Overtake a cyclist? It's a £5000 fine.

[OTBC]

Jagmanv12 said:

If cyclists are riding two abreast then they are not being considerate to other road users.

The riders are ahead so can see what's coming before the driver, they could be blocking an overtake that's unsafe because of an oncoming vehicle. Riders who are two abreast make zero difference to a competent driver who obeys the HC:

[divetheworld]

Derek Smith said:

In fact, when I was a PC we were told that a cyclist going slowly should be counted as an obstruction under the old legislation.

What do you count this as?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7n9MBIDzE

Reasonable and considerate cyclists?

Edited by divetheworld on Sunday 5th June 09:30

[Impasse]

OTBC said:

The riders are ahead so can see what's coming before the driver, they could be blocking an overtake that's unsafe because of an oncoming vehicle. Riders who are two abreast make zero difference to a competent driver who obeys the HC:

Poor ol' Jen. She's somehow managed to find herself on a live section of the Tour de France. That's poor planning by the organisers.

[otolith]

If you were going to overtake correctly anyway, side by side is easier than in line. Obviously not if you were going to try to pass them in lane. Passing them side by side will obviously reduce the separation distance, but you are still leaving them space to move into which doesn't risk killing them.

[Mr Tidy]

Retroman said:

If 3 cyclists are cycling side by side on the 1 lane of a 2 lane road, that won't hold up anyone who's overtaking properly. In fact it helps them. The only people it slows down are the ones that try and squeeze by too closely whilst there is oncoming traffic.

See this image for what i mean
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UHSjy2xPx8I/...

The reason a lot of cyclists do the side by side cycling is to prevent people from doing dodgy overtakes.

When cyclists cycle side by side on most roads, it holds up impatient motorists. If motorists pass too closely, it endangers the cyclist's life so hardly comparable.

What has happened to the world in my lifetime FFS - when I walked to primary school if I had got run over it would have been my fault (and I would have had to explain that to my parents)!

When I cycled to senior school it would have been my fault if I had got splattered by anything!

When I reached 16 and got a moped (because that was all I was allowed at the time) it would still have been my fault if I had had any sort of collision! And probably painful!

As a result I spent my early years being a very defensive road-user, and I still operate that way - but when did it become crucial for "cyclists" (doubtlessly aggressive MAMILS) having to cycle 2/3/4 abreast to prevent "dodgy overtakes" - 2/3/4 abreast makes me desperate to make an overtake FFS (even if it may be dodgy)!

I don't drive in cycle lanes, so why do I spend so much time avoiding cyclists on the road?

I don't drive on pavements, so why do I spend so much time avoiding pedestrians on the road?

I hope you are having a good time in your alternative planet Retroman! Using the roads that motorists pay for, but which you get to use for free with no insurance!

If cycling side by side endangers the cyclist's life, as a cyclist myself I would just get out of the f*cking way!

But then self-preservation seems to be unfashionable at present - it is easier to just blame someone else!

On yer F*cking bike!

[Retroman]

Perfect example of why there should be a minimum distance. Road is clear for a safe overtake but motorist clips cyclists by driving too close anyway. Probably too difficult to turn the steering wheel an extra 2 degrees to the right.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

Jagmanv12 said:

If cyclists are riding two abreast then they are not being considerate to other road users.

The part you quoted is only applicible to narrow roads and on corners...

If you're overtaking properly then cycling 2 abreast means a quicker overtake for the motorist as per the image below

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBjPU43Sd8k/UHSjy2xPx8I/...

The only people who get frustrated by this are the people who try and overtake when there's oncomnig traffic. Cyclists cycle 2 abreast to to prevent cars doing this,

Mr Tidy said:

When I cycled to senior school it would have been my fault if I had got splattered by anything!!

So if you're cycling legally and safely and a car doesn't see you and runs you down that's your fault?
Going to have to disagree with you there

Mr Tidy said:

When I reached 16 and got a moped (because that was all I was allowed at the time) it would still have been my fault if I had had any sort of collision! And probably painful!

It would only be your fault if you were negligent. That's how liability is determined by anyone with a normal outlook in life.

Mr Tidy said:

but when did it become crucial for "cyclists" (doubtlessly aggressive MAMILS) having to cycle 2/3/4 abreast to prevent "dodgy overtakes" - 2/3/4 abreast makes me desperate to make an overtake FFS (even if it may be dodgy)!

Probably about the time where motorists would do dodgy overtakes, and knock cyclists off their bike in the process. Cycling 2 abreast is cycling defensively.

Mr Tidy said:

I hope you are having a good time in your alternative planet Retroman! Using the roads that motorists pay for, but which you get to use for free with no insurance!

I think you'll find roads are paid for through council tax and general taxation. So cyclists do pay for your roads. I also have third party insurance on my bike but thanks for throwing in the "no insurance" red herring. Cyclists having no insurance doesn't mean they're not liable for damage. That's what a letter before action is for

[spookly]

OTBC said:

The riders are ahead so can see what's coming before the driver, they could be blocking an overtake that's unsafe because of an oncoming vehicle. Riders who are two abreast make zero difference to a competent driver who obeys the HC:

This would p1ss me off. By going out cycling, usually on A/B roads in the country you are deliberately going to be about the slowest thing on the road. Then choose to bunch up so there is a big train of you that will never be easy to overtake.

All of this so you can look at your mates arses in lycra and sniff each others saddles. There is no point to your journey, but you will inconvenience everyone else for your hobby. I would think myself very selfish if I deliberately went out to do that. You might make people late for something important just for you to go out.

Single cyclists commuting are fine by me, and I always give them loads of room and never overtake aggressively. It's the cycling in packs through country roads that annoys me.... no point to it at all. A deliberate rolling roadblock.... selfish lycra bas**rds.

[Biker 1]

I've seen a couple of cases recently that REALLY pissed me off - I am fairly anti-cyclists anyway, so the louts in lycra I don't have much time for:

1) Road race set up on the A24 Horsham bypass. There were perhaps 50 cycles on this busy dual carriageway, with lorries/buses having to swerve round them: properly stupid & very dangerous

2) Ancient Transit van being driven at cycle speed with hazards on for several miles on busy B road: after the 5 or so cars in front of me eventually managed to overtake her, there appeared three bicycles in front of her. I guess she was the 'team' backup vehicle - I nearly blew a gasket!!

Agreed: give cyclists room when overtaking in order to prevent death, but FFS can the cyclists choose better places to hold their damn races & be LOT more considerate in general!!!

[Moonhawk]

WinstonWolf said:

It's easier to overtake two abreast as the length of the overtake is halved.

There are some selfish pig-headed drivers in the UK...

As are some cyclists - rules 168 and 169 suggest that a cyclist should slow down or even pull over to allow traffic to overtake.

When on a winding country lane with little opportunity for safe overtakes I will regularly pull over if I know I am holding other traffic up - yet I have never seen another cyclist do the same.

[giantdefy]

Biker 1 said:

There were perhaps 50 cycles on this busy dual carriageway, with lorries/buses having to swerve round them: properly stupid & very dangerous

Agreed swerving round them would be dangerous, maybe a bit of forward planning would remove the necessity to swerve.

[Moaningroadie]

divetheworld said:

What do you count this as?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7n9MBIDzE

Reasonable and considerate cyclists?

Edited by divetheworld on Sunday 5th June 09:30

Yes. The van driver on the other hand, was not.

[Moaningroadie]

Biker 1 said:

1) Road race set up on the A24 Horsham bypass. There were perhaps 50 cycles on this busy dual carriageway, with lorries/buses having to swerve round them: properly stupid & very dangerous

All together in a bunch or spread out? I suspect it was a time trial where they were seprate. Perhaps not the best idea on a busy bypass, but unfortunately for you not illegal.

[Retroman]

Moonhawk said:

As are some cyclists - rules 168 and 169 suggest that a cyclist should slow down or even pull over to allow traffic to overtake.

When on a winding country lane with little opportunity for safe overtakes I will regularly pull over if I know I am holding other traffic up - yet I have never seen another cyclist do the same.

I do the same. It's makes for a more relaxing ride without a queue of traffic behind you.

[sim72]

Moaningroadie said:

Biker 1 said:

1) Road race set up on the A24 Horsham bypass. There were perhaps 50 cycles on this busy dual carriageway, with lorries/buses having to swerve round them: properly stupid & very dangerous

All together in a bunch or spread out? I suspect it was a time trial where they were seprate. Perhaps not the best idea on a busy bypass, but unfortunately for you not illegal.

Time trials are very common through our village. This would not be a problem (good quality, quite wide B-road) except for the fact that after leaving the village there's a steep downhill section followed by a steep uphill section. At the bottom is a set of traffic lights. Since stopping at them would lose the time trialists huge amounts of momentum for the uphill section, they almost inevitably simply ignore red lights - often speeding within inches of cars waiting at the lights. It's only a matter of time before one gets wiped out.

[StottyEvo]

OTBC said:

StottyEvo said:

Ok now I find you funny

Johnny uses the forum to boast about placing children in danger, but the thing that upsets you is my posting style, I see. Johnny is by his own admission a danger to children. Nobody is safe as long as he continues to use his car as a weapon, no child is safe near Johnny on the roads. The sooner Johnny gets cancer the better. Drivers like him are worthless dog puke, pathetic inadequate men who brag about placing people in danger on purpose. Sad, laughable bullies who should die in incontinent agony. Let's hope it's soon.

Who the fk is Johnny?

That reads like a monologue from The Shining, I feel like you're a gun licence away from an American style school shooting.

[Biker 1]

Moaningroadie said:

All together in a bunch or spread out? I suspect it was a time trial where they were seprate. Perhaps not the best idea on a busy bypass, but unfortunately for you not illegal.

All bunched up. It was SOOOOO dangerous, with commercial vehicles, lorries buses etc. in dense traffic on a dual carriageway. It woudln't be just 1 being wiped out; I'm surprised it wasn't carnage..... What were the organisers thinking of?? Illegal: probably not - perhaps cyclists should be banned on this type of road, as they are on motorways.

[gazza285]

Biker 1 said:

Moaningroadie said:

All together in a bunch or spread out? I suspect it was a time trial where they were seprate. Perhaps not the best idea on a busy bypass, but unfortunately for you not illegal.

All bunched up. It was SOOOOO dangerous, with commercial vehicles, lorries buses etc. in dense traffic on a dual carriageway. It woudln't be just 1 being wiped out; I'm surprised it wasn't carnage..... What were the organisers thinking of?? Illegal: probably not - perhaps cyclists should be banned on this type of road, as they are on motorways.

Ride on country lanes, upset drivers who can't wait for a passing opportunity. Ride on a road with another lane in which to pass safely, drivers still not happy.

[spookly]

It's nice to hear that some of you lycra menace pull over to let faster traffic past. But in 20 years of driving I have never had a lycra clad wannabe tour de france cyclist who is holding me up in the countryside pull over to let me by. I'd love to see it but I cannot believe it is anywhere near a common sight.

[Retroman]

I don't wear lycra when i'm cycling so maybe that's why

[otolith]

If I am on my bike, I help cars overtake, but I must say I lose very little time to bicycles when I am in the car - it's other cars, buses and lorries. And round here they *never* pull over to let faster traffic by.