to be irritated at cyclists on the North Circular?

[Maria2007loveshersleep]

I know the arguments for cycling more, and I agree with most of them. However, I drive on the North Circular (in London) to go to work, and almost every other day, during rush hour too, there's invariably a cyclist there who makes driving really dangerous: everyone has to change lanes quickly (there's no space to pass the cyclist while remaining in lane).

So: am I being unreasonable to feel cyclists just shouldn't be on high speed roads as they make driving conditions there more dangerous than necessary both for them & for drivers too?

YANBU I was driving on it today and had to overtake a cyclist and thought the very same thing. I do sympathise with cyclists but for their own safety I think they should avoid for the very reasons stated on this thread. I hate driving on it and feel really vulnerable so it must be worse on a bicycle.

YANBU and YABU too...

I think it is absolute madness of cyclists who choose to ride on the N Circular. It is a super dangerous road, and there unexpected presence on a fast, tight lane road makes things even harder. You get to a cyclist, who is doing what, 15, 20 mph? On a road where everyone is doing 40, 50, 60 mph? And so you have to slow right down, then try and get out into another lane which is difficult without merging a little aggressively, which makes others slow down and merge aggressively, and all in all causes accidents.

However I do kind of think they have a right to the road, although this doesn't stop me form being cross with cyclists!

Yep - what whois said - and squeaky.
And as Maria says - of course it's great to cycle, but in practice, on the N Circular, where you have to modify your driving to move safely within the Whacky Races circuit, it's all v OTT with cyclists added into the mix.
Would never cycle on NC. And there are alternative routes - much better suited to bicycles than cars (and I think the residents would agree with me, ).

It's not the cyclists who are the problem. It's the entitled wankers who get in a car and assume that means they can drive as fast as they like without obstruction. If there is a cyclist in lane then slow down and pass safely. You should be looking well ahead and managing your speed within that allowed for the road to enable you to do this. I cycle every day. I also drive. I just don't drive like a twat.

Northernlurker - I don't think many drivers on the N Circular assume that they can drive without obstruction - it's a bit too crowded for that. Also a bit too crowded for drivers to see well ahead. Also many drivers who completely ignore speed limits.
Do you drive on the N Circular, Northern?

No - different North. The wanker sentence was a genral observation rather than London specific. The point stands though - on a busy road where you cannot see what's coming up there's all the more reason to manage your speed. Breaking the speed limit is not essential or obligatory. The problem here - as almost everywhere - is that drivers do not accord cyclists any respect nor do they give them enough road room nor do they take their foot off the acclerator in time. The exception to that are cyclists who run red lights and I hold them in equal contempt and place them also firmly in the wanker category of road user.

Bloody cyclist eh! They take to the roads in their pesky non-fuel injected machines and make the driving into work/whatever so much more difficult for the fuel-injected cars. Bastards!

I don't think anyone on this thread is slagging off cyclists.
And I think that unless you know and drive on the North Circular it's not really possible for you to know the situation that the OP's describing/referring to.
The North Circular is very London specific, believe me.

Plumpdog - the North Circular is a road yes? Not a motorway? Cyclists therefore have every right to use that road and should be able to do so without ending up as roadkill. No 'London specific' information changes that fact.

Yanbu. Maybe you should slow down and drive safely, as should those around you.

Damn that should have said yabvu

I used to drive on the NC every day to work and it isn't the cyclists who are the problem, it's the wanky drivers.

No, it's not a motorway, Northern, it's just treated as one and at several points has 4+ lanes. Plus it gets very congested; plus it's generally very heavy with irate drivers, half of whom apparently drive the same route every day and expect to charge through it at 60+ mph (max speed is 50), plus lots of lane changing at last minute, etc.
PLus quite a lot of lights at short intervals.
So as a driver you're basically swept along a multi-laned A-road that many drivers want to use as a motorway. Generally it's too crowded to see far ahead.

If there was a route they could take to where they are going that didn't involve driving on the road you describe, I am very sure they would be on it.

YANBU to find the whole setup irritating, YABU to blame cyclists for your irritation.

All the people saying slow down... Come on. The speed limit is 40/50 so realistically people will be going that fast. Which is fast enough to cause problems when a slow bike is thrown into the mix.

NO. That's bad driving. If you do not have an uninterrupted view of the road ahead and you cannot reduce speed and brake safely to move out and avoid a cyclist, a slower car, a broken down vehicle - then you are driving too fast for the road. Doesn't matter what the limit is. The issue is that on this type of raod people drive too fast and leave inadequate gaps between vehicles and then blame outside factors for accidents. It's the drivers who are at fault.

I'm sure the cyclists would prefer not to have to cycle along roads like the NC. Unfortunately there is no alternative route. FWIW I don't ever remember having a problem with them when I was driving that route every day

A cyclist on a road with more than one lane should cause less problem than a cyclist on a 1 line of traffic each way only road as there is an overtaking lane. 40mph isn't a "high speed road". it sounds as though people are just driving too close and too fast for the conditions. I'm sure if there was a good road alternative the cars would use it including the OP. A detour of a couple of miles makes more of a difference to your journey time if you cycle than if you drive.

A cyclist died today, killed by an Olympic bus.

Report here:

www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/

It sounds basically like he DIDN'T TAKE THE WHOLE LANE, which is the safe approach, but disliked by some of the ignorant and/or selfish posters here.

Now he is dead.

Cycle in the middle or to the right of the lane, fuck these scumbag selfish car drivers.

I'm a keen cyclist - go everywhere on a bike - and I wouldn't take the NC if I could possibly help it. I do agree that the real problem is the standard of driving on the NC and that in principle cyclists have the right to be there, but I still think that to ride there if there's an alternative is foolish (as opposed to "wrong IYSWIM).

Kind of like burglary : nobody denies that the moral responsability for a burglary is the burglar's but if you go on holiday without locking your front foor you bear some practical responsability for the ensuing burglary.

Am struck by the terrible irony that on the same day Britain cheered home gold and bronze medalists in the men's time trial event, my morning paper contained reports of two cyclists killed on the roads, and that there will be those who feel it was in some small part their own fault for being there.

I agree some roads are dangerous - I would never willingly cycle on the NC, but the fblame must lie with the standard of driving. It is simply not good enough to say "It's a 40, but people expect to go at 50"; it's a 40 for a reason.

SC - that's a very sad piece and yes you're right. The attitude of drivers does lead cyclists to take small gaps and a little share of the road and they pay a price for that. My husband was cycling with me and my daughters once after we had been cycling a while and he had just started again. He asked me why I was taking up so much lane so I pointed out to him quite forcibly that as our babies were on their own bikes ahead of me I'd have all the lane I wanted thanks and therefore people would have to give us more space if they wanted to pass. He took the point On a non dual carriageway you should give a bike as much room as you would a car to pass it. I know I do when i'm driving. Do you?
Women in particular are vulnerable to the 'lets fit in tiny space' mentality and in London young women cyclists pay the price for that with higher mortality.
So - be assertive when cycling and teach your daughters to do the same. To look all the time, to expect car drivers to have murderous intentions, to give themselves space and don't go up the inside of long and heavy vehicles.

Yes, that's very sad.
OP's point was never that cyclists were selfish, or don't have a right to use NC, though, and it doesn't seem that anyone on this thread has tried to say anything like this.
In London cyclists are advised to take up more rather than less lane as it's generally safer to do this - and yes, drivers should give cyclists as much room as a car. On most urban routes it's possible to do this. On NC it would be far more difficult, potentially impossible, probably dangerous.
I think the OP had cyclists' safety in mind, not that she was trying to say that they should all piss off because they slow her down.

Really? Not wishing to descend into a slanging match, but I rather thought the OP's point was that cyclists shouldn't be there because they made life more difficult for motorists...

4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad?

On 40pmh (limit NOT target) dual carriageway it should be easier not harder to give cyclists room. That's if you don't drive like a twat person unable to remove their foot from the accelerator.