To have been annoyed with the cyclists

[EverybodyLovesWine]

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!

[Technotropic]

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.

[Toadinthehole]

Quite so. Inconsiderate drivers kill people, of course.

[Goldmandra]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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!

[inabeautifulplace]

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]

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]

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]

Much as cyclists don't like it said

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

[LessMissAbs]

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]

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 will help

[LessMissAbs]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MelanieCheeks]

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]

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]

*hear not here

[Goldmandra]

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]

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]

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]

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.