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!

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 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 ?

"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!

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.

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?

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

Lazyjane, where do you get your horn theory from?

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).

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 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.

I would have felt the same as you op.

YANBU

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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.

"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"

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.

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.