A cycling type question

[funkyrobot]

Regardless of the way a cyclist is riding, why would anyone use their car as a weapon to try and prove a point? Some of the idiocy demonstrated by drivers on here astounds me!

[soad]

What a nice thread this turned out to be- anger, hatred, rage.
Horse riders, tractors, milk floats and the like get in my way- no need to lose cool, composure or temper

[Garlick]

geeteeaye said:

Experienced this earlier when two cycling bum chums in full regalia were coming the other way on a country lane (long straight). Rather than pull in behind his mate he insisted on staying two abreast, I returned the compliment by making sure the wing mirror passed close enough to give him a draught, stubborn .

I cycle in 'full regalia'. Do I have to leave PH or am I ok?

Oh and please don't use that word here, thank you

[geeteeaye]

Jimmyarm said:

magpie215 said:

geeteeaye said:

Experienced this earlier when two cycling bum chums in full regalia were coming the other way on a country lane (long straight). Rather than pull in behind his mate he insisted on staying two abreast, I returned the compliment by making sure the wing mirror passed close enough to give him a draught, stubborn .

Words fail me!!!

Perhaps he hasn't phrased his post very well.

My picture is of a narrow country lane with passing places where two cars abreast would not fit, a car and a single cyclist would be ok but a car and two cyclists abreast is a bit of a squeeze.

It would appear that one of the cyclists dropping back would be win win all around ?

Wow, just returned to this thread and much hatred. What is said above is exactly what happened. One cyclist I would have passed with no problems, the fact they decided to stay two abreast caused it to be a closer thing, perhaps they were happy with that. When I'm on my bike I will pull over/leave cars space where I can, these guys seemed to want to make an issue of riding two abreast on a country lane and not file over.

[Garlick]

I do think cyclists should move, if as described then courtesy should be shown (by both parties).

Bad cyclists, bad drivers. They're out there

[sidgolf]

geeteeaye said:

Experienced this earlier when two cycling bum chums in full regalia were coming the other way on a country lane (long straight). Rather than pull in behind his mate he insisted on staying two abreast, I returned the compliment by making sure the wing mirror passed close enough to give him a draught, stubborn .

i read this as driver encounters goon on a bike,and quite rightly gets annoyed at the herbert for not pulling in behind his mate.

if i'm out on my bike i wouldn't make life harder than necessary for car-drivers around me.

Edited by sidgolf on Tuesday 10th May 22:42

[char5]

Deluded said:

You do realize that they are making an obstacle no bigger than a car?

If you find it hard to over take them, how would you manage if you came up behind a car doing the same speed?

It's not difficult to overtake them, it's just a pain. The thing I don't understand about these sort of cyclists is the whole I have every right to do this so I will do it even though I am putting myself in danger. It's the same with the whole I will cycle in the middle of the road brigade because I can even though it's not safe.

I have been cycling for years and as I am more vulnerable on the road than when I am in my car I am always thinking to myself 'if I do this I will put my life in danger and even though I am allowed to ride there I'm not cause it's not as safe'

I guess some people just need to prove a point. At the end of the day I don't want to be stuck in a wheel chair just because it was my right to be somewhere and I wanted to prove a point.

[BliarOut]

Cycling further towards the crown is generally considered safer because it forces other traffic to deal with you as an obstacle rather than subconsciously squeezing you into the gutter. It's not done to be wilfully obstructive, it's part of keeping yourself from getting splattered.

[char5]

BliarOut said:

Cycling further towards the crown is generally considered safer because it forces other traffic to deal with you as an obstacle rather than subconsciously squeezing you into the gutter. It's not done to be wilfully obstructive, it's part of keeping yourself from getting splattered.

There is not riding in the gutter and there is taking the piss. I have found that if I ride too far in to the middle of the road people get frustrated and make stupid overtakes.

[BliarOut]

Pedal faster

[flemke]

Garlick said:

I do think cyclists should move, if as described then courtesy should be shown (by both parties).

Bad cyclists, bad drivers. They're out there

IMO almost all cyclists do move over, once they become aware that a motor vehicle is now behind and would like to overtake. On a bike, it's no fun to have breathing down your neck a car that might attempt a dodgy overtake at any moment. If you're cycling at high-teens or greater speed, there's enough aero noise to mask the sound of most cars that would be following behind. A polite toot on the horn should never be a problem, for either driver or cyclist. When the cyclist becomes aware, normally he will pull over, if only for self-preservation.
In the major cycling nations on the Continent, it is common for an approaching driver to toot for a cyclist. Almost invariably, the toot is intended both as a friendly caution and as recognition and encouragement to the cyclist. Those intentions would be opposed to the horn's frequent meaning in the UK: "Hey, you - get the fu<k out of my way!" (Please note that none of those words has more than one syllable.)
Obviously, when a cyclist is made aware of a following vehicle and yet refuses to budge, that's a different story.
One could ask, "Why can't cyclists ride single file constantly?" The answer to that might be, "Because they're waiting for that practice to be demonstrated by car passengers' traveling for hours without speaking to each other."

[AlexiusG55]

char5 said:

There is not riding in the gutter and there is taking the piss. I have found that if I ride too far in to the middle of the road people get frustrated and make stupid overtakes.

Of course, on narrow roads (in cities) I sometimes find it necessary to ride far enough out from the curb that a car behind can't overtake me. I only do this where the road is narrow enough that if the car were to attempt to overtake it would have to pass dangerously close to me (and either clip me with a wing mirror or force me into the gutter). I try and do it as little as possible (ie move back in if I feel safe being passed) and ride as quickly as possible when I do do it in order to avoid holding up traffic- these roads tend to have 20 mph limits, so they're not held up that badly.

[Pothole]

geeteeaye said:

Jimmyarm said:

magpie215 said:

geeteeaye said:

Experienced this earlier when two cycling bum chums in full regalia were coming the other way on a country lane (long straight). Rather than pull in behind his mate he insisted on staying two abreast, I returned the compliment by making sure the wing mirror passed close enough to give him a draught, stubborn .

Words fail me!!!

Perhaps he hasn't phrased his post very well.

My picture is of a narrow country lane with passing places where two cars abreast would not fit, a car and a single cyclist would be ok but a car and two cyclists abreast is a bit of a squeeze.

It would appear that one of the cyclists dropping back would be win win all around ?

Wow, just returned to this thread and much hatred. What is said above is exactly what happened. One cyclist I would have passed with no problems, the fact they decided to stay two abreast caused it to be a closer thing, perhaps they were happy with that. When I'm on my bike I will pull over/leave cars space where I can, these guys seemed to want to make an issue of riding two abreast on a country lane and not file over.

and that makes them gay? You're a fool and nothing you say will make that change.

[anonymous-user]

geeteeaye said:

Wow, just returned to this thread and much hatred. What is said above is exactly what happened. One cyclist I would have passed with no problems, the fact they decided to stay two abreast caused it to be a closer thing, perhaps they were happy with that. When I'm on my bike I will pull over/leave cars space where I can, these guys seemed to want to make an issue of riding two abreast on a country lane and not file over.

Are you surprised? How many minutes out of your day did this hold you up, 2, 3, 4 maybe? Seriously you have the front to suggest that anyone else is in the wrong and then think the internet will think you are cool for using your car to put the rider in danger. If the cyclist had slipped off his grips maybe gone for his bottle and moved a foot that would have been it for him. Meanwhile you would be safe in the knowledge that you had seriously injured someone becuase you have the righteous high ground.

[oyster]

geeteeaye said:

Experienced this earlier when two cycling bum chums in full regalia were coming the other way on a country lane (long straight). Rather than pull in behind his mate he insisted on staying two abreast, I returned the compliment by making sure the wing mirror passed close enough to give him a draught, stubborn .

So despite the fact that 2 cyclists side by side are still narrower than a car, you decided to drive dangerously just to a prove a point? A non-existant point at that as they were cycling within the remit of the Highway Code.

It seems you are the stubborn one here.

[Chicane-UK]

Didn't realise it was ok to cycle two abrest. Whenever out riding with friends we will generally stick to single file, especially on busy roads but occasionally go two abrest to chat, etc when on quieter lanes. If we hear a car coming we tuck in.

The old cyclists vs motorists debate will never go away. Society in general is too selfish, to rude, and generally up it's own backside to get a sense of perspective for other peoples situations. If everyone was a bit more easy going and a bit more tolerant, we'd never get any of this sort of tosh!

[ewenm]

Chicane-UK said:

Didn't realise it was ok to cycle two abrest. Whenever out riding with friends we will generally stick to single file, especially on busy roads but occasionally go two abrest to chat, etc when on quieter lanes. If we hear a car coming we tuck in.

Which is exactly how the vast majority of cyclists behave.

Chicane-UK said:

The old cyclists vs motorists debate will never go away. Society in general is too selfish, to rude, and generally up it's own backside to get a sense of perspective for other peoples situations. If everyone was a bit more easy going and a bit more tolerant, we'd never get any of this sort of tosh!

It would be nice wouldn't it. However this is the internet where everyone is right and really hard (probably powerfully built too).

[croyde]

Strange as almost all cyclists are motorists, I know I am.

[ewenm]

croyde said:

Strange as almost all cyclists are motorists, I know I am.

It's a shame that not all motorists are cyclists too though - then we might see a little more appreciation of others from the extremists in both camps.

[BliarOut]

doogz said:

BliarOut said:

You utter fking . Bet you've got a prick like a shrivelled walnut you fking brain dead asshole.

What if a car coming the other way was taking up the same amount of space? Would you drive like a fking retard then too? You have a ton plus of metal and you aim it at someone because you don't like the way they're riding even though it's totally legal?

I hope an HGV takes a dislike to you and turns you into a bonnet ornament you small minded sack of st.

Now just FOAD

You scared a cyclist, i hope you die by HGV?

I'm not condoning the previous comment for a second, but that's not exactly any better, is it?

Much, I toned my initial comments down...