Advanced search

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!

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.

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

TiggyD.... fantastic!

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

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

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.

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


Sparklingbrook Fri 17-May-13 16:48:07

I think it will run and run.

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

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


"Happy Week old birthday to the thread."

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

Sparklingbrook Fri 17-May-13 16:41:11

Happy Week old birthday to the thread. shock

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

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

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

" 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

BestParentEver Wed 15-May-13 23:59:47

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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


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?


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?

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


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

Shows what you know about defusing bombs!

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 22:09:11

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 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?

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