumbered.
WinstonWolf said:
So you could also take your motorbike if these horrible cyclists are ruining your day. I bet those tourists cause far more congestion than the odd cyclist...
Just chill, if you're in a car you're only moving between jams. Life will be far less stressful if you relax.
I don't always want to take my motorbike. Sometimes I have things or people to take with me.Just chill, if you're in a car you're only moving between jams. Life will be far less stressful if you relax.
I am chilled. And I only overtake cyclists safely and considerately. That doesn't stop them being annoying though.
Tractors need to be there, HGVs need to be there, they are both doing a job which requires their use of the road.
Cyclists (caveat: those used solely for leisure purposes) and horses don't have to be on the road other than because that is where they are choosing to carry out their hobby.
I don't find some old boy on his knackered old bike annoying even if he is doing 5mph... as he needs to use the road for travel purposes. Getting held up by lycra wearing cyclists because their hobby involves deliberately inconveniencing other road users is not the same thing.
spookly said:
Cyclists (caveat: those used solely for leisure purposes) and horses don't have to be on the road other than because that is where they are choosing to carry out their hobby.
You don't ever use your car for leisure purposes (perhaps visiting a friend or the pub)? It's only ever for work?Conscript said:
On a slight diversion, why do you (and others) keep going on about Lycra in such a disparaging fashion? It's the most practical attire for road cycling.
Presumably you wear leather for motorcycling? Or at least, I bet you don't mock motorcyclists who wear leather, who arguably look just as ridiculous. To single them out based largely on their chosen clothing kind of backs up the point I was making about prejudice earlier.
Because whilst practical it looks ridiculous.Presumably you wear leather for motorcycling? Or at least, I bet you don't mock motorcyclists who wear leather, who arguably look just as ridiculous. To single them out based largely on their chosen clothing kind of backs up the point I was making about prejudice earlier.
As for bikers wearing leather... yeah the power ranger crowd get just as much stick. Mostly fairly light hearted banter.
Those wearing lycra (particularly in team colours, and outside urban areas) are often singled out as they stand apart from someone wearing normal clothes who would appear to be on the road to travel rather than for leisure. The riders in lycra, especially in packs, usually seem to be far less considerate of other road users too.
Might be a bit of an unfair stereotype to put all those who wear lycra in the same bucket... but it mostly fits.
HTH
Finlandia said:
Devil2575 said:
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.
The idea that someone would want to deliberately make the situation worse is what beggars belief.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff