Cycling two abreast....agree or not?

[jakesmith]

ddom said:

Are you ok dear?

Now you're a cyclist parasite?

Are you alright? 2000 posts in 6 months?
You bang on about cycling a lot, you could have done a 10k in the time it's taken you to type all your argumentative rubbish out!

[Ares]

Fady said:

Ares said:

Fady said:

Ares said:

DoubleD said:

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

I know of one within 20/30 miles of me, runs up the side of the Alderley Edge by-pass. I'll use that rather than be on the road, as do the vast majority of cyclists. Its not perfect, it's only about 1.5m wide and is multi-use so you have to cope with headphone-wearing runners & walkers, plus of course phone-zombies, as well as families with small kids pootling along on their bikes not much over walking speed.

Take a look at the Lakefront Trail in Chicago if you want to see how a true cycle/running track would be effective.....or indeed the dozens of miles of cycle tracks running alongside roads the leads to it. And that's Trump's America!!!

A bit more land to play with there and some!

Not really in the two examples given!

You mentioned Trump's America. Not that he would have anything to do with your examples, but I am referring to the land mass.

Still under his administration and the draconian and anti-environment measures it appears to support.

And Land mass has nothing to do with building a proper cycle lane by the side of a road.

The UK doesn't struggle for land mass, and it is arguably the worst in the world.

[Mastodon2]

jakesmith said:

The whole fking thread is a wind up isn't it, it's a motoring forum for starters called 'pistonheads: speed matters'. Not 'lycracuns - shouting obnoxiously matters'.

My time trial bike is pretty quick

[smn159]

jakesmith said:

smn159 said:

Definitely a wind up.

The whole fking thread is a wind up isn't it, it's a motoring forum for starters called 'pistonheads: speed matters'. Not 'lycracuns - shouting obnoxiously matters'.

People with your apparent attitude to other road users are a liability to others

You seem like an obsessive nutter, frankly

[will_]

jakesmith said:

J4CKO said:

So, all other cyclists are "Parasites" who dont use the cycle paths provided.

But you cycle and use a Scooter and dont use the cycle paths ?

You've missed the nuance (and an apostrophe), the parasites are those who cycle in a way that prioritises their desire for a chat, over other road users. As I said before, no issue being held up by a slow vehicle, unless it is 2 cyclists next to each other shouting away in the most obnoxious way without a thought for the traffic stacking up behind them. If the road is wide enough to facilitate this and it's just an incompetent motorist too nervous to pass then again, no problem. On a narrow road, it's just selfish to do this.

If there are so many oncoming cars which are blocking your overtake (oh the irony), then it's completely irrelevant whether the cyclists are in single file or riding two abreast because in neither case can you safely overtake. Nowhere along Priory Lane could you overtake a cyclist with oncoming traffic in the opposing lane.

And if the cyclists are doing 16mph not only is it pointless to overtake even if you could do so safely, but you'd probably break the 20mph limit in doing so. All you would achieve is to reach the back of the next queue (which is made up entirely of cars) a bit sooner.

It's completely irrational, but not uncommon.

Still, at least you're able to drive on the roads I paid for.

[Ares]

jakesmith said:

Hi there firstly I am glad that you find matters of road safety amusing - for me it's no laughing matter. Well basically I do ride an electric scooter illegally whenever it suits me, wearing a snowboarding helmet for protection as it has integrated ear muffs. It does hold up traffic sometimes as it is limited to 16MPH which you may be aware is a very typical bicycle speed, and as some of you were keen to point out that's hardly an inconvenience these days due to 20MPH limits, heavy traffic, and of course the health benefits. I'd love to see how this is now going to be turned around despite me occupying exactly the same space on the road (or possibly less, I am not overweight any more) as a cyclist... One thing's for sure, I don't go on any pavements or shared cycle paths etc - they are a liability.

So an illegal slower mode of transport is fine, but a faster legal mode of transport is the stuff of parasites.

OK. Do we refer to you as God? Or just Your Royal Highness? For you clearly believe it is your opinion that counts?

[will_]

jakesmith said:

The whole fking thread is a wind up isn't it, it's a motoring forum for starters called 'pistonheads: speed matters'. Not 'lycracuns - shouting obnoxiously matters'.

You do know there's a cycling sub-forum on here, right?

Riding a bike and enjoying cars are not mutually exclusive. In fact because driving in urban environments is so awful (because of all the cars), it's not only much quicker and more efficient to be on a bike but much more fun too.

[jakesmith]

smn159 said:

People with your apparent attitude to other road users are a liability to others

You seem like an obsessive nutter, frankly

Haha the mask slipped a little there eh chap?

This thread is characterised by people who simply can not be civil or present their viewpoint or any substance, without using insults. If your points were so good they would stand up without that kind of degenerate and pathetic behaviour

I haven't and don't do anything dangerous on the road and am not a liability to anyone, I just haven't seen anything on this thread to convince me that people who hold up traffic so they can chat as they cycle along, are anything other than the selfish, arrogant toss-pieces that everyone else thinks they are.

[614-HSO]

I am against this, many seem to think they are taking part in the Tour de France, they should be in single file also if there is a cycle path and they are riding on the road or path they should be prosecuted.

[Falconer]

Foss62 said:

A lot depends on where they are going. Bridges and tunnels are rare and cycle lanes that have priority crossing roads, apparently non existent. Consequently many cyclists feel (and probably are) safer turning right or negotiating roundabouts with the traffic.
There are also numerous ‘cycle tracks’ with reversed priorities meaning that cyclists are supposed to give way at every side road for completely unknown reasons - put yourself in the position of a cyclist on one of these and you can see why the road might be an attractive choice...

I’m not saying all cycle tracks are fit for purpose, but the one I am familiar with definitely is and a lot of money has been spent on it. It even deviates from the road to avoid a hill. But the “proper” cyclists with their Tour de France fantasies still ignore it.

[Ares]

jakesmith said:

smn159 said:

People with your apparent attitude to other road users are a liability to others

You seem like an obsessive nutter, frankly

Haha the mask slipped a little there eh chap?

This thread is characterised by people who simply can not be civil or present their viewpoint or any substance, without using insults. If your points were so good they would stand up without that kind of degenerate and pathetic behaviour

I haven't and don't do anything dangerous on the road and am not a liability to anyone, I just haven't seen anything on this thread to convince me that people who hold up traffic so they can chat as they cycle along, are anything other than the selfish, arrogant toss-pieces that everyone else thinks they are.

Firstly, as you love pointing out the lack of apostrophe use by others, you missed one yourself. Watch out for your glass house.

Secondly, people are not 'holding up traffic so they can chat as they cycle along', they are following cycle safety guidelines, and acting perfectly legally whilst also enjoying their leisure pursuit. The amount drivers get held up by cyclists is microscopic compared to the amount of hold ups motorists cause themselves.

If, HUGE if, cyclists belligerently refuse to aid a car overtaking for a prolonged period (30sec +) then yes, I would call that inconsiderate and will tell them if I see it whether on two wheels or four, however, it is the infinitesimally small minority that act in that way and an similarly small example of the inconsiderate behaviour displayed by road users in general.

As an example, I've ridden 25,000km this year, and driven about half that. Last year was about 30% less cycling, 30% more driving. 2018 was similar. The last time I saw cyclists refuse to ride in single file when a car was behind them was June 2017, on my way (driving) to a charity bike ride. The same cyclists then turned up and I put my opinion forward. They argued and fought it. They were inconsiderate wkers. But that was one example in 3 years and c100,000km.

I've seen significantly more inconsiderate behaviour by every other form of road user since.

[Ares]

614-HSO said:

I am against this, many seem to think they are taking part in the Tour de France, they should be in single file also if there is a cycle path and they are riding on the road or path they should be prosecuted.

Why? And how?

[Foss62]

Falconer said:

Foss62 said:

A lot depends on where they are going. Bridges and tunnels are rare and cycle lanes that have priority crossing roads, apparently non existent. Consequently many cyclists feel (and probably are) safer turning right or negotiating roundabouts with the traffic.
There are also numerous ‘cycle tracks’ with reversed priorities meaning that cyclists are supposed to give way at every side road for completely unknown reasons - put yourself in the position of a cyclist on one of these and you can see why the road might be an attractive choice...

I’m not saying all cycle tracks are fit for purpose, but the one I am familiar with definitely is and a lot of money has been spent on it. It even deviates from the road to avoid a hill. But the “proper” cyclists with their Tour de France fantasies still ignore it.

Tour de France fantasies might occasionally apply, but I’m sure most cyclists, whether commuting or leisure will do the same as me and use cycle lanes only where they are the best option (fastest, smoothest, safest etc.). Most cyclists also drive and/or ride powered vehicles and look for the routes that work best. They are not going to take a different approach when cycling.

[Ares]

Falconer said:

Foss62 said:

A lot depends on where they are going. Bridges and tunnels are rare and cycle lanes that have priority crossing roads, apparently non existent. Consequently many cyclists feel (and probably are) safer turning right or negotiating roundabouts with the traffic.
There are also numerous ‘cycle tracks’ with reversed priorities meaning that cyclists are supposed to give way at every side road for completely unknown reasons - put yourself in the position of a cyclist on one of these and you can see why the road might be an attractive choice...

I’m not saying all cycle tracks are fit for purpose, but the one I am familiar with definitely is and a lot of money has been spent on it. It even deviates from the road to avoid a hill. But the “proper” cyclists with their Tour de France fantasies still ignore it.

You need to stop with the "Tour de France fantasies", they are no more that that you are a Lewis Hamilton/Ayrton Senna fantasist.

On to cycle lanes, Money doesn't equate to being fit for purpose. Cyclist will use a cycle lane that is fit for purpose. I'd bet you the air from all my tyres that if cyclists aren't using it, there is reason for it. Debris, obstructions, mud, junctions, runners/pedestrians, etc.

As I said above, there is one fit for purpose cycle lane near me, and it's far from perfect as it is busy AND only c5m wide....but pretty much every cyclist will use it for the 5km it runs alongside the A34.

[jakesmith]

Ares said:

If, HUGE if, cyclists belligerently refuse to aid a car overtaking for a prolonged period (30sec +) then yes, I would call that inconsiderate and will tell them if I see it whether on two wheels or four, however, it is the infinitesimally small minority that act in that way and an similarly small example of the inconsiderate behaviour displayed by road users in general.

Right we have got to the nub of the matter and are in broad agreement on the principle. Thank you for being a decent and open minded person unlike some others & not being blinded by tribal dogma. I am certain you are a considerate and legitimate rider conforming to the applicable rules. Just as I am (apart from when I use my electric scooter.)

I simply believe this behavior is more common than you and in fairness our experiences are anecdotal and insufficient to make genralisations from no matter how much you ride your bike. I have seen it take place several times even if it is a minority of riders, and it is infuriating and I'm afraid being a human it is easy to then make broader judgments based on this for right or wrong.

[Ares]

jakesmith said:

Ares said:

If, HUGE if, cyclists belligerently refuse to aid a car overtaking for a prolonged period (30sec +) then yes, I would call that inconsiderate and will tell them if I see it whether on two wheels or four, however, it is the infinitesimally small minority that act in that way and an similarly small example of the inconsiderate behaviour displayed by road users in general.

Right we have got to the nub of the matter and are in broad agreement on the principle. Thank you for being a decent and open minded person unlike some others & not being blinded by tribal dogma. I am certain you are a considerate and legitimate rider conforming to the applicable rules. Just as I am (apart from when I use my electric scooter.)

I simply believe this behavior is more common than you and in fairness our experiences are anecdotal and insufficient to make genralisations from no matter how much you ride your bike. I have seen it take place several times even if it is a minority of riders, and it is infuriating and I'm afraid being a human it is easy to then make broader judgments based on this for right or wrong.

Even if it is a thousand times greater than anyone has ever seen, and we ignore the fact that their actions are still 100% legal; cyclists would still be the most considerate, placid road users in comparison to others road users (who are often inconsiderate whilst also being illegal)

So...unless you have a similar rant, and use the same level of anger, derogatory terminology, question avoidance and immature general name-calling, about every form of inconsiderate road use....I suggest you wind your neck in and reset your own sense of great importance when you get behind the wheel.

[nickfrog]

jakesmith said:

This thread is characterised by people who simply can not be civil or present their viewpoint or any substance, without using insults.

In fairness your opening gambit contained the word "parasite".

Just be careful not to turn into Cmoose incarnate

[jakesmith]

nickfrog said:

jakesmith said:

This thread is characterised by people who simply can not be civil or present their viewpoint or any substance, without using insults.

In fairness your opening gambit contained the word "parasite".

Just be careful not to turn into Cmoose incarnate

You've had a break haven't you? Been away?
Anyway that's literally the worst and most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me!
If you see me telling someone to 'drive the snot out of it' (their car) then it's time to worry.

[nickfrog]

jakesmith said:

You've had a break haven't you? Been away?

Not as far as I know (?)

jakesmith said:

Anyway that's literally the worst and most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me!
If you see me telling someone to 'drive the snot out of it' (their car) then it's time to worry.

It was a bit harsh of me, I was hoping the wink may have smoothed the blow somewhat!

[Gweeds]

jakesmith said:

This thread is characterised by people who simply can not be civil or present their viewpoint or any substance, without using insults

Like calling them parasites and lycras?

Weird flex, but ok.