Cyclist gesticulating wildly at me

Yes, it is a stupid decision. There are far safer means of transport. You could take a bus or drive there. You could use an Uber or a taxi or a ride share app.

Yes, it is a stupid decision. There are far safer means of transport. You could take a bus or drive there. You could use an Uber or a taxi or a ride share app.

Which is exactly why people should drive the biggest and heaviest vehicles they can afford. Fortunately there are far fewer HGVs on the road compared to the number of passenger cars, so those sorts of collisions are rare.

Which is exactly why people should drive the biggest and heaviest vehicles they can afford. Fortunately there are far fewer HGVs on the road compared to the number of passenger cars, so those sorts of collisions are rare.

No amount of airbags and crumple zones will protect the occupants of a small car, or indeed most cars, in a high-speed collision with a lorry. There just isn't enough structure to absorb all that energy. For example, a lorry being driven by Tomasz Kroker struck a people carrier, which in turn struck a small hatchback, killing the occupants of both. The hatchback was compressed to a third of its length, despite having an entire car acting as an additional crumple zone between it and the lorry.

They literally do, thats why cars have airbags and internal roll cages, to help protect the occupants. That's why people with kids drive big SUVs, to help protect the themselves in the event of a collision. That's why we have NCAP scores to help buyers decide on the safest vehicle.

Why do you think they stopped building vans with the engine under the front seats?

This is really basic stuff and if you're stupid enough to choose to drive a car which has no crumple zones or air bags, you are partly responsible for the injuries suffered in and collision.

Okay, you’re right it’s my fault. How dare I expect to be able to cycle to work on the road and be safe. Stupid of me really.

But you're making the stupid decision to put yourself in a position where several tonnes of steel are passing you at high speed and just a few feet from you.

Why would you make such a stupid decision and risk your life?

I'm sure a framed copy of the highway code, and the knowledge that " you were right", will make you feel better when you find yourself lying on the side of the road with a broken spine. Have a read up on bowel managment for people with spinal injuries and see if you think playing around on a bicycle next to traffic is really such a good idea.

Unfortunately even pavements dont keep pedestrians safe from cars. Between 2012 and 2020, 99% of fatal collisions with pedestrians on pavements or verges involved motor vehicles

Ok, I'll play along.

When I used to cycle to work I did it because:

It took around 20 minutes for me to cycle across town compared to about an hour in the car.
It was fun.
It was exercise.
It was free.

Statistically you are more likely to die from falling down your stairs than you are on a bike. I do hope you live in a bungalow.

So wouldn't it make more sense to put restrictions on the vehicle doing the killing and maiming?

Yes, that's why we don't let them walk down train tracks.

But at least pedestrians have pavements to walk down that keeps them away from traffic. Most of the 400 people you mention have walked out in front of the vehicle that hit them, rather than the vehicle mounting the pavement and hitting them.

But you are correct, if all those pedestrians had chosen to drive instead of walking, they wouldn't have been hit by a vehicle.

But you haven't actually my questions?

Thank you for all the replies and sorry it’s taken me all day to respond!

Firstly we do live semi rurally- the lane I described has no footpaths and as mentioned is narrow- if someone is walking their dog on it and a car comes along they have to sink into the hedge so it’s not a route suitable for walking to school with a child. We also live three miles away and this is the nearest school.

I do accept on reflection I should have waited to overtake until I could see further ahead and wasn’t as near to a bend, but I’m not lying when I say I was considerate to the cyclist and felt I left plenty of room. Like I say it was definitely over the minimum, I’m not saying it was that amount exactly, but he was certainly never in danger of being hit by the car and nor did I slam on my brakes after passing him as some have suggested.

The reason I mentioned his clothing is because he seemed it me to be out for a hobby ride, not cycling to work, plus there’s nothing around there unless he’s a teacher at one of the schools! I know cyclists have the same rights to use roads as everyone else but you’d think people would exercise common sense and not choose to cycle on narrow country lanes when there are lots of cars trying to get to school for a specific time. I know I’ll be flamed for saying that but come on it’s common sense!

Yes, that's why we don't let them walk down train tracks.

But at least pedestrians have pavements to walk down that keeps them away from traffic. Most of the 400 people you mention have walked out in front of the vehicle that hit them, rather than the vehicle mounting the pavement and hitting them.

But you are correct, if all those pedestrians had chosen to drive instead of walking, they wouldn't have been hit by a vehicle.

Yes, that's why we don't let them walk down train tracks.

But at least pedestrians have pavements to walk down that keeps them away from traffic. Most of the 400 people you mention have walked out in front of the vehicle that hit them, rather than the vehicle mounting the pavement and hitting them.

But you are correct, if all those pedestrians had chosen to drive instead of walking, they wouldn't have been hit by a vehicle.

Same goes for someone driving a small, older car, sharing roads with 44 tonne lorries. Should the two collide at speed, the occupants of the car can expect, at a minimum, serious injuries. No one tells the owners of such vehicles that they have no business being on the road; everyone understands they are legitimate road users. The same applies to cyclists, whether you like it or not.

But you haven't actually my questions?

This is so daft and backwards it's hard to know where to start.

Why do pedestrians insist on doing something that literally endangers their life (~400 killed a year by cars, ~40 of them while on the pavement)? If they just took some responsibility and drove a car, they would be much safer.

Unlikely. Cyclists like to have a go even when they don't have a leg to stand on. Absolutely baffling they'd decide to take their ride during the hours of the morning everyone's going to work or dropping kids off at school, if they're afraid of cars being close to them. I suppose he expected you to trawl behind him the whole way.

But you're making the stupid decision to put yourself in a position where several tonnes of steel are passing you at high speed and just a few feet from you.

Why would you make such a stupid decision and risk your life?

I'm sure a framed copy of the highway code, and the knowledge that " you were right", will make you feel better when you find yourself lying on the side of the road with a broken spine. Have a read up on bowel managment for people with spinal injuries and see if you think playing around on a bicycle next to traffic is really such a good idea.

Why do cyclists insist on doing something that literally endangers their life?

What's the point?

If they just took some responsibility and drove a car, they would be much safer.

Why do cyclists insist on doing something that literally endangers their life?

What's the point?

If they just took some responsibility and drove a car, they would be much safer.