To have been annoyed with the cyclists

(233 Posts)
EverybodyLovesWine Fri 10-May-13 11:44:28

On the way back from visiting a friend yesterday I was behind two cyclists in the proper Lycra gear riding two abreast.

The roads were single carriage way roads through villages with on comjng traffic, corners, parked cars etc. I was not confident to overtake but the cyclists didn't move over for a good ten mins ( where the road widened out a bit anyway).

There was a LONG queue of traffic behind me and I was getting a bit stressed, even though of turning into a side road so I wasn't first. I am not an aggressive driver but wondering if I should have beeped them. They turned round a few times so certainly knew I was there.

Just as the road widened the man behind shouted loudly at them and gestured as he passed.

AIBU to have been really annoyed with the riders (the words arrogant tossers were going through my mind) as they should have pulled over IMO, should I have been more forthright with my driving? Or perhaps I should not have been annoyed and was in fact an arrogant tosser of a car driver!

If it wasn't safe to overtake 2 cyclists, it probably wouldn't have been safe to overtake one.

And you were right not to beep them. As you said, they knew you were there.

sue52 Fri 10-May-13 11:48:10

Due consideration for other road users applies to bikers too. Very selfish of them.

Pootles2010 Fri 10-May-13 11:48:11

If you werent' confident overtaking them, then there wouldn't have been room for you to go round them anyway would there?

Windy roads and waiting for tractors/horses/cyclists parr for course I'm afraid.

DeepRedBetty Fri 10-May-13 11:52:56

I disagree Travelin I was taught to give cyclists a car's width when overtaking, so if they're side by side then you wouldn't be able to overtake at all, even if you could see the road was clear well ahead, without passing less than a car's width from the one nearest the middle of the road, whereas if they'd been OBEYING THE RULES they could be overtaken safely.

WilsonFrickett Fri 10-May-13 11:54:40

Why do you think they should have pulled over? Would you have expected another car to pull over?

They were riding defensively, probably because it wouldn't have been safe to overtake one of them. (You say the split as the road widened - ie as soon as it was safe, they made it easy for you to over take).

They are entitled to take space in the road, for their own safety. That said, I know the pressure of the queue behind you can make you doubt your decisions!

DeepRedBetty Fri 10-May-13 11:55:20

Wonder if one of them was the same one as was doing 55 in a 30 limit the other day as he'd just kept on going after free-wheeling down a very long hill? Then started waving his arms at me for slowing him down?

Pootles2010 Fri 10-May-13 11:55:30

But it was a narrow road, so there wouldn't be space anyway? I imagine that's why they were two abreast, for their own safety - hence why then went single file when it widened out.

If they'd been nice they could have waved OP round when they could see the way was clear though.

WilsonFrickett Fri 10-May-13 11:56:09

The roads were single carriage way roads through villages with on comjng traffic, corners, parked cars

But deep it doesn't sound like you could have given them a car's width, and they were riding defensively to stop drivers trying to overtake anyway, giving them less than a width.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 11:58:16

Sounds like the cyclists moved over as soon as it was safe to do so.

What is the problem here?

EuroShaggleton Fri 10-May-13 12:00:20

wilson it's very common for slow moving motor vehicles (tractors, etc) to pull over every so often to let cars pass.

The cyclists were inconsiderate, but you were right not to beep the horn at them. There is no point doing something that might trigger a nasty road ragey incident (although in this case you probably would have been using the horn for its intended purpose - to alert another road user to your presence).

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 12:00:39

DeepRedBetty, I don't believe a cyclist was doing 55mph in a 30mph limit. That's like Tour De France stuff. Did you have a radar gun?

But anyway, speed limits do not apply to cyclists, except in a few special cases (Richmond Park, Bournemouth sea front).

And it's no true that you need to give cyclists a car's width, you should give them as much space as you would when overtaking a car. Which isn't necessarily a car's width, it depends on your speed and theirs. And there is no rule saying cyclists should not cycle two abreast.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 12:02:02

EuroShaggleton, given that the cyclists had turned round and looked her in the eye, that would not be appropriate use of the horn, since they were clearly aware of her.

FannyFifer Fri 10-May-13 12:07:45

Is it not just bad manners to be cycling side by side? I thought they had to be in single file.

AThingInYourLife Fri 10-May-13 12:13:59

"Is it not just bad manners to be cycling side by side? I thought they had to be in single file."

No, it is not.

And no, they do not.

IrritatingInfinity Fri 10-May-13 12:22:01

Yanbu. I cycle in groups a lot. We always switch to single file if a car comes if we are cycling along country lanes. It is good manners and it is not difficult to do.
It's rude to hold up traffic just so you can chat to your pals.
I often ride two abreast as it makes us more visible to cars and it is nice to chat as you cycle along and sometimes it is unavoidable that you have to hold traffic up for a short while.

I never run red lights either.

<<polished halo emoticon>>

FredFredGeorge Fri 10-May-13 12:53:23

A lot of cyclists do unnecessarily annoy drivers, it does not sound particularly in this instance that they did. They were perhaps excessively defensive by holding their position until they were comfortable that it was safe to overtake. But it's not unreasonable and people do similar things in cars by adjusting their road positions.

10 minutes though is an extremely long time for there to be no appropriate passing places for them to pull over / slow and single up. I don't know of many roads around here where you'd actually get a number of cars behind you for that long and not have any opportunity - you'd need to be riding very slowly, which means the space required for an overtake is minimal.

So yes I'd say the cyclists were rude here - it's quite common though, like drivers, horse riders, walkers, pogo-stickers there's an unfortunate number who are just arses and don't make the small allowances required to make it work well for everyone. Most aren't like that of course.

andubelievedthat Fri 10-May-13 13:01:32

do not overtake a cyclist unless you can be sure ? that if they were to fall from bike to the right as you overtake ,you will avoid hitting them.thats what I was taught,and peeps do fall off their bike.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:06:11

Car drivers tend to exaggerate the extent of their inconvenience IMO. I've had motorists go crazy over 10 seconds, never mind 10 minutes.

redexpat Fri 10-May-13 13:23:03

From the highway code:

You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.

Although having said that I have also read that men tend to have fewer accidents because they are more assertive when on a bike. So perhaps they thought it wasnt safe for you to overtake, and that pulling over would make you think it was safe to overtake.

I'm sure you're a wonderful motorist but there are plenty who aren't, and they were playing it safe.

BMW6 Fri 10-May-13 13:34:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:36:22

Charming.

Fakebook Fri 10-May-13 13:36:28

Yanbu. I really really do have a bad time with cyclists, as a driver and a pedestrian. It is very arrogant and rude to do what they did. They should have been riding behind one another, and if they wanted a conversation whilst cycling, they could have bought a tandem bike. Idiots.

This morning a cyclist nearly ran over my dd when we were crossing the road. Instead of stopping to let us cross (we had already committed to crossing and the cyclist had just arrived to turn right at the junction) she missed dd by a fraction of a second. if I hadn't pulled dd back it would have been a bad accident. She left us in a vulnerable position as I pulled dd back in the middle of the road. The stupid cow didn't even stop and apologise.

I think a lot of cyclists have some kind of a death wish. Don't even get me started about the ones that cycle with headphones in their ears.

EverybodyLovesWine Fri 10-May-13 13:38:00

I am cautious over taking cyclists, but I could probably have safely overtaken one who was at the kerb at a few points.

To be fair it hadn't occurred to me they were "playing it safe" . I had always thought that cyclists were supposed to be single file

Gubbins Fri 10-May-13 13:39:21

Sounds like they were doing the most sensible thing. On a narrow road with parked cars and bends it would almost certainly not have been safe for a car to have overtaken a single cyclist. Because that's something that is ignored by a good proportion of drivers, they were protecting themselves by making it impossible for you to take a risk with their lives. As soon as it was safe, they went single file to let you pass. You did the right thing in not beeping, the guy behind you who shouted was an arse.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:41:19

Whereas a car actually ran over someone's dd this morning, and that dd is now actually dead.

Do get some perspective, cyclists do not represent any kind to you or your children. Some cyclists ride without consideration, but whereas there are tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicles, you are more likely to be killed by a bull than a cyclist.

I see twisted railings, dented walls, the aftermath of motorists driving like cunts every time I leave the house. My kids can't walk to school alone because selfish cunts in their cars don't stick to the speed limit, and they very many think that school children are a nuisance.

Gubbins Fri 10-May-13 13:42:34

Oh, to declare my interests I am a motorist. And a pedestrian. Oh, and a cyclist, too. We don't exist in a separate box, you know.

CelticPixie Fri 10-May-13 13:42:49

In my experience most cyclists are just a bunch of arrogant, selfish and inconsiderate cocks who are quite happy to moan about motorists for not showing them any "respect" but they themselves never show any respect to pedestrians, or indeed motorists who unlike them pay road tax and insurance.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cyclists go through red lights at crossings and then look at the pedestrians who've they never nearly hit like idiots. If a car driver did that they'd be in trouble, so why its it any different for them? If they want the same rights as motorists then start showing other road users respected and start paying for the privilege like we have to!

Technotropic Fri 10-May-13 13:43:54

It's a tricky one IMHO and the OP is right to ask as it shows a bit more readiness to see both sides (fair play OP).

I'm a cyclist and have sadly seen too many injured by poor drivers i.e hospitalised. I also know a few too many widows where their husbands have been killed by poor drivers. It's a sad state of affairs and results in defensive riding, such as has been described here.

If there was a long train of cars then it is clear that every single car would have attempted to squeeze their way through. It only takes one of those cars to drive impatiently and injure/kill a cyclist. As a driver who does 15k miles pa too, I would rather lose 10 mins off my journey than risk killing someone. Nobody's time/convenience is worth more than a life.

whois Fri 10-May-13 13:46:34

I used to think cyclists were tossers for doing this. Then I realised generally when people do this it is to stop you squeezing past unsafely when there isn't really room.

Meh, bet it wasn't 10 mins

EverybodyLovesWine Fri 10-May-13 13:46:44

PatPig if that is directed at me I think that is v harsh! I drove considerately and did not beep or overtake or go over the speed limit. I posted as I wasn't sure who was in the right/wrong and am certainly not a selfish cunt.

My DH cycles to work daily and we are well aware of the dangers motorists pose to cyclists. Equally, some cyclists are selfish and do actually pose a danger, esp to DC.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:47:00

There is no road tax CelticPixie. There is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is levied based on emissions. Bicycles pay the same rate as an electric car, i.e. zero.

Never ever ever start a thread about cyclists.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:48:12

EverybodyLovesWine: I was responding to Fakebook's post about how cyclists are the bane of her existence, sorry cross-posts, can get confusing.....

decaffwithcream Fri 10-May-13 13:49:07

I think they have probably had cars taking risks to pass them on the same road - if they look behind and see a line of cars, it's likely that more than one car is going to try and get past them - the guy behind you certainly sounds like he wasn't going to overtake with due regard for their safety uppermost in his mind.

I do hate being the one at the head of the queue too - I've recently had the man behind me shouting out his window and gesturing at me to pass a cyclist. The cyclist was wobbling all over the shop and kept signalling he was turning right, so no way was I about to pass.

Fakebook Fri 10-May-13 13:52:45

Patpig, I'm very sorry someone's dd died this morning, BUT, when crossing the road we use not only our eyes, but our ears too. I can hear a car on a road that may turn into the road I want to cross. I can't hear a cyclist. The road is right outside dd's school so all drivers are slow and vigilant. Why can't cyclists do the same? It's not the first time. I've had cyclists pull out infront of me with no hand gesture, cyclists who are wearing headphones and can't hear me approaching and cyclists who seem to think they don't need to stop at red lights and zebra crossings and nearly bump into me and my children and then have the audacity to tut at me.

Drivers on a whole in built up areas are safer and more vigilant than cyclists. That's IME.

Fakebook Fri 10-May-13 13:55:30

Cyclists who don't use lights at night and cyclists who use those flashing lights, so it looks like an alien is coming towards you are pretty annoying too.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 13:57:47

It's obviously ridiculous to say that drivers are safer than cyclists. The stats just don't back that up, cars kill all the time, cyclists extremely rarely.

We get cars coming round the corner at 50mph in a 30mph zone where we are trying to cross, and you can't hear them because there is so much general traffic noise.

I haven't experienced these inconsiderate cyclists that you mention, maybe you live in Cambridge or somewhere where there a lot of students on bikes? Personally I would be thankful that they are not driving in cars.....

andubelievedthat Fri 10-May-13 13:58:22

Ido hope BMW, that those cyclists (read human beings) are not the doctors you or your family may have been going to rely on some time in your obviously impatient ,busy ,self righteous future ? sorry cancel part of post and read "your stinky little low brow life luv" life, yes you, BMW.Stood on any kitten"s head recently?

Fakebook Fri 10-May-13 14:09:24

Not Cambridge, the other one.

This is why I believe cyclists should be given some kind of a licence to ride. There don't seem to be any rules for them to follow. Hardly anyone abides by the Highway Code. I doubt if anyone even reads it before riding.

Also, I'm not saying cars are safer, but not once has a car ever gone through a red light at me when crossing. Cyclists have.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 14:13:29

Yeah I guess it's a numbers thing. Same in Holland IME - the cyclists kind of ding pedestrians out of the way.

Round where I am you just have to kind of go round the pedestrians who don't ever look where you are going. But in a place where there are lots of cyclists maybe different principles apply.

It might be annoying, but it's seriously not an existential threat like being wiped out by a car.

Technotropic Fri 10-May-13 14:14:39

Fakebook

It's good job you finished your sentence with 'That's IME' wink

Statistically you're totally wrong of course given most road deaths occur in built up areas and the most dangerous time is between 7-9am and 3-6pm. Oddly enough that coincides with kids starting and finishing school. Also you don't hear electric cars approaching so isn't too dissimilar to cyclists.

Sadly when these kinds of conversations crop up people start to lose all sense of rational thought. The classic complaints for cyclists are riding 2 abreast, riding on pavements and running red lights. They are the 3 main moans.

Yet ask any driver what their complaints of other drivers are and you will get; mobile phones, road rage, tailgating, driving too fast in snow/fog/rain, agressive driving, driving too slow, middle lane morons, fog light wankers, drunk drivers, drivers not using indicators, poor lane discipline, learners, people towing caravans, taxi drivers, busses pulling out and carving you up. The list goes on except people rarely moan about speeding or running red lights because every driver does this to reduce journey time, because everyone's car journey is the most important thing and more so than any other road users.

Somehow perspective is needed as PatPig has already mentioned.

ColinFirthsGirth Fri 10-May-13 14:22:06

To all those saying hardly any cyclists abide by the highway code or that most cyclists are arogant etc you have never met most cyclists in this country, all the cyclists I know ride with respect and safely. In my area I haven't seen cyclists ride through red lights or riding in a unsafe manner. Maybe it is where you live? Or maybe you are only remembering the few that do go through red lights. By the way statistically far more cars drive through red lights. I often have car drivers squeezing past me when I am on my bike pushing me towards the gutter. If I fell off or a gust of wind blew me towards the car I would get run over. Cyclists are very vulnerable so I would ask car driver to be patient with us please. As for the OP I agree that they were probably trying to prevent cars over taking them and not leaving them enough room. I also get fed up when people go on about vechicle tax. Cars produce emissions and cause wear to the road. Bikes don't emit anything and produce very little wear. Plus this tax goes into the general tax pot not to pay for roads. Cyclists are part of the traffic and have as much right to be their as cars.

ColinFirthsGirth Fri 10-May-13 14:23:05

there sorry not their

CombineBananaFister Fri 10-May-13 14:28:04

Jesus BMW that's a bit harsh, think it's ok to be annoyed and all that but to wish people harm is another level entirely - hope lady karma isn't listening.

I think riding two a breast is rude (post office employees do this near me sometimes 4/5 abreast and it's ridiculous) but I understand cycling defensively.

I live in a historic city so narrow roads are a nightmare and I used to try and be considerate by cycling tight to the kerb so cars could pass easily. BUT after being clipped THREE TIMES by cars pushing past when there is clearly not enough room means that I now cycle in the middle of the road at these narrow points to stop them.

WilsonFrickett Fri 10-May-13 14:34:41

I actually agree cyclists should be licensed in some way, they are road users just like everyone else. But to say that drivers are safer in general than cyclists is just total rubbish. Five cyclists have been killed by cars in my city over the past year. No drivers have been killed by bikes though.

OP Techno also makes a good point - if they'd moved over to let car #1 go at a safe spot, then car #2 would definitely have gone and maybe at a spot that wasn't safe.

Bikes are also usually more aware of things like potholes, which means they ride out, also people in parked cars who may not see the bikes and open their doors into their path.

AThingInYourLife Fri 10-May-13 14:34:48

"In my experience most cyclists are just a bunch of arrogant, selfish and inconsiderate cocks who are quite happy to moan about motorists for not showing them any "respect" but they themselves never show any respect to pedestrians, or indeed motorists who unlike them pay road tax and insurance."

hmm

Do you understand that most cyclists also drive cars?

So they do know the Highway Code, and they do pay vehicle excise duty.

Your post is a perfect example of ignorant, prejudiced cockery.

Cyclists aren't arsed about being shown "respect", they just don't want angry drivers, who don't understand the Highway Code as it applies to bicycles, to kill them.

Every time a thread starts about cyclists it's the same. sad

AThingInYourLife Fri 10-May-13 14:41:27

My very favourite thread was the one about how a cyclist killed by a bus had it coming.

shock Noooo AThing did it get deleted?

SlowlorisIncognito Fri 10-May-13 14:50:34

I don't cycle (much) but I do ride horses on the road, and sometimes ride two abreast for similar reasons (Safety, easier to see etc.) as well as to help shelter younger/more nervous horses. People will often overtake dangerously close or where it is not safe to do so and I'm sure they do this to cyclists as well.

However I would try to avoid having cars trapped behind us for that long, and where we ride we pull over in one of the many suitable gateways if the road is too narrow to overtake on safely, and I would hope there would have been somewhere the cyclists could have pulled in, but if there wasn't there wasn't.

Equally, I understand the OP's feelings of being under pressure from motorists behind them.

Perhaps the cyclists should reassess how safe it is for them to ride on a stretch of road where is is unsafe for them to be overtaken and there are no safe passing places for long stretches as it will antagonise traffic, and it only takes one idiot to cause a serious accident.

LAlady Fri 10-May-13 15:37:38

This is my pet hate. Riding in packs, or two or three abreast. No consideration on the roads around here. I refer to them as middle aged men in Lycra. As they generally are!

AThingInYourLife Fri 10-May-13 15:41:43

Yeah, so much easier to take down a lone cyclist than to have split one off from the pack.

whois Fri 10-May-13 15:44:32

AThingInYourLife funny! :-)

ivykaty44 Fri 10-May-13 15:45:11

I remember being a waitress in a bar and a man demanding to know where his food was as he had ordered 30 minutes ago and his food still wasn't on the table.

Given that we only opened for service at 7pm and this was at 10 past 7 how the hell could he have been waiting half an hour for food he hadn't ordered but 5 minutes before?

People do not judge time well when they are waiting

Tailtwister Fri 10-May-13 15:45:58

They were probably riding 2 abreast deliberately to avoid people chancing it and overtaking a single bike. Sadly drivers pass far too close, especially on 'fast' roads. The guy behind you was in the wrong.

We had a very unfortunate incident near us where a woman was killed by a driver. It turns out he actually killed another cyclist years ago and even though he has done it before he wasn't banned from driving permanently. The number of idiot drivers around is terrifying. There's no way I would cycle on roads, it's just too dangerous.

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 15:49:37

I had an incident where I was riding along with my son, no more than a couple of hundred yards along the road, the car behind me was patiently waiting, but the one behind that was beeping his horn continuously. This was very distracting, and we nearly got hit by a car when we turned right just up the road in the confusion.

claraschu Fri 10-May-13 15:55:31

As a cyclist I always try to let drivers pass me as soon as I can. If the road is very narrow, I will pull over for a moment to give them room. I am not trying to win the Tour de France.
As a driver, I let impatient drivers pass when necessary.
As a driver, I never squeeze past cyclists or beep at them, but I think they should make a small effort to let me pass.
It isn't much fun being followed by annoyed drivers.

ivykaty44 Fri 10-May-13 15:56:45

motorists who unlike them pay road tax and insurance

motorist don't pay car tax - it was abolished in 1937

roads are paid for through council tax paid to your local authority, so if you don't pay council tax you are not contributing

motorways are different - but guess what cyclists don't get to ride on motorways grin thank goodness

motorists pay vehicle emissions tax and this is gauged on how much pollution they make with their engine makes - since cycles don't polite they don't have to pay , some cars have very low emissions and also don't pay or pay a very small amount.

A lot of cyclists have insurance, they join the ctc and get insurance for the whole family as it assists them with all sorts of issue they may face and gives them liability insurance.

Cerisier Fri 10-May-13 16:07:14

Three cyclists were killed on the roads in my city last weekend, including the partner of one of my colleagues.

Anything cyclists do to keep themselves safe is a good thing, as they are so vulnerable.

sparechange Fri 10-May-13 16:08:47

Ah, another cyclists thread..!

All the points I would have wheeled out have been done so already, and more eloquently by others, so I won't repeat

But I will say the typical cruising speed for yer average fairly keen cyclist on a flat-ish road will be north of 20mph, so if you were stuck behind them for 10 minutes (which like others, I think is a huge exaggeration), it would have added wow, literally minutes to your journey time.

So if a cyclist has the weigh up the difference between making someone a few minutes late but staying safe by riding 2 abreast, vs having cars barge past, I know what I would do.

Chipschipschips Fri 10-May-13 16:11:50

YABU

Pootles2010 Fri 10-May-13 16:21:22

Oh for the love of god. Some people are cunts. Some cyclists are, some motorists are, some men are, some women are, some young people are, some old people are.

It makes no ruddy difference angry

NUFC69 Fri 10-May-13 17:59:22

I am another person who used to ride close into the kerb when I was out on my bike, but I realised that the closer in I was, the more motorists pushed their luck overtaking me - not very pleasant having a bus pass within a foot of your ankle! I am not able to ride much now because of health issues, but I would certainly be riding further in towards the middle of the road if I was.

Lazyjaney Fri 10-May-13 18:20:21

"AIBU to have been really annoyed with the riders (the words arrogant tossers were going through my mind) as they should have pulled over IMO, should I have been more forthright with my driving?"

By the time a large queue of cars had built up they should have given way, that's what tractor drivers etc do. By then they are taking the piss and all bets are off.

I find sitting on the car horn right behind these sorts of people tends to sort things out fairly quickly.

Rufus20 Fri 10-May-13 18:22:19

LazyJaney - tut tut!

This morning, a cyclist pulled over just before the road went very narrow and very steep and let the four or five cars following him past. Very sensible.

WilsonFrickett Fri 10-May-13 18:28:44

That's rubbish Lazy. Tractor drivers don't just stop dead in the middle of the road and let other users in - they pull over when it's safe to do so. Which is exactly what these cyclists did - they pulled into single file when the road widened.

Sparkling I totally agree, that's what I would do. However, that does pre-suppose the cyclist knew the route, so knew to pull in at that point. But yes, it's polite to do that.

I don't rank politeness over safety though!

Oh yes, he pulled out of a drive just up from the narrow bit. He was thinking of his own safety and ours, I gave him a wave. It's a horrible bit of road whatever means of transport you have.

Coming that way back though it's common to get stuck behind a very red faced sweaty cyclist going very slowly up the really steep hill. There is no option but to stay behind at a safe distance.

saintmerryweather Fri 10-May-13 18:49:05

i think if you dont know your highway code to know that cyclists and horseriders can ride 2 abreast where necessary you shouldnt be driving. also if you arent confident enough to drive at a safe speed regardless of what people behind you are doing, you shouldnt be on the road

Lazyjaney Fri 10-May-13 18:54:59

"That's rubbish Lazy. Tractor drivers don't just stop dead in the middle of the road and let other users in - they pull over when it's safe to do so. Which is exactly what these cyclists did - they pulled into single file when the road widened"

I very much doubt the only safe passing point could only be found after 10 minutes cycling, what with the road going through villages and past fields etc (OP?) The polite thing to do would be to pull over much earlier.

BoneyBackJefferson Fri 10-May-13 19:07:05

WilsonFrickett
"Why do you think they should have pulled over? Would you have expected another car to pull over?"

The highway codes states that slow movging vehicles should pull over to allow faster vehicles to pass them.

AThingInYourLife Fri 10-May-13 19:07:31

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

inabeautifulplace Fri 10-May-13 19:28:23

It's quite hard to understand this without knowing the road. I would generally ride single file with mates on roads where there's room for overtaking. On really narrow roads overtaking can be difficult (or dangerous, depending on the patience of the driver).

As suggested, sometimes some cyclists will own the road if they have cause to believe they are safer doing so. There are sections on my commute, mainly pinch points, where experience tells me that if I'm not in the middle of the road I'll be put in serious danger.

OP, I think you did the right thing in not beeping anyway, even if they were being slightly selfish. Nothing is achieved by being agressive in these situations. Personally I would be moving over and letting a queue of cars past, as it's my nature. Boney, that is a rule I've not seen many road users follow, regardless of their mode of transport.

Honking your horn is totally unnecessary and a stupid thing to do. sad

NoWayPedro Fri 10-May-13 19:39:24

YABU

How much faster do you think you could go considering the road conditions?

I'm sure you're already aware that even if you drive BELOW the speed limit, if you were in an accident you could still be charged and prosecuted for dangerous driving if you weren't paying due care and attention to the conditions of the road.

Think about that next time you start getting annoyed and worrying about what drivers behind think.

lljkk Fri 10-May-13 19:39:41

it used to be advised to cyclists that they should ride 2 abreast in The Highway Code (back in like 1992). The idea was that if forced drivers to calculate the risks properly of overtaking. If driver didn't feel it safe to pull out completely into opposing traffic lane, then it wasn't safe to overtake just one cyclist, either.

I get what OP is saying but does sound like it wasn't safe to overtake, hence their defensive road positions.

Where I'm from any driver with a queue of 5+ vehicles is legally required to pull over & let them pass, so that's what I do as a cyclist, too.

ivykaty44 Fri 10-May-13 21:40:10

Lazyjaney I find sitting on the car horn right behind these sorts of people tends to sort things out fairly quickly.

Pootles was just talking about you

LessMissAbs Fri 10-May-13 21:57:03

Lazyjaney I find sitting on the car horn right behind these sorts of people tends to sort things out fairly quickly

I went out cycling with my friend tonight. Shes a doctor, and I'm a lawyer. I wonder what sort of person Lazyjaney is.

maddening Fri 10-May-13 22:28:17

It you are travelling slowly in any vehicle (eg tractor) and are holding up traffic I thought you were meant to pull over where it is safe to do so - surely this applies to cyclists too?

PatPig Fri 10-May-13 22:44:10

Depends on the road, which op hasn't linked to. A lot of places bikes are faster than cars over several miles,even if their top speed is lower.

EverybodyLovesWine Fri 10-May-13 23:37:44

I asked if I was BU because I wasn't certain of the rights and wrongs. I don't think that feeling stressed because I was the first one behind the cyclists ( or indeed any other slow moving vehicle) is that unusual a feeling and certainly doesn't make me a shit driver.

It would seem that I did the "right" thing albeit without fully appreciating the reasons behind why they were riding as they did. I grew up driving on very rural roads and had not experienced this to that extent. It wasn't far off ten minutes as it was a good deal of my journey home.

Startail Sat 11-May-13 02:03:07

I try and fail not to hate 50% of cyclists.

Some are politeness it's self, but some are down right rude.

We have lots of horses and tractors, both of which do their best to let you past if possible. Some cyclists on the other hand...

And don't get me started on the weekly summer cycle race on a A road leading to the motorway. They were still getting in the way in the gathering gloom the other night and nothing like all of them had lights.

LaLaGabby Sat 11-May-13 02:10:40

Never mind. I agree to differ with virtually everybody.
I dont really care. It is really just a debate about words.

I've cycled pretty much on a daily basis in various cities for 20 years (before anyone asks, I've also held a driver's licence for the same time).

I will regularly position myself on the road to prevent motorists overtaking. This is because motorists will regularly overtake in a manner they think is safe, but isn't (leastways for me). My attitude is that my responsibility is to keep myself safe, and those irritated by the minor inconvenience this causes can go stick their exhaust pipe up their arses, preferably with the car running at the time.

(as an adside I'm pretty law-abiding although I sometimes jump lights and sometimes don't bother to indicate. On the other hand I don't speed, use a phone at the wheel, tailgate, run pedestrian crossings, or do any of the other far more dangerous things I see motorists doing on a daily basis.)

BUT I have rarely if ever been in the situation where I've needed to block motorists for more than, say, 400 metres and I question the judgment of the cyclist that does so.

roundtheback Sat 11-May-13 04:55:19

I cycle and I drive. I'm very puzzled by the assumption of a small number of people on this thread that cars somehow take precedence on the basis of being, well, cars.

The number of cyclists on the road in my area has increased hugely over the last few years. And cycling has felt increasingly safer as drivers get used to sharing road space with them. You still come across the odd idiot on both sides, but drivers and cyclists have largely reached a happy equilibrium here.

Pedestrians and cyclists is a whole other issue grin. Largely I think the fault of the pedestrians. And actually I am one of those more often than I am a cyclist or a driver.

And not wanting to labour the point, but in this case I think the cyclists were clearly riding defensively in an area they felt it was unsafe for drivers to try to pass them. And that should be completely fine. Better the drivers have a minor hold up than someone gets killed.

VivaLeBeaver Sat 11-May-13 06:28:39

Sometimes on a narrow road I will ride in the middle of my carriageway. It's prevents any cars trying to squeeze past me while there's a car coming the other way. The road isn't safely wide enough for two cars and a bike but idiots will still try it.

On the road I'm thinking of I won't keep pulling over for cars to pass as I wouldn't get anywhere if I did! However its a straight road with good visibility and people don't have to wait more than a minute before getting a gap in oncoming traffic.

There's another very narrow lane I use and cars can't get past me, it's like that for two miles. Don't see many cars but I will pull off the road for cars coming up behind me on that one as otherwise they'd be behind me for ages. Didn't stop some twat not waiting for me to pull off the other day and he zoomed past me doing a good 50mph about 2" from my elbow. I need to start riding in the middle of the road on that lane as well.

lljkk Sat 11-May-13 08:06:39

My current approx weekly calculations:

6 hours pedestrian
1 hour cyclist
3 hours driver

Maybe that's why I don't cop resentments against any other particular road users. Then again I don't really buy into any culture of resentment.

(Mind you, some motorcyclists are fairly loony & scare the blank out of me).

AThingInYourLife Sat 11-May-13 08:09:38

"I went out cycling with my friend tonight. Shes a doctor, and I'm a lawyer. I wonder what sort of person Lazyjaney is."

I think a person whose behaviour frightens people into doing what they want, because they deliberately do things that make them seem dangerous, is normally called a thug.

Lazyjaney Sat 11-May-13 08:53:59

What a load of sanctimonious crap some people here are spouting.

There is no way there wouldn't have been somewhere to pull over in 10 minutes of country road, the Code says they should pull over, and strapping two wheels on does not give anyone the right to delay a whole bunch of other road users. The reason cars have hooters is to remind selfish people that they have obligations to other road users.

saintmerryweather Sat 11-May-13 11:27:35

it doesnt mean you can act like a selfish twat though lazeyjaney and put your need to be at your destination over someone elses risk of serious injury because of your self entitlement

Rufus20 Sat 11-May-13 11:56:24

lazyjaney "The reason cars have hooters is to remind selfish people that they have obligations to other road users"

Err, no it's not. It's dangerous drivers like you that mean cyclists have to be a lot more assertive and defend their space on their road

ivykaty44 Sat 11-May-13 13:38:18

the Code says they should pull over
so why don't cars pull over when they are crawling through town traffic at 5mph for cyclists to pass - I have never ever had any cars pull over in heavy car traffic to let a cyclist past?

If it meant as a rule for every vehicle on the road then every vehicle should be obeying the rule - not just tractors and bikes

lljkk Sat 11-May-13 13:55:07

Does anyone have a link in high way code (page number?) where it says to pull over? I can believe it's there, just don't want to hunt for it.

Rufus20 Sat 11-May-13 14:29:18

The rules for cyclists (66) state that cyclists SHOULD (but note, this is not a MUST)

never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

I can't find the bit on slow moving vehicles - though there are rules about "being considerate"

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 11-May-13 14:29:29

ivykaty44

"the Code says they should pull over
so why don't cars pull over when they are crawling through town traffic at 5mph for cyclists to pass - I have never ever had any cars pull over in heavy car traffic to let a cyclist past?"

If a cyclists is going faster than the motorist and it is safe to do so they are allowed to filter through the traffic.

ivykaty44 Sat 11-May-13 14:32:58

filter - so one rule for cyclists tractors and another rule for sow moving car drivers who clog up the town streets driving along at 5mph and not leaving enough room for other road users to get past safely

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 11-May-13 14:35:06

rule 169

"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

When walking down the canal I have to dive into the long grass to let the cyclists past, so I pull over. And they ring their bells at me.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 11-May-13 14:38:38

The ability to filter is one of the practices that cyclists and bikers rave about.

Unless of course you would like to see cyclists arrested for undertaking?

Rufus20 Sat 11-May-13 14:45:02

I suppose the highway code is a bit advisory in regards to what the cyclists were doing - and they quite probably had very good reason to cycle the way they did - therefore YAB ever so slightly U

rottentomatoes Sat 11-May-13 15:28:39

I think the problem is that drivers who don't cycle really don't understand the realities of being on a bike on the road.

As a car driver, motorbike rider, cyclist and pedestrian I would say seek to learn about others experience on the road.

Many drivers think a cyclists place on the road is a straight line by the gutter but the following are reasons why a cyclist might choose to cycle further into the centre of the road.

There may be pot holes and drain covers every few yards which make it dangerous to cycle over.

2. If there is more than one lane cyclists may be cycling in an appropriate filter lane in order to go into the direction they need. Many drivers don't get this especially if there are three lanes and you need to be in the centre lane so as not to get sucked into a wrong turning.

3. There may be parked cars (legal and illegal) mean it is not safe to continually be pulling out around them and back in every few yards and therefore it is safer to stay slightly more central.

4. Cars often turning into the road stop with their front bonnet in the cycle lane, swerving round these is dangerous with cars passing to the right.

5. Often shrapnel and lorry spill, nuts bolts, branches from trees all end up near the gutter which makes it dangerous to be swerving around them.

6. As others have said the further to the left one cycles the closer some inconsiderate drivers pass.

Lastly pedestrians should also realise that stopping time on a bicycle can be a lot long than a car.

I would hate to cycle on the roads after reading all this. It doesn't sound like fun. sad

cumfy Sat 11-May-13 15:59:58

Did you wave a hairy hand at them as you passed ?

Good-ho.

cumfy Sat 11-May-13 16:05:49

Sometimes it's safer for cyclists to ride 2-abreast, precisely so following motorist don't get the opportunity to make the wrong decision.

Afterall, if it was a tractor you would all had to fuck off wait anyway.

And then a mile or so later on you would have come up behind the same vehicle you would have been behind but just 5 minutes earlier.

Gubbins Sat 11-May-13 16:29:32

I have been unable to find this bit about slow moving vehicles pulling over anywhere in the Highway Code, so would be grateful for someone who's been quoting it to direct me to the right section.

But even if it is in there, were these cyclists actually slow? They were unlikely to be traveling at less than 20mph, probably a bit more. In the villages the limit is presumably 30, and safe driving speed in the conditions you outline were probably rather less, so they probably only added a couple of minutes at most to your overall journey time. If I think I'm likely to hold up a car for sometime, then I'll pull over and let it pass. If I'm traveling at pretty much their safe speed then I won't bother.

rottentomatoes Sat 11-May-13 17:51:04

Another thing that drives me nuts when I cycle is when I am matching the speed of the car in front say 20 mph and the car behind overtakes me. The car then pulls straight into my stopping distance and slows to the car speed in front making me brake. Why just why?

FredFredGeorge Sat 11-May-13 19:15:39

Gubbins It's in 169
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

Lazyjaney Sat 11-May-13 19:20:01

"I think the problem is that drivers who don't cycle really don't understand the realities of being on a bike on the road"

The problem in this case is cyclists who don't understand or are flouting the rules of the road. In the Highway code:

Rule 66 says cyclists must cycle in single file on narrow roads
Rule 67 says cyclists must be aware of traffic coming up behind this.
Rule 169 says slow moving traffic should pull in to let faster traffic pass.

The cyclists in the OPs example flouted all of these, for 10 minutes. They were the rude, selfish and entitled cunts in this case. The only dangerous driving was done by them.

I'm also amazed at the number of cyclists on this thread who either do t know the rules of the road or don't think it applies to them. To these people I'd say that you probably also need to know:

Rule 71 don't go through a red light
Rule 64 don't cycle on pavements

Both things I see multiple cyclists do every time I'm on the roads

LessMissAbs Sat 11-May-13 19:34:02

The thing I don't understand is why drive on country roads if you want to drive fast and not be subject to hold-ups?

Why not drive mainly on motorways (or better still autobahns) or at least straight, fast roads? Why live at the end of such roads if such niceities of rural life leave you feeling frustrated?

And why, oh why, criticise other people who are simply getting from one place to another without polluting the environment, who are getting fit, maintaining their health and doing a damn site more than sitting on their fat backsides moaning about how other people are selfish.

I cannot think of a use more suited to a country road than cycling - other than a horse and cart, which of course, thankfully in this country, still has the right to use such roads.

VivaLeBeaver Sat 11-May-13 19:35:00

Rule 66 is a grey area, what's a narrow road? Is it single track roads only which this one wasn't.

Next rule says they need to be aware of cars coming up but not that they need to do anything other than been aware.

Next one says they should pull in not that they must.

So I don't think they broke any rules though I agree they were a bit inconsiderate. But like I said earlier if it was a busy road they'd have had to have pulled in every minute and then they'd have got nowhere.

rottentomatoes Sat 11-May-13 19:56:28

lazyjane
"I'm also amazed at the number of cyclists on this thread who either do t know the rules of the road or don't think it applies to them. To these people I'd say that you probably also need to know:

Rule 71 don't go through a red light
Rule 64 don't cycle on pavements

Both things I see multiple cyclists do every time I'm on the roads"



A question to you Janey, do you see any type of bad driving every time you are on the road? Or is it just cyclists that you see riding badly?

ivykaty44 Sat 11-May-13 20:02:01

LMA - thats why I love the county I live in - there are two very busy motorways that take a lot of traffic away from b roads

But rule 169 is flouted continually by cars in towns where faster moving traffic is not allowed past they never move over to the side of the road to let faster moving traffic past - it really is do as it says in the highway code and I will do as I like as I drive a car - ffs a lot of the time they even begrudgingly move over to let emergency services past - even then sometimes they don't to make sure that the vehicle travelling to the emergency gets there slower, wonder if it was their loved one they would move a bit faster

lljkk Sat 11-May-13 20:15:14

Every day I see people driving & parking on the pavement. Usually twice a day. Every sodding day. Most of them on the school run, don't think that's an excuse, is it?
Then there are people driving on the wrong side of road (trying to get to a parking place, this is totally illegal where I'm from).

Childrenofthestones Sat 11-May-13 20:23:07

May I suggest that you get a bike and ride that stretch of road on your own.
Perhaps if you experience a car or lorry over taking you at 50 or so almost brush your elbow because they have misjudged the gap between you and an oncoming car.
Then ask yourself what would the car over taking you do if this misjudgement was so bad that it was hit a vehicle coming the other way or clip hit you from behind?
You only have to experience a near miss a couple of times to tell you that they were doing the right thing, regardless of what the highway code says.

Technotropic Sat 11-May-13 20:55:31

May I suggest that you get a bike and ride that stretch of road on your own.
Perhaps if you experience a car or lorry over taking you at 50 or so almost brush your elbow because they have misjudged the gap between you and an oncoming car.
Then ask yourself what would the car over taking you do if this misjudgement was so bad that it was hit a vehicle coming the other way or clip hit you from behind?
You only have to experience a near miss a couple of times to tell you that they were doing the right thing, regardless of what the highway code says.

Absolutely this!

It's very easy to sit in a metal box and judge others. It's not so easy to genuinely look at an issue from both sides before reassessing your stance.

Goldmandra Sat 11-May-13 21:11:23

I come across inconsiderate arrogant cyclists just as often as inconsiderate arrogant drivers, if not more.

There are often cycle races and organised cycle rides in the lanes around where we live. I am regularly held up for long periods by cyclists riding in packs, deliberately blocking the road.

On many of these stretches it would be perfectly possible to give the cyclist on the extreme left a good car's width in order to overtake but, as they ride two or three abreast, the road is never going to be wide enough. I could still possibly squeeze through sometimes but wouldn't dream of doing that so I sit a reasonable distance behind waiting for them to pull over getting more and more irritated.

I fully appreciate that having people driving too close when overtaking is frightening and unsafe but the solution is not to alienate all drivers by preventing people from overtaking where it would be safe to do so.

I wouldn't prevent vehicles from passing me for long periods when riding a horse and I don't expect cyclists to do it to me.

Making people angry causes accidents so deciding to block people from overtaking probably causes more problems than it solves.

Technotropic Sat 11-May-13 21:40:43

Goldmandra

I can see your point but I truly believe the real issue here is why people get so angry when driving in the first place.

The problem with the races you describe is that a peloton, or even small pack of riders, will cause problems for a driver. If you have a narrow road and 6 cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast then changing these to 6 cyclists riding single file is like overtaking a bus (in terms of length) on a narrow, windy road. You mention lanes where you live so I'd imagine overtaking a bus safely would be difficult at best.

Either way there's not a lot that can be done and given we all have to share the roads then c'est la vie. Are all of our journeys so important that we cannot afford to lose a few minutes?

LessMissAbs Sat 11-May-13 23:00:01

Goldmandra There are often cycle races and organised cycle rides in the lanes around where we live. I am regularly held up for long periods by cyclists riding in packs, deliberately blocking the road

You see, I used to live in a country where exercise and activity were the norm, and done or at least supported by, the majority of people. Where midweek and weekend races were common on rural roads and in fact where town centres were closed down and other roads closed, not by the police, but by the local race organisers, for cycle races, triathlons, etc.. Most big towns would have at least one of each a year, and quite often it would be part of a local festival. And it was obviously recognised that to get fit for these events, and perhaps for a really successful, even Olympic standard rider to be produced, something called training was necessary.

It was also a country where the people had a lower rate of heart disease, diabetes and "lifestyle" disability than the UK. It also has a rather better economy than the UK at the moment. The neighbouring countries also tend to follow this pattern.

Hence those Brits who spout the "I hate cyclists" tantrum thing come across as rather unevolved and a bit odd to me. It conjures up an equivalent image in my mind's eye of a group of chavs heckling a bunch of supermodels for being ugly. Which is kind of the image I have at the moment of lazyjaney, but I might be wrong.

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 00:06:37

"Rule 66 says cyclists must cycle in single file on narrow roads
Rule 67 says cyclists must be aware of traffic coming up behind this."

This is not true Lazyjane. There is a critical difference in the Highway Code where the words must or should are used.

lljkk Sun 12-May-13 09:21:42

What are the roads for?

Aren't they there for everyone to use to get from A to B, for whatever purposes they deem fit? A leisure outing with friends, a harvest to fetch from the field, taking child to nursery, coming home from work? I can't see that any of these purposes has moral highground over the others, regardless of what kind of vehicle is used.

Problem is some people want to assume that their purpose for using the roads is more valid than others. That they are more entitled and others should not "get in the way". There is no case for this attitude. Only emergency services vehicles have automatic right of way over the others.

Goldmandra Sun 12-May-13 09:51:17

Are all of our journeys so important that we cannot afford to lose a few minutes?

It is almost every day at this time of year, sometimes several times in one day. There are times when it is extremely irritating to be held up several times on one journey.

It's not about having right of way. I wouldn't disrupt the cyclists in any way by overtaking them. I also wouldn't dream of overtaking anywhere it were not safe. Cyclists are traveling much more slowly than buses on country lanes so it isn't comparable.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect others to wait until it is safe to overtake before they do so. It is very unreasonable to deliberately make it impossible for them to do so by travelling alongside each other in order to make overtaking impossible even where the conditions are suitable.

Cyclists who behave like this need to accept that they are partly responsible for the fact that some drivers are not as considerate as they could be.

I am also often held up by tractors, horse riders, ponies and traps, etc. It only seems to be cyclists who feel driven to make a point and block the road unnecessarily on a regular basis. The rest generally seem to make an effort to show consideration wherever possible. Of course there are exceptions but there is definitely a strong pattern.

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 10:14:50

I'm sure you're a perfectly sensible driver Goldmandra. Unfortunately, as several people on this thread have said, some cyclists choose to ride defensively due to aggressive driving. I do at genuinely dangerous spots.

One thing that might apply in your case is that with a group of cyclists it should be easier to overtake when they are 2 abreast. That's because you'll be overtaking for half the distance.

Having said all that there's undoubtedly a small minority that know their rights but not their responsibilities. I'm just pleased that they aren't driving an artic!

I expect there are inconsiderate cyclists around.

I also expect there are rather more motorists who are so irritated by the thought of shock! horror! a cyclist getting in everyone's way that they convince themselves there are hordes of these cyclists, sweeping along the highways of Britain, responding to the pleas of motorists with a sea of lycra bums.

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 10:17:07

To answer your final point, perhaps those cyclists riding defensively find it necessary. There is not an epidemic of tractor driver deaths in this country, but cyclists deaths are rising.

Goldmandra Sun 12-May-13 10:25:27

At genuinely dangerous spots is perfectly reasonable of course. For several miles is not.

Many of the roads around here are wide enough to overtake one cyclist who is, quite rightly, taking a fairly dominant line, not too close to the verge. An additional cyclist taking to centre of the road makes it impossible to leave a safe width to overtake. That is obstructive and inconsiderate and very common behaviour in this area. Those are the people who make me irritated, not the ones who are trying to keep themselves safe in by reasonable methods.

If a pack is aware that they are too numerous to overtake safely they should split.

The behaviour I've just described has to be counter-productive.

Technotropic Sun 12-May-13 10:38:40

Goldmandra

My comparison with a bus was in terms of length, not speed. If you take 6 cyclists riding 3 abreast and get them to ride in single file then overtaking would definitely be equally problematic as you'd have them stretched out as long, if not longer, than the length of a bus.

Thus you'd have to have a much longer stretch of road in order to safely overtake.

I agree that there are inconsiderate cyclists though, just as there are inconsiderate drivers, pedestrians and other road users.

Quite so. Inconsiderate drivers kill people, of course.

Goldmandra Sun 12-May-13 10:47:18

I understood exactly what you were saying about the bus but it takes a much longer stretch of safe road to overtake a faster moving vehicle.

Maybe they are working on that principle without understanding it fully. By doing this they are putting themselves and others at more risk by making drivers angry. That can never be a good idea.

ivykaty44 Sun 12-May-13 12:32:12

so making a driver angry is a bad idea as it is risky - why is making a driver angry a bad idea and what are the risks? How do you know when you have made a driver angry and what might they do when made angry?

maddening Sun 12-May-13 12:42:57

The type of drivers that get angry do so at any other road user regardless of their mode of transport - they tailgate other car drivers, overtake anyone (car or bike) on blind bends, bully anyone they can - as they are twats - they get road rage and abuse others - but on a cycle must be frightening to be bullied by a car!

Lazyjaney Sun 12-May-13 12:55:27

"To answer your final point, perhaps those cyclists riding defensively find it necessary. There is not an epidemic of tractor driver deaths in this country, but cyclists deaths are rising"

They were not riding defensively, they were riding illegally, on a number of points, and after 10 minutes holding up a long linecof other road users were also being extraordinarily rude and selfish.

The evidence of this thread is that many cyclists seem to believe that:

- they don' t need to know the rules of the road
- that obeying any rule is optional, their desires trump any other road users
- (judging by this thread anyway) anyone who suggests they do need to know the rules, and obey them, is an unevolved chav and cunt.

No wonder more are dying, not knowing nor obeying the rules of the road makes them unpredictable and dangers to themselves and everyone else on the road. The sooner they are licenced the better.

Technotropic Sun 12-May-13 13:05:34

But Lazyjaney

The flaw in your argument is that it is NOT illegal. You have read the rules, which stipulate the word SHOULD and converted it to MUST to suit your argument.

ToysRLuv Sun 12-May-13 13:06:19

I think the UK us bad for both driving a car or biking. Long history means ridiculously narrow roads and streets (in towns), which means there is simply no room for both cyclists and drivers.

I come from a country where the roads/streets are mostly probably twice as wide as in the UK, with lots of dedicated cycle lanes and even separate cycle routes, not to mention very generous pavements.

I get anxious thinking about my poor dh cycling amidst all the impatient taxis and buses, but we don't own a car. I would love to get on my bike instead of the bus, but I just find the idea of cycling here too frightening. I would probably also need to be a lot fitter to properly keep up with the traffic flow or risk finding myself physically pushed up hills by swearing drivers. Ugh! <shivers>

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 13:17:28

Lazyjaney, none of the behaviour described is actually illegal. Also, you seem rather angry. A spot of physical exercise would probably be good for you ;)

"An additional cyclist taking to centre of the road makes it impossible to leave a safe width to overtake."

Do you mean that you'd feel uncomfortable overtaking cyclists on the wrong side of the road? Or that the road is very narrow, often with not enough space for cars to pass each other?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 15:32:14

Toadinthehole
"Quite so. Inconsiderate drivers kill people, of course"

Your use of the word inconsiderate is badly used. for example when an inconsiderate driver parks on the pavement nonody dies.

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 15:52:42

Agreed, most frequently it is the dangerous or oblivious driver that kills people. Though being oblivious to other road users is by definition inconsiderate ;)

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 16:27:01

Much as cyclists don't like it said

It is equally a problem that a dangerous or oblivious cyclist gets themselves killed.

LessMissAbs Sun 12-May-13 16:35:55

I'm still wondering who "they" are...

BoneyBackJefferson It is equally a problem that a dangerous or oblivious cyclist gets themselves killed

Would you like to explain that in meaningful English?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 16:59:11

LessMiss

Some examples that I have seen

The cyclist that was riding along the pavement at speed and was oblivious to the fact that a car was waiting to pull in to the road.
He went over the top of the car and broke his neck on landing.

The cyclist who went through the red light on a crossroads and was hit by a car coming through on the green light.

Maybe this video will help

LessMissAbs Sun 12-May-13 17:17:29

I didn't ask you for examples.

People make mistakes. You do know that cars crash too, right? However your statement It is equally a problem that a dangerous or oblivious cyclist gets themselves killed in this context is wrong. It is not equally a problem (when compared to dangerous driving) that cyclists make mistakes. Generally, cyclists do not wish to throw themselves under the wheels of moving vehicles.

I speak as a car driver and cyclist. The sheer stupidity of a lot of drivers on the roads astounds me. I have to drive on a narrow country road every day, in many places it is too narrow for two cars to pass side by side, and is very twisty. Yet I've still had drivers trying to overtake my car, round blind bends. I've been tailgated for driving at around 40mph. Where are these drivers going that driving 10 or 20mph faster than a safe speed is going to be so important to risk life and limb? Horseriders use that road too, and some pedestrians. It should be a peaceful country route, but its like a race track for many. I actually feel safer driving than cycling, because cars have to go round me to overtake safely, and it means they tend to wait until its clear ahead because they've slowed down sufficiently to think.

Lazeyjaney - I'll support licenses for cyclists as long as a basic IQ test is added to the driving test. Except that would mean even more unlicensed drivers on the roads than at present.

LessMissAbs Sun 12-May-13 17:19:43

I'm actually wondering if some of the anti-cyclist brigade on mumsnet are labouring under the impression that people cycle because they are too poor to afford cars?

Not because they want to exercise or simply get somewhere under their own steam? Some of the comments about not paying road tax - every single racing cyclist I know has at least one car. Are unemployed criminals or drug addicts known for their devotion to cycle sport? Particularly on country lanes?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 17:42:02

Lessmiss

"Generally, cyclists do not wish to throw themselves under the wheels of moving vehicles."

Neither do drivers generally mow down cyclists.

It is a minority of both groups that are dangerous.

The anti-cyclist brigade trope that gets run out everytime a thread like this is started is tiresome.

There are good and bad in both camps.
the only difference is that a bad car driver will get someone else killed, whilst a bad cyclist will get themselves killed.

ivykaty44 Sun 12-May-13 17:59:32

What I don't understand is that motorists complain bitterly about being held up for 10 minutes by a cyclist - yet daily cars are holding up other cars for far longer than 10 minutes in traffic travelling at an average speed of 5mph. Yet I don't here other motorist complaining about the sheer volume of traffic holding them up - which in itself is a far great problem. I have at least 15 minutes added to my journey to work if I travel by car and this is by other cars. When I travel to work on a Saturday by journey is shortened by 15 minutes. This would happen 5 days per week for around 40 weeks per year if I was to travel by car and it is the same for every other car on the roads on my daily commute. I walk to work as it takes me 5 minutes more to walk to work and it is free

It is known that 1 out of 20 car journeys os for more than 5 miles, so why don't those journeys get made by bike and lessen the cars on the road which would mean that travelling by car would be shortened.

For every bike that you pass has shortened your journey, not lengthened it.

The reality is that it is not cyclists that hold you up - but cars

There are certain roads that are JUST for cars and similar motorised transport (motorways etc).

The rest of the road network is used by many groups - cars, motorbikes, tractors and farm machinery, cyclists, joggers, dog-walkers. All of them are entitled to use it, and to do so safely and without hassle or intimidation by other users. That may mean taking a bit more time, not going as fast as you'd like, taking a deep breath and calming yourself.

I'm pretty sure none of these users deliberately set out to annoy or inconvenience other users. But every road user will make a mistake every so often - yes, even you, and me.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 18:18:30

ivykaty44
"Yet I don't here other motorist complaining about the sheer volume of traffic holding them up"

That surprises me, I here plenty of it at work and when I cohabited.
"A car pulled out in front of me and turned at the next junction"
"A car was doing 20 in a 30 zone"
"the car in front slowed down for every corner"
"I was stuck on the motorway in a jam for X hours"
When I lived near the coast almost every person would moan about the caravans being on the road.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 18:19:05

*hear not here

Goldmandra Sun 12-May-13 18:19:33

Do you mean that you'd feel uncomfortable overtaking cyclists on the wrong side of the road? Or that the road is very narrow, often with not enough space for cars to pass each other?

The road is wide enough for cars to pass each other but we are not advised to leave a car's width between us and a car travelling in the opposite direction. A car overtaking a cyclist who is riding on the centre line requires two car's width to do so. One to keep the cyclist safe and one to occupy.

What I don't understand is that motorists complain bitterly about being held up for 10 minutes by a cyclist - yet daily cars are holding up other cars for far longer than 10 minutes in traffic travelling at an average speed of 5mph. Yet I don't here other motorist complaining about the sheer volume of traffic holding them up - which in itself is a far great problem.

That's because the other motorists aren't choosing to do it out of bloody mindedness. I don't have a problem with being stuck behind a cyclist or any other vehicle when there is no room to overtake. I have a problem with cyclists who deliberately hold me up by riding two or three abreast.

I don't want them winding up drivers who might come across my DD round the next corner.

ivykaty44 Sun 12-May-13 18:57:21

so it is ok to be sat in traffic for 15 minutes but not ok to sit behind a cyclist for ten minutes due to them preventing you from overtaking - I have never ever had a cyclist in front of my not allowing me to overtake - ever. the nly thing that has ever prevented me from overtaking a cyclist is whether it is safe - the same as whether I overtake another car and some cars travel very slowly (so slowly I have been overtaken by a cyclist whilst waiting to overtake myself)

So it is not the time frame that is important to the hold up but the reason for the hold up? You are fine with being held up but not if you perceive that the reason is not valid?

Goldmandra Sun 12-May-13 19:09:33

So it is not the time frame that is important to the hold up but the reason for the hold up? You are fine with being held up but not if you perceive that the reason is not valid?

Err yes. Isn't that normal?

Is it OK if I come and walk slowly down the road in front of whatever vehicle you are travelling in the next time you're off to work or on the school run, making damned sure there is no way you can get round me, just for the hell of holding you up? You wouldn't find that more irritating than sitting in a traffic jam?

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 12-May-13 19:11:37

ivykaty44

you are comparing apples and oranges in that it is a completely different thing.

But to answer your question

If a bike pulls over on a standard width street (3m) and there is traffic coming in the opposite direction I can get passed.

If a car does the same there is not enough room.

Just FYI.

I used to choose to go down a country road (less than 3mtrs wide)
I knew that if a cyclist (single) was travelling in the same direction I would have to wait, sometimes it lengthened the journey by 30 minutes, I knew this and it was a risk that I took.

ivykaty44 Sun 12-May-13 19:47:34

Boneybackjeff apples and oranges - so if you are 15 minutes late for a plane/train/ferry - you miss the plane/train/ferry regardless of why you missed the plane/train/ferry you still missed the plane/train/ferry, the eating of an apple or an orange results in you eating - they do have the same end result - shit wink so no I don't see that being later is different if you are held up by a car or a bike - you are still arrive later.

Goldmandra - I would still be held up there is no difference why I am being held up - both are irritating - I find queues of cars irritating not more or less than any other hold up. Do you not get irritated by long queues of cars stopping you going where you want to ?

inabeautifulplace Sun 12-May-13 20:10:40

"I used to choose to go down a country road (less than 3mtrs wide)
I knew that if a cyclist (single) was travelling in the same direction I would have to wait, sometimes it lengthened the journey by 30 minutes, I knew this and it was a risk that I took."

Christ, where do you live? That's one bloody long country road!

LessMissAbs Sun 12-May-13 20:40:56

BoneyBackJefferson Neither do drivers generally mow down cyclists

Actually, I've had two drivers try to do that to me (in towns), I heard one of their passengers say to the driver, "Get her" - I had to go onto the pavement and into a shop to get them to phone the police the second time.

But I do think LazeyJane has unwittingly his upon the solution - licensing. I would be in favour of licensing cyclists, if the driving test included a bike riding section (and a motorway driving section) plus a basic intelligence test. The trouble is, so many drivers wouldn't pass it.

My point though is that cycling has drastically improved my motor skills and spatial awareness and therefore my driving is better as a result. I always indicate, because I know how my actions will affect the traffic behind me if I don't. I know for instance that if I overtake a cyclist or horserider and immediately turn left, their momentum will mean they crash into me. All sorts of little things as well, such as the best line to take round a corner, how rain makes you more likely to skid and slows your braking power, etc..

The average driver, flexing their flaccid foot on the accelerator, or in the case of Lazyjane, their sweaty palm on the horn, would find their driving would benefit from cycling.

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 13-May-13 06:16:03

inabeautifulplace

"Christ, where do you live? That's one bloody long country road!"

Or a very slow cyclist

LessMissAbs

So thats two out of how many?

"The trouble is, so many drivers wouldn't pass it."

Is that really a bad thing?

inabeautifulplace Mon 13-May-13 06:52:51

Two too many Boney. You shouldn't just brush aside attempted assaults like that.

Yes, your cyclist must have been very slow. And for you to have met the same one more than once? Incredible! Perhaps it's one of your neighbours?

Lazyjaney Mon 13-May-13 07:23:17

"The flaw in your argument is that it is NOT illegal. You have read the rules, which stipulate the word SHOULD and converted it to MUST to suit your argument"

"Should" is used as a very strong recommendation in the Code, not an optional extra. It certainly is not used in the sense of "if you dont like this rule, do something you like" which quite a few on this thread seem to believe it means.

madammoose Mon 13-May-13 07:24:20

Does anyone think it justifiable for a motorist to get "wound up" by a cyclist and take it out on them, or a later cyclist, by being aggressive and/or dangerous? Disproportionate surely.

Lazyjaney Mon 13-May-13 07:34:21

"But I do think LazeyJane has unwittingly his upon the solution - licensing."

Perish the thought I may actually have meant what I wrote.

"The average driver, flexing their flaccid foot on the accelerator, or in the case of Lazyjane, their sweaty palm on the horn, would find their driving would benefit from cycling"

You assume I don't cycle. I do, and thats why I know that 2 people cycling abreast for 10 minutes along country roads and holding up traffic are being selfish, entitled arseholes.

The role of the horn is to remind selfish, entitled cyclists that others also want to use the road, and they have obligations to those other road users.

Rufus20 Mon 13-May-13 07:36:43

Lazyjane, where do you get your horn theory from?

VinegarDrinker Mon 13-May-13 07:53:31

I've avoided this thread til now because I can't be arsed with the usual cyclist thread mud slinging (and cardinal sin, only read half of it so far) but has anyone mentioned the figures that came out of Westminster earlier this month? The cops there analysed all car vs bike accidents and found 68% were the fault of the driver, 20% the fault of the cyclist and the rest both were at fault or it was impossible to comment.

They looked at cyclist vs pedestrians accidents too and found 60% were the fault of the pedestrians.

Cyclists are by no means blameless, but these figures show that drivers and pedestrians are to blame more often, which counters the public perception IME

I've twice had motorists try to run me off the road. Either that, or they were playing an extreme form of chicken. The first time was in Kingston-upon-Thames. The second time was in Auckland, NZ.

Lazyjane

The role of the horn is to be stuck up the backsides of aggressive, intolerant motorists.. ... oh that kind of horn? Well, the role of the finger is to tell aggressive, intolerant motorists to fuck off.

(gives lazyjane the finger).

Goldmandra Mon 13-May-13 07:59:03

The role of the horn is to remind selfish, entitled cyclists that others also want to use the road, and they have obligations to those other road users.

The role of the horn is to warn other road users of your presence in on order to avoid accidents.

BoneyBackJefferson

If parking on pavements is the only example of inconsiderateness that springs to your mind I hate to think what you're like behind the wheel.

Had a bit of a situation this morning. Narrow country lane and there was a cyclist. I couldn't see to pass so crawled along at a safe distance. I got a feeling the cyclist couldn't understand why I wasn't passing sad In the end the road widened only a little and he started waving me past. I wanted to check for myself that it was clear though. I felt like they were getting impatient with me not passing. sad

shewhowines Mon 13-May-13 09:11:04

I would have felt the same as you op.

YANBU

Lazyjaney Mon 13-May-13 09:13:31

"The role of the horn is to warn other road users of your presence...."

Exactly.

"(gives lazyjane the finger)"

Tut tut - you should be keeping 2 hands on the handlebars and watching the road. Do be careful you don't crash into the hedgerows grin

LondonMan Mon 13-May-13 09:47:44

The flaw in your argument is that it is NOT illegal. You have read the rules, which stipulate the word SHOULD and converted it to MUST to suit your argument.

You may be right with respect to the highway code, I can't be bothered to check. But I recall a discussion of Indian English versus British English with regard to technical writing in which it was pointed out that Indians would interpret "should" to mean it is optional, but that in British English "should" does in fact mean "must." Interesting but not necessarily relevant, as I don't know whether what applies in a technical writing context also applies in a legal context.

Technotropic Mon 13-May-13 10:32:18

Lazyjaney (and also LondonMan)

For the benefit of everyone who hasn't read the rules:

You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

You stated that it's illegal and therefore changed SHOULD for MUST, which is misleading. So by your rationale it is illegal not to keep both feet on the pedals, ride too close to another vehicle etc, which is nonsense.

SHOULD is a recommendation not an explicit instruction. Such explicit instructions can be found in rules 68 and 69, which stipulate that you MUST NOT.

LessMissAbs Mon 13-May-13 12:15:22

Lazyjaney The role of the horn is to remind selfish, entitled cyclists that others also want to use the road

And the point of good manners is tolerance and respect towards other people you share the planet with. And I say that as a car driver too - you sound like an utterly dreadful person to ever have to encounter.

The thing is, you talk the tough talk (and your language is appalling) but I suspect that once out of your car, you know very little about real toughness, as in pushing yourself to your physical limits and beyond the pain barrier. Probably a frustrated low achiever. So you can keep your sweaty palm on the horn as much as you like, because I know that even if I'm killed by an idiot driver whilst out cycling, I'll still have had a far more complete life and be a better person than that driver.

LessMissAbs Mon 13-May-13 12:21:46

BoneyBackJefferson LessMissAbs So thats two out of how many?

I've no idea. Why is that relevant? However its the same number as the cyclists in the OP's OP.

The most recent incident has been reported to the Procurator Fiscal. Another motorist was so appalled that he stopped and gave his details as witness. I didn't write a mumset thread about it, because it was just another sociopath who is braver behind the wheel of a car. Not indicative of some imaginary war between car drivers and cyclists ("them", according to some on mumsnet).

Rather amusingly, I was cycling because I was on my way to give a law lecture!

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 13-May-13 17:58:28

inabeautifulplace

I'm not brushing anything off, my point is that not every car driver is out to kill cyclists.

Toadinthehole
"I hate to think what you're like behind the wheel"

You cut me, you cut me deep. (sarcasm emote).

LessMiss

Its relevant as it is as incorrect a description of all drivers as the OP is incorrect as a description of all cyclists.

inabeautifulplace Mon 13-May-13 19:00:13

"I'm not brushing anything off, my point is that not every car driver is out to kill cyclists."

It was the use of the word only in your initial reply that made you appear remarkably flippant. Of course not every car driver is out to kill cyclists deliberately. It's a miniscule minority. It's still bloody significant though! And clearly a separate facet to those cyclists being killed by inattention, by ignorance or by their own stupidity. All of these issues require resolution.

Lazyjaney Mon 13-May-13 19:07:39

"SHOULD is a recommendation not an explicit instruction. Such explicit instructions can be found in rules 68 and 69, which stipulate that you MUST NOT"

As is typical of the cyclist lobby on this thread, more twisting of the Highway code. This is what it says for Should in regard to overtaking, for example

"Before overtaking you should make sure

the road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake"

In other words, Should is not used as "ignore if you don't fell like it", it's used in the sense of "you're a dangerous fuckwit if you don't"

Pan Mon 13-May-13 19:27:23

OP, it's rather difficult to say if you should have been annoyed - I guess your reactions are up to you.

I ride for approx 2 hours each day, in commuter traffic, and I always ride defensively and assertively IF I didn't it would increase the chances of me being hit by a car/van/bus. I am sure some drivers will get annoyed, but that really is their problem. I wish to stay alive and will happily ride in the way I do as the 'odds' are stacked v heavily against me.

Pan Mon 13-May-13 19:31:01

As for the quoting and counter-quoting of the HC, well, in some ways it's a bit academic (until there is a claim of sorts) - the HC isn't very supportive of vulnerable road-users like me, so in reality one sometimes has to do what's best in the circumstances.

Technotropic Mon 13-May-13 19:38:32

Lazyjaney

I'm not trying to be funny about it. It's just that you're making some bold statements about the meaning of the highway code and berrating people for not reading or understanding it.

To quote from the introduction
https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

So the above paragraph concerns the use of the words 'MUST/MUST NOT' If you read the sections of the highway code then the use of these words is usually accompanied by the relevant references to specific sections of the law.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

In the above paragraph the highway code quite clearly states that the other rules, i.e. those containing 'should/should not' are advisory. As such they do not reference the law because they are NOT legal requirements.

There is no twisting or any of us cyclists trying to worm our way out of anything.

ShadowStorm Mon 13-May-13 21:13:16

Difficult to say whether the cyclists in the OP were behaving unreasonably without knowing more about the road they were on.

Yes, if there was somewhere safe for them to pull over, then they should have pulled over to let traffic pass, but as far as I can see, the OP hasn't said that there was somewhere safe. Some of the country roads I go along have very long stretches without somewhere that's safe for a cyclist to stop in.

If there wasn't somewhere safe to stop, or safe for cars to overtake, then defensive cycling on the part of the cyclists is understandable. It might be annoying to other road users who want to go faster, but I'm not seeing how it's really that much worse than getting stuck behind a tractor.

But the horn should only be used to warn other road users of your presence, not to indicate your annoyance at them holding up traffic by not pulling over. As the cyclists were aware of the cars, it would have been wrong to beep them.

bumperella Mon 13-May-13 22:38:15

It's quite unusual for there to be nowhere for cyclists to be able to pull in safely - even on single track roads I can typically make the "slowing down" signal and pull to the side, stopping close to the roadside to let people past. It's more commonplace for cyclists to prefer not to loose their momentum by stopping and having to restart again, which is understandable but does lack consideration for other road users.
It's no differnt from cars doing the same - tottling along at 40mph on rural roads - where the limit is 60 then 30 (or 20) for villages
still they trundle along at 40. Just as inconsiderate.

maddening Mon 13-May-13 22:41:06

As a regular traveler on country roads there are plenty of entrances to fields that would be suitable pulling in points (have pulled a car in to such a gap so assume a cycle could too.

The op did nothing unreasonable shadow- she wwaited for a chance to overtake correctly - it was the twat behind her that was abusive to the cyclists.

The cyclist should have pulled in and it is likely that they were unreasonable not to do so.

Technotropic Tue 14-May-13 08:32:05

How about the OP post the 10 minute route from Google Maps?

I'm happy to accept that the cyclists were acting unreasonably if it is clear they were purposely blocking up the road smile

EverybodyLovesWine Tue 14-May-13 09:14:17

I know it won't help the discussion but I would prefer not to post the route as it is very close to where I live and I don't want to out myself!. Sorry!

The roads weren't very rural imagine a number of villages that then lead to a small town which is where I was able to pass. Speed limit varies from 30/40. Houses on each side for the most part with some parked cars but not all the way through. The road is wide enough for parking and cars to travel through. I felt there were points I could have overtaken one cyclist but not two. I am relatively cautious and grew up somewhere that didnt even have a dual carriageway so am used to spending a lot of time behind tractors etc. I accept though that as I don't cycle I can't appreciate how safe that would appear to them.

I am perfectly willing to accept I was unreasonable to be annoyed but I did internalise it and followed quietly behind until it was safe to pass. I was genuinely not sure if my (internal) irritation was justified or not hence the post. Also, it wasn't a time issue per se as I did consider pulling into a side road so I would not be the one directly behind, which would have added time to my journey.

Lazyjaney Tue 14-May-13 09:19:49

"In the above paragraph the highway code quite clearly states that the other rules, i.e. those containing 'should/should not' are advisory. As such they do not reference the law because they are NOT legal requirements"

IMO you are downplaying it for your own ends, as "that paragraph" says:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’

That does not mean these rules are for ignoring if you find them inconvenient, or if you feel they dont apply to you, as many cyclists have believed on this thread.

"yes, if there was somewhere safe for them to pull over, then they should have pulled over to let traffic pass, but as far as I can see, the OP hasn't said that there was somewhere safe"

You may note, by the difficult feat of reading thecA's post, that the OP thought of turning off a few times so she was no longer 1st in the line of traffic behind them, hence there were clearly opportunities to pull over. And I reckon the number of 10 minute stretches of country road with no ability to pull over could be counted on one hand.

"I'm happy to accept that the cyclists were acting unreasonably if it is clear they were purposely blocking up the road"

Good Lord - cyclista finally admits OP's cyclists may have been "unreasonable" shock!

Yet the poor frustrated motorists caught behind are called twats, twunts, cunts etc for having the presumption to not be happy.

There were only 2 twats/twunts/cunts in this story, and they were on bicycles.

And IMO the motorists were well within their rights to alert the cyclists to their presence with their hooters, repeatedly if needs be. Think of it as a public duty in helping those cyclists on their journey towards better understanding the highway code and being more considerate road users grin

ShadowStorm Tue 14-May-13 09:26:58

The cyclists already knew the cars were there. Beeping at them would have been agressive behaviour IMO, regardless of how unreasonable the cyclists were in not pulling over.

It's not unreasonable for a motorist to be unhappy about being delayed by cyclists, but it is unreasonable for them to beep at cyclists or be abusive to them.

Technotropic Tue 14-May-13 10:57:19

Lazyjaney Sat 11-May-13 19:20:01

The problem in this case is cyclists who don't understand or are flouting the rules of the road. In the Highway code:

Rule 66 says cyclists must cycle in single file on narrow roads
Rule 67 says cyclists must be aware of traffic coming up behind this.
Rule 169 says slow moving traffic should pull in to let faster traffic pass.

The cyclists in the OPs example flouted all of these, for 10 minutes. They were the rude, selfish and entitled cunts in this case. The only dangerous driving was done by them.

----------------

I thought I'd quote from your earlier post directly as you have most clearly been guilty of changing things to suit your own ends. If I'm honest I don't think you knew any more about the highway code when you posted this up. If you did then you wouldn't have been so devious.

You've read what I posted from the highway code and how there is a distinct difference between the use of the words 'MUST' and 'SHOULD'. One is a legal requirement that is backed up by law, the other isn't. Even you cannot argue your way through this.

I'm not saying the rules don't apply but an advisory is simply that and as such are open to interpretation. For example, Rule 66 states that you should not ride close to another vehicle.

Now I challenge you to provide a specific and definitive distance for 'close'.

Again for your benefit the definition for advisory (from the Oxford dictionary) is as follows:

Definition of advisory
(adjective)
having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them:
the Commission acts in an advisory capacity•recommended but not compulsory:
the EC has put forward an advisory maximum figure

I have a serious question for you Lazyjaney. Given you are probably not always the fastest car on the road, do you always follow the rules by pulling over if a car behind wants to drive faster than you?

For instance, on a country road, if you are travelling below the speed limit and a car closes in behind you (as they often do) do you immediately pull over to let the car overtake?

LOL at LazyJane's barrack-room lawyering.

BoneyBackJefferson

I don't "cut" motorists when I'm on the bike in case there is a psychopath behind the wheel.

Goldmandra Tue 14-May-13 11:32:58

For instance, on a country road, if you are travelling below the speed limit and a car closes in behind you (as they often do) do you immediately pull over to let the car overtake?

This isn't really comparable with a cyclist holding up cars as the speed differential is so much greater.

The OP is about cyclist riding two abreast to prevent people overtaking when it would otherwise be safe to do so.

Cyclists do not have the right to prevent other vehicles from making reasonable progress because they think that, once in a while, someone might do something dangerous.

If someone drives dangerously report them. It is the job of the police to deal with dangerous driving.

Self defence isn't about controlling other people's behaviour. It is far more about making yourself less of a target or threat in the first place. Blocking the road unnecessarily makes you, and other cyclists more of a target.

Riding defensively doesn't justify forcing motor vehicles to travel at the speed of cycles for long distances because it makes the cyclists feel safer. Where it is safe to overtake, other vehicles should be enabled to do so.

If I drove alongside another car, say on a dual carriageway, effectively preventing the vehicles behind me from overtaking because I didn't feel they could safely travel faster than I was, nobody would suggest I was driving reasonably.

It's hard to report someone if you're comatose or dead.

I will block motorists if I think there is a risk of danger.

And I say that as a regular motorist as well as a cyclist.

Technotropic Tue 14-May-13 11:45:08

Goldmandra

The speed differential between someone doing 20 in a 30 or 30 in a 40 etc. will be exactly the same and I come across this all the time.

On my way to work I drive a single lane NSL road where I'm happy to do 60mph whereas most often only do 45 or 50mph. There really is little difference. Yet I don't expect these drivers to get out of my way.

I suggest you read up on defensive cycling and how making yourself less of a target isn't about hugging a kerb. It's about taking a prominent position on the road to force people to slow down and drive appropriately round you.

Technotropic Tue 14-May-13 11:54:27

But Goldmandra

Unfortunately we will never truly know the answer to this debate because we don't have visibility of the road in question.

The OP mentions parked cars so I'm assuming she was confident enough to cross lanes to overtake a parked car? Aren't 2 riders the same width as a parked car?

For the record, if it were me then I'd have stopped behind a parked car but each to their own. I'm not so self righteous that I would criticise another cyclist for doing something that I wouldn't. Especially when safety is concerned.

Goldmandra Tue 14-May-13 12:02:29

making yourself less of a target isn't about hugging a kerb. It's about taking a prominent position on the road to force people to slow down and drive appropriately round you

Absolutely!

It's also not about deliberately blocking roads for long distances by riding down the centre line where it would be safe to overtake one cyclist taking a perfectly appropriate line.

LessMissAbs Tue 14-May-13 13:28:49

Lazyjaney everything you post makes me cringe with embarrassment for you. Admittedly, you do seem to have finally come to some vague awareness that the Highway Code is of advisory value only, but the term "barrack-room lawyer" as pointed out above, is made for you. If you must be one (i.e. a person with little or no legal training or knowledge who purports to tell others the law), would it not be possible for the sake of avoiding even more cringeworthiness to branch into the realms of primary legislation and judicial precedent? Google is still out there...

And to recognise that your holy grail (the Highway Code) advises against your use of the horn in the way with which you are so familiar?

Yet the poor frustrated motorists caught behind are called twats, twunts, cunts etc for having the presumption to not be happy. There were only 2 twats/twunts/cunts in this story, and they were on bicycles

Indeed.

LessMissAbs Tue 14-May-13 13:37:40

OP, 20 minutes does seem a relatively long time to ignore a traffic jam behind you. I doubt they could be unaware, traffic behind makes a distinctive noise, and without any tooting being necessary, it isn't particularly pleasant to cycle with cars stuck behind you.

Is it possible they were famous/Olympic level riders out on a fast training ride and that's why they didn't go into single file? Because they were doing an important training ride?

I think expecting cyclists to constantly stop to let traffic past is unreasonable - a single cyclist is no more an obstacle than the parked cars which you mentioned were also a feature of your route.

Alternatively, is it possible that progress was so slow on this road anyway due to the many obstacles, cars were unable to pass safely even if the cyclists had moved into single file?

Technotropic Tue 14-May-13 14:28:17

Indeed LessMissAbs.

The OP states that the cyclists were, in the proper Lycra gear so must have been pros for it to have been noteworthy.

Lazyjaney Tue 14-May-13 17:32:20

"You've read what I posted from the highway code and how there is a distinct difference between the use of the words 'MUST' and 'SHOULD'. One is a legal requirement that is backed up by law, the other isn't. Even you cannot argue your way through this."

Nonsense. Split and define all you want, but you are never going to believably redefine "Should" as "should not", which is essentially what all you cyclists want.

Lazyjaney Tue 14-May-13 17:40:21

"I think expecting cyclists to constantly stop to let traffic past is unreasonable - a single cyclist is no more an obstacle than the parked cars which you mentioned were also a feature of your route"

Except there were 2, in parallel. Which has been the point of the whole thread.

"Is it possible they were famous/Olympic level riders out on a fast training ride and that's why they didn't go into single file? Because they were doing an important training ride?"

Now that really is clutching at straws....

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 14-May-13 18:31:53

Toadinthehole

I see that the quote and the sarcasm are lost on you but you seem happy to throw out abuse.

JanuaryTwenty Tue 14-May-13 18:34:21

It's telling that some cyclists perhaps not obeying the Highway Code should result in such a long thread. If I was to start a topic about the motorist who overtook me today at above the speed limit whilst talking on her mobile, I doubt anyone would be too interested. Most motorists, including me, probably break the law in some way every day, yet when cyclists do it, it's a big issue. Double standards seem to apply here.

VivaLeBeaver Tue 14-May-13 18:39:32

Lazyjane, equally you're never going to define "should" as "must". They mean different things.

Fr instance the National speed limit is 60mph and your must not go above this apart from dual carriageways, etc. it doesn't say you should not go above this, or we'd all be driving at 80mph.

LessMissAbs Tue 14-May-13 20:01:35

Lazyjane the Highway Code doesn't have an interpretation section. The Road Traffic Acts don't define "should" or "must". The Interpretation Act 1978 doesn't either. Therefore the general rules of interpretation apply, and primarily the Golden Rule (and possibly also the principle --ejusdem generis--). "Should" does not mean "must". You might also wish to use the Oxford English Dictionary. One is prescriptive, the other advisory.

Is English your first language?

I really think you are clutching at the thinnest of straws now.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 15-May-13 06:41:07

JanuaryTwenty
"It's telling that some cyclists perhaps not obeying the Highway Code should result in such a long thread. If I was to start a topic about the motorist who overtook me today at above the speed limit whilst talking on her mobile, I doubt anyone would be too interested."

there are plenty about bad drivers that are of a similar length.

Jengnr Wed 15-May-13 08:48:25

Riding side by side is inconsiderate in the extreme. I'm in West Yorkshire and since the Tour de France has decided to come here (FFS) the place is full of them doing the same.

Goldmandra Wed 15-May-13 10:11:56

Most motorists, including me, probably break the law in some way every day, yet when cyclists do it, it's a big issue.

No double standards. If two cars were driven down a road unreasonably slowly abreast (or even one car which was driven slowly down the middle of the road) in order to prevent other people overtaking there would be plenty of comments about how inconsiderate they were.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 19:41:22

BBJ - yes you're right, I think, in that there are sometimes threads of equal length about poor driving standards. Crucially tho' they are usually started by other drivers.

I can't recall, ever a thread commenced by a cyclist about poor driving standards, despite the fact we are so much more vulnerable. ( I'm an occasional poster these days so I may have missed them). That probably says a lot about how cyclists accommodate for poor driving and how we have a very modest ambition from driving standards, through experience.

I started a thread in winter time re thanking drivers for their good conduct, usually, which I have found, and bits of advice about how we should be allowed for and what makes life pointlessly difficult for riders. Even that thread as temp derailed by a driver over a minor point, which was annoying but the thread seemed to have been well-received.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 19:47:41

that thread was temp derailed...

Pan Wed 15-May-13 19:59:12

Jengnr I think it;s excellent the TdF is coming to the UK again. I am v doubtful tho' that that fact has led to differing riding habits. That sounds like a bit of driver paranoia tbh. I mean, on roads how much more 'power' do you want over other road users who are a sliver of your size?

Pendeen Wed 15-May-13 20:27:32

"The stats just don't back that up, cars kill all the time, cyclists extremely rarely"

What a daft statement!

A car weighs well over a tonne and goes much faster than a cycle and there are millions more cars than cycles.

Lazyjaney Wed 15-May-13 21:04:47

"It's telling that some cyclists perhaps not obeying the Highway Code should result in such a long thread. If I was to start a topic about the motorist who overtook me today at above the speed limit whilst talking on her mobile, I doubt anyone would be too interested. Most motorists, including me, probably break the law in some way every day, yet when cyclists do it, it's a big issue. Double standards seem to apply here"

What was more telling is the long and grudging admission by the cyclist fans that the OPs cyclists were in the wrong and being selfish. Even the post above saying "perhaps not obeying the Highway Code" when it's been darn clear from the get go that they were shows this begrudgement.

If the cyclists had admitted the OPs two cyclists were in the wrong on page one, the thread would have been over then and there.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 21:22:21

Well, not really Lazyjaney - the conversation has gone well beyond the OP's statement. There's been various interpretations given to the cyclists' choices of actions, and also generally about when it is best to ride two abreast, which are done for good reason. Because some drivers don't like it isn't the full explanation as to why we have a long thread about it.

I'd suggest that a valid reason is that many biking MNers get roundly pissed off with complaints about cyclists behaviour is when sooo much death-threatening driver behaviour goes un-noted (for the reason I mentioned above i.e we just accommodate for it and get on with riding). So having someone complain about an instance of riders holding up a drivers progress is, frankly, very very small beer compared with so much shit bikers have to put up with.

Its a question of proportion.

Do you see sense in any of that?

TiggyD Wed 15-May-13 22:09:11

Maybe the cyclists were Jack Bauer type agents who foiled a plot to destroy the world with a bomb but had only partially defused it. They had to get it away from a fault line in the Earth's crust that according to ancient Mayan prophesy would split the world in two. They were carrying it between two bikes as MI6 has an eco drive on for all it's agents at the moment and it was the greenest way to move the bomb to the aliens portal and throw it in thereby destroying the alien star destroyer parked behind Uranus.
Simple. Problem solved.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 22:16:19

Tiggy...even as the most insane of theories (which i like), you cannot, in any universe, dimension, Cartesian-notion of mathmatics, physics-intelligence bound by our universe limiters..partially defuse a bomb.
Sorry dear.

TiggyD Wed 15-May-13 22:18:51

Shows what you know about defusing bombs!

Pan Wed 15-May-13 22:22:22

True.

Technotropic Wed 15-May-13 22:25:44

OP

I realise you don't want to give us the google map of the road in question but perhaps you can tell us exactly what type the centre lines were for the duration of the 10 mins?

Lazyjaney

Can you recall what the lines were along the centre of the road last time you overtook anything, be it a cyclist, car, horse or tractor etc?

whatsthatcomingoverthehill Wed 15-May-13 22:29:42

It's not clear at all whether they were being annoying or whether driving defensively on a road too dangerous to overtake on or if the OP was overly cautious.

But, I get fed up of motorists moaning about cyclists. All a cyclist is likely to cause a driver is some minor inconvenience whereas a cyclist is at risk of injury or worse from idiotic drivers. This imbalance of consequences is important and explains why cyclists can be uppity. Believe me, when you regularly cycle you soon learn to protect yourself and if that pisses someone off then so be it.

TiggyD Wed 15-May-13 22:32:35

They should have protected themselves by fully defusing the bomb first.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 23:14:34

yes, whats - broadly, drivers moans about cyclists are 1st world problems. Cyclists problem-solvings re drivers are survival problems.

There is no comparisons. As a very experienced bikist, drivers moans about about bikists pisses me of more than is polite to say.

Pan Wed 15-May-13 23:20:01

or 'pisses me off' more than is polite to say.

They sound like safe cyclists. And it is legal for them to cycle two abreast.

Lazyjaney Fri 17-May-13 07:18:31

^^
Yet another cyclist who doesn't know the Highway Code or doesnt think it applies to them.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 17-May-13 07:24:49

LazyJane you're totally wrong as I'm sure you do actually know.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

Cyclists must not ride on pavements

Cycists should not ride more than 2 abreast (so 2 is fine)

Cyclists should ride in single file on busy or narrow roads. Note it says should and "busy" and "narrow" are grey areas. What's one person's busy may not be anothers.

TheOriginalSteamingNit Fri 17-May-13 07:34:00

It is inconsiderate to ride two abreast in that situation. As for 'not safe to overtake' if there was one, well when I'm cycling, and I imagine when others are too, if there's a cycle lane you use it and you're at the edge while cars go past you, usually faster: but if there isn't a cycle line, the set up is still pretty much that, isn't it? You don't move out into the middle of the lane and take your place between cars, surely: why would you? It is fine for cars to be travelling faster, and therefore past, cyclists in single file, in most instances.

I'm a regular cyclist, I see dickish behaviour from cars: but as a driver, the only cycling behaviour I find really infuriating is riding two abreast and knowingly holding up a queue of traffic.

Lazyjaney Fri 17-May-13 07:43:01

"LazyJane you're totally wrong as I'm sure you do actually know"

No matter how you twist and turn and mangle the English language, you are never going to get the Highway Code to say to tbat its OK, cyclists should ride 2 abreast on narrow roads for 10 minutes while traffic builds up behind them.

JanuaryTwenty Fri 17-May-13 15:49:32

"...you are never going to get the Highway Code to say to tbat its OK, cyclists should ride 2 abreast on narrow roads for 10 minutes while traffic builds up behind them."

That's very true, the HC would never say that, because it makes no sense.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 17-May-13 16:37:56

But equally it doesn't say that they must not or that they can not.

Happy Week old birthday to the thread. shock

JanuaryTwenty Fri 17-May-13 16:46:33

"But equally it doesn't say that they must not or that they can not."

Exactly.

"Happy Week old birthday to the thread."

Only a week? It's just getting going! smile

I think it will run and run.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 17-May-13 16:50:12

grin

TiggyD Fri 17-May-13 18:43:48

Could you ride two by two?
Could you ride with a gnu?
Must you ride in a traffic jam?
Must you get hit with a 'BAM!'?

I could not ride with a gnu.
I could not ride two by two.
I mustn't ride in a traffic jam.
I mustn't ride like Pan-I-Am.

Pan Fri 17-May-13 21:39:50

oh you must/could/should/absolutely/unquestioningly/definitely/categorically...ride like Pan-I-Am!!

JanuaryTwenty Fri 17-May-13 21:53:03

TiggyD.... fantastic!

Pan Fri 17-May-13 22:02:56

And Happy First Week Anniversary to the thread. It's so nice that such a long thread has produced such a meeting of minds and resolutions to problems and drivers and cyclists finally see each other's perspectives.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now