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!

Lazyjaney

I'm not trying to be funny about it. It's just that you're making some bold statements about the meaning of the highway code and berrating people for not reading or understanding it.

To quote from the introduction
www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ?MUST/MUST NOT?. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

So the above paragraph concerns the use of the words 'MUST/MUST NOT' If you read the sections of the highway code then the use of these words is usually accompanied by the relevant references to specific sections of the law.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ?should/should not? or ?do/do not?.

In the above paragraph the highway code quite clearly states that the other rules, i.e. those containing 'should/should not' are advisory. As such they do not reference the law because they are NOT legal requirements.

There is no twisting or any of us cyclists trying to worm our way out of anything.

Difficult to say whether the cyclists in the OP were behaving unreasonably without knowing more about the road they were on.

Yes, if there was somewhere safe for them to pull over, then they should have pulled over to let traffic pass, but as far as I can see, the OP hasn't said that there was somewhere safe. Some of the country roads I go along have very long stretches without somewhere that's safe for a cyclist to stop in.

If there wasn't somewhere safe to stop, or safe for cars to overtake, then defensive cycling on the part of the cyclists is understandable. It might be annoying to other road users who want to go faster, but I'm not seeing how it's really that much worse than getting stuck behind a tractor.

But the horn should only be used to warn other road users of your presence, not to indicate your annoyance at them holding up traffic by not pulling over. As the cyclists were aware of the cars, it would have been wrong to beep them.

It's quite unusual for there to be nowhere for cyclists to be able to pull in safely - even on single track roads I can typically make the "slowing down" signal and pull to the side, stopping close to the roadside to let people past. It's more commonplace for cyclists to prefer not to loose their momentum by stopping and having to restart again, which is understandable but does lack consideration for other road users.
It's no differnt from cars doing the same - tottling along at 40mph on rural roads - where the limit is 60 then 30 (or 20) for villages
still they trundle along at 40. Just as inconsiderate.

As a regular traveler on country roads there are plenty of entrances to fields that would be suitable pulling in points (have pulled a car in to such a gap so assume a cycle could too.

The op did nothing unreasonable shadow- she wwaited for a chance to overtake correctly - it was the twat behind her that was abusive to the cyclists.

The cyclist should have pulled in and it is likely that they were unreasonable not to do so.

How about the OP post the 10 minute route from Google Maps?

I'm happy to accept that the cyclists were acting unreasonably if it is clear they were purposely blocking up the road

I know it won't help the discussion but I would prefer not to post the route as it is very close to where I live and I don't want to out myself!. Sorry!

The roads weren't very rural imagine a number of villages that then lead to a small town which is where I was able to pass. Speed limit varies from 30/40. Houses on each side for the most part with some parked cars but not all the way through. The road is wide enough for parking and cars to travel through. I felt there were points I could have overtaken one cyclist but not two. I am relatively cautious and grew up somewhere that didnt even have a dual carriageway so am used to spending a lot of time behind tractors etc. I accept though that as I don't cycle I can't appreciate how safe that would appear to them.

I am perfectly willing to accept I was unreasonable to be annoyed but I did internalise it and followed quietly behind until it was safe to pass. I was genuinely not sure if my (internal) irritation was justified or not hence the post. Also, it wasn't a time issue per se as I did consider pulling into a side road so I would not be the one directly behind, which would have added time to my journey.

"In the above paragraph the highway code quite clearly states that the other rules, i.e. those containing 'should/should not' are advisory. As such they do not reference the law because they are NOT legal requirements"

IMO you are downplaying it for your own ends, as "that paragraph" says:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ?should/should not? or ?do/do not?

That does not mean these rules are for ignoring if you find them inconvenient, or if you feel they dont apply to you, as many cyclists have believed on this thread.

"yes, if there was somewhere safe for them to pull over, then they should have pulled over to let traffic pass, but as far as I can see, the OP hasn't said that there was somewhere safe"

You may note, by the difficult feat of reading thecA's post, that the OP thought of turning off a few times so she was no longer 1st in the line of traffic behind them, hence there were clearly opportunities to pull over. And I reckon the number of 10 minute stretches of country road with no ability to pull over could be counted on one hand.

"I'm happy to accept that the cyclists were acting unreasonably if it is clear they were purposely blocking up the road"

Good Lord - cyclista finally admits OP's cyclists may have been "unreasonable" shock!

Yet the poor frustrated motorists caught behind are called twats, twunts, cunts etc for having the presumption to not be happy.

There were only 2 twats/twunts/cunts in this story, and they were on bicycles.

And IMO the motorists were well within their rights to alert the cyclists to their presence with their hooters, repeatedly if needs be. Think of it as a public duty in helping those cyclists on their journey towards better understanding the highway code and being more considerate road users

The cyclists already knew the cars were there. Beeping at them would have been agressive behaviour IMO, regardless of how unreasonable the cyclists were in not pulling over.

It's not unreasonable for a motorist to be unhappy about being delayed by cyclists, but it is unreasonable for them to beep at cyclists or be abusive to them.

Lazyjaney Sat 11-May-13 19:20:01

The problem in this case is cyclists who don't understand or are flouting the rules of the road. In the Highway code:

Rule 66 says cyclists must cycle in single file on narrow roads
Rule 67 says cyclists must be aware of traffic coming up behind this.
Rule 169 says slow moving traffic should pull in to let faster traffic pass.

The cyclists in the OPs example flouted all of these, for 10 minutes. They were the rude, selfish and entitled cunts in this case. The only dangerous driving was done by them.

--------

I thought I'd quote from your earlier post directly as you have most clearly been guilty of changing things to suit your own ends. If I'm honest I don't think you knew any more about the highway code when you posted this up. If you did then you wouldn't have been so devious.

You've read what I posted from the highway code and how there is a distinct difference between the use of the words 'MUST' and 'SHOULD'. One is a legal requirement that is backed up by law, the other isn't. Even you cannot argue your way through this.

I'm not saying the rules don't apply but an advisory is simply that and as such are open to interpretation. For example, Rule 66 states that you should not ride close to another vehicle.

Now I challenge you to provide a specific and definitive distance for 'close'.

Again for your benefit the definition for advisory (from the Oxford dictionary) is as follows:

Definition of advisory
(adjective)
having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them:
the Commission acts in an advisory capacity?recommended but not compulsory:
the EC has put forward an advisory maximum figure

I have a serious question for you Lazyjaney. Given you are probably not always the fastest car on the road, do you always follow the rules by pulling over if a car behind wants to drive faster than you?

For instance, on a country road, if you are travelling below the speed limit and a car closes in behind you (as they often do) do you immediately pull over to let the car overtake?

LOL at LazyJane's barrack-room lawyering.

BoneyBackJefferson

I don't "cut" motorists when I'm on the bike in case there is a psychopath behind the wheel.

For instance, on a country road, if you are travelling below the speed limit and a car closes in behind you (as they often do) do you immediately pull over to let the car overtake?

This isn't really comparable with a cyclist holding up cars as the speed differential is so much greater.

The OP is about cyclist riding two abreast to prevent people overtaking when it would otherwise be safe to do so.

Cyclists do not have the right to prevent other vehicles from making reasonable progress because they think that, once in a while, someone might do something dangerous.

If someone drives dangerously report them. It is the job of the police to deal with dangerous driving.

Self defence isn't about controlling other people's behaviour. It is far more about making yourself less of a target or threat in the first place. Blocking the road unnecessarily makes you, and other cyclists more of a target.

Riding defensively doesn't justify forcing motor vehicles to travel at the speed of cycles for long distances because it makes the cyclists feel safer. Where it is safe to overtake, other vehicles should be enabled to do so.

If I drove alongside another car, say on a dual carriageway, effectively preventing the vehicles behind me from overtaking because I didn't feel they could safely travel faster than I was, nobody would suggest I was driving reasonably.

It's hard to report someone if you're comatose or dead.

I will block motorists if I think there is a risk of danger.

And I say that as a regular motorist as well as a cyclist.

Goldmandra

The speed differential between someone doing 20 in a 30 or 30 in a 40 etc. will be exactly the same and I come across this all the time.

On my way to work I drive a single lane NSL road where I'm happy to do 60mph whereas most often only do 45 or 50mph. There really is little difference. Yet I don't expect these drivers to get out of my way.

I suggest you read up on defensive cycling and how making yourself less of a target isn't about hugging a kerb. It's about taking a prominent position on the road to force people to slow down and drive appropriately round you.

But Goldmandra

Unfortunately we will never truly know the answer to this debate because we don't have visibility of the road in question.

The OP mentions parked cars so I'm assuming she was confident enough to cross lanes to overtake a parked car? Aren't 2 riders the same width as a parked car?

For the record, if it were me then I'd have stopped behind a parked car but each to their own. I'm not so self righteous that I would criticise another cyclist for doing something that I wouldn't. Especially when safety is concerned.

making yourself less of a target isn't about hugging a kerb. It's about taking a prominent position on the road to force people to slow down and drive appropriately round you

Absolutely!

It's also not about deliberately blocking roads for long distances by riding down the centre line where it would be safe to overtake one cyclist taking a perfectly appropriate line.

Lazyjaney everything you post makes me cringe with embarrassment for you. Admittedly, you do seem to have finally come to some vague awareness that the Highway Code is of advisory value only, but the term "barrack-room lawyer" as pointed out above, is made for you. If you must be one (i.e. a person with little or no legal training or knowledge who purports to tell others the law), would it not be possible for the sake of avoiding even more cringeworthiness to branch into the realms of primary legislation and judicial precedent? Google is still out there...

And to recognise that your holy grail (the Highway Code) advises against your use of the horn in the way with which you are so familiar?

Yet the poor frustrated motorists caught behind are called twats, twunts, cunts etc for having the presumption to not be happy. There were only 2 twats/twunts/cunts in this story, and they were on bicycles

Indeed.

OP, 20 minutes does seem a relatively long time to ignore a traffic jam behind you. I doubt they could be unaware, traffic behind makes a distinctive noise, and without any tooting being necessary, it isn't particularly pleasant to cycle with cars stuck behind you.

Is it possible they were famous/Olympic level riders out on a fast training ride and that's why they didn't go into single file? Because they were doing an important training ride?

I think expecting cyclists to constantly stop to let traffic past is unreasonable - a single cyclist is no more an obstacle than the parked cars which you mentioned were also a feature of your route.

Alternatively, is it possible that progress was so slow on this road anyway due to the many obstacles, cars were unable to pass safely even if the cyclists had moved into single file?

Indeed LessMissAbs.

The OP states that the cyclists were, in the proper Lycra gear so must have been pros for it to have been noteworthy.

"You've read what I posted from the highway code and how there is a distinct difference between the use of the words 'MUST' and 'SHOULD'. One is a legal requirement that is backed up by law, the other isn't. Even you cannot argue your way through this."

Nonsense. Split and define all you want, but you are never going to believably redefine "Should" as "should not", which is essentially what all you cyclists want.

"I think expecting cyclists to constantly stop to let traffic past is unreasonable - a single cyclist is no more an obstacle than the parked cars which you mentioned were also a feature of your route"

Except there were 2, in parallel. Which has been the point of the whole thread.

"Is it possible they were famous/Olympic level riders out on a fast training ride and that's why they didn't go into single file? Because they were doing an important training ride?"

Now that really is clutching at straws....

Toadinthehole

I see that the quote and the sarcasm are lost on you but you seem happy to throw out abuse.

It's telling that some cyclists perhaps not obeying the Highway Code should result in such a long thread. If I was to start a topic about the motorist who overtook me today at above the speed limit whilst talking on her mobile, I doubt anyone would be too interested. Most motorists, including me, probably break the law in some way every day, yet when cyclists do it, it's a big issue. Double standards seem to apply here.

Lazyjane, equally you're never going to define "should" as "must". They mean different things.

Fr instance the National speed limit is 60mph and your must not go above this apart from dual carriageways, etc. it doesn't say you should not go above this, or we'd all be driving at 80mph.

Lazyjane the Highway Code doesn't have an interpretation section. The Road Traffic Acts don't define "should" or "must". The Interpretation Act 1978 doesn't either. Therefore the general rules of interpretation apply, and primarily the Golden Rule (and possibly also the principle ejusdem generis). "Should" does not mean "must". You might also wish to use the Oxford English Dictionary. One is prescriptive, the other advisory.

Is English your first language?

I really think you are clutching at the thinnest of straws now.

JanuaryTwenty
"It's telling that some cyclists perhaps not obeying the Highway Code should result in such a long thread. If I was to start a topic about the motorist who overtook me today at above the speed limit whilst talking on her mobile, I doubt anyone would be too interested."

there are plenty about bad drivers that are of a similar length.