to think cyclists ought to sit a test before being allowed on the road?

[SantanaLopez]

I live on a route popular with amateur cyclists. Yet again this morning another group of folk were causing absolute havoc on a two lane road. They aren't dressed properly, they don't signal, they don't even look where they're going. One man was weaving along instead of cycling in a straight line!

So while I have a cup of tea and a cake (for medicinal reasons)- aibu to think that they should have to be tested before being allowed on the road? I know drivers are the biggest hazard, but safety works both ways!

We want to cycle in groups.
We want drivers to give us a really wide berth when overtaking
We want to ride in packs taking up the middle of the road which means drivers can’t give us a wide berth while overtaking.
We want drivers to sit behind us patiently until we see fit to allow them to overtake us.
We choose not to stop or pull into a layby to permit drivers to overtake us.
We don’t understand why some drivers become impatient and see us as antagonistic.

This dogmatic approach doesn't help anyone. Deliberately inconveniencing other people just because you can is not the best way to keep yourself and other cyclists safe on the roads.

I am sure that cycling in small packs can be the safest option on lots of roads a lot of the time but it isn't necessarily always the best or safest option, especially when drivers can see an unobstructed road for miles ahead and they can only overtake if they are prepared to get close to the cyclist riding down the centre line of the road. Why not apply a little common sense and assess each situation on its merits?

The fact that some drivers behave like idiots doesn't mean that winding all of them up is the best or safest option.

*Goldmandra - you ar only requested to give cyclists as much room as you would a car on overtaking. I presume when you are driving you would give at least a couple of metres grace when overtaking a vehicle.

Rule 163 HC

"give... cyclists ... at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

If you would go a lot of miles before getting to a wide enough stretch of road then that is what you have to do. Considerate cyclists will no doubt pull in at some point - apart from anything else it doesn't feel safe to have a vehicle consistently on your tail when cycling so there is quite a motivation for them.

NB other rules from HC, frequently not observed by drivers:

12
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Rule 212 not 12

I don't understand this, because shouts of "nose" and "tail" are the cycling etiquette in the UK surely?

Goldmandra I think groups adopting single file when cars come from behind, or staying in single file on busy roads is perfectly reasonable.

But there is no way I would stop and go into a laybye to let a car past? How the hell would that work? What speed do you think a reasonably fit athlete cycles at? If they were tootling along on a fairy cycle, then yes, a stop in a layby isn't going to mean much, because it would take you several hours to cover a mile. But you would get no training benefit from constantly stopping and waiting in laybyes every time cars wanted to go back.

The rest of your post was common sense, but that bit was really ridiculous! Never mind the fact that some of those cyclists might be cycling to work - oh, never mind, lets just take 3 hours to get there when 1 might do!

Considerate cyclists will no doubt pull in at some point

Not in my experience but I think that may be particular to the ethos of our local cycling clubs. There definitely seems to be an element of making a point to it.

Thank you for clarifying the recommendations re overtaking and space. I have always allowed cyclists considerably more space than cars up until now. Perhaps that was unnecessary. In future I will overtake as long as I can do so while remaining across the white lines as I would do when overtaking a car.

But you would get no training benefit from constantly stopping and waiting in laybyes every time cars wanted to go back.

I you are in single file so cars can overtake safely there would be no need to stop. It's an either or situation.

However, I'm not sure that the highway code is written with people's training needs in mind.

Goldmandra How much clearance do you allow a vehicle when overtaking it then? Possibly instead of allowing cyclists less space, you should be allowing more space when overtaking cars (or do less overtaking - how often do you need to overtake, truthfully?)

I don't know. I've never measured it.

I do know it feels appropriate and I've seen plenty of other cars overtaking on the same roads.

ROSPA reiterates the HC:

"Give [cycle] riders as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

This room is "plenty of room" (Rule 212 HC). In both cases.

Here is their complete advice on overtaking:

www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/overtaking.pdf

I feel that I give other cars plenty of room so I'm sure it's fine. I think I was perhaps being OTT with regard to cyclists.

I have noticed when travelling as a passenger that other drivers give cyclists less room than I do.

You said:

"I have no problem overtaking other cars but you aren't requested to give them a good six foot berth."

This kind of implies that you give less room for cars than cycles.

Actually, although there is a 2 metre rule in France, the 6ft rule in the UK went a long time ago. Now, it is simply "plenty of room". That doesn't seem an unreasonable ask when we all share the same roads.

When you say:

" In future I will overtake as long as I can do so while remaining across the white lines as I would do when overtaking a car."

you are not covering yourself in glory.

sorry, x-post. I am glad you clarified and glad you give cyclists proper space.

That doesn't seem an unreasonable ask when we all share the same roads.

Of course it's not. I will make sure I do that.

I have no desire to have a cyclist under my wheels

TBH cyclists are more of a danger to me, a pedestrian, than car drivers are.
The cars stay on the road.
IME they obey the rules on pedestrian crossings.
I can hear a car approaching from behind. Not with bikes.

I think it's great that people cycle. I just wish that they had respect for pedestrians.. The last time I asked a cyclist to get off the pavement (not allowd to cycles) she told me to Fuck Off. She had whizzed past missing me by 1/2 "..... scared the Bejesus out of me....

I tend to cross over the white lines when I overtake cyclists. If I can't (e.g. in urban areas) I do so very carefully. I know a cyclist isn't going to shy like a horse, but it just seems awfully rude to buzz past really close.

Cycle lanes in this country, with a few exceptions, don't tend to be very usable. I'm comparing them to Dutch and Belgian cycle lanes which run alongside roads so you don't have an unwanted 3 mile detour to somewhere you don't want to go, nor have to dismount at every crossing.

But even footpaths and pavements are in short supply round here. Some of them start, then stop, leaving you stranded or walking along a national speed limit road, trying your luck with the traffic.

Peds are also quite a risk to cyclists. Blithely stepping off the kerb without looking, wandering across the cycle lanes, leaving litter and broken glass around on the floor.

And don't get me started on Mother Nature, the witch, making all those leaves fall of the trees and then making them wet with rain. Deliberately so riders will slip on them. It's an outrage.

I once got knocked down by a pedestrian, BMW6. He was crossing the road without looking and sent me flying. He was a rugby player, was most apologetic, and lifted me up with one arm off the road and my bike with the other. It wasn't a terrible experience...

More seriously, I have twice been knocked off my bike by cars, both times in the UK, once by a driver coming out of a side street without looking, I avoided him but he then immediately turned left and parked. Just cuts and bruises that time but when I was knocked off my bike on a roundabout, I knocked out my front teeth. I have a friend whose mother was killed by the infamous Scottish double cyclist killer, and know someone else who was killed on the quietest most rural road imaginable by a van driver on the wrong side of the road. Her leg ended up a long way from the rest of her body. I have 2 other friends who have suffered life changing injuries by cars driving into them from behind.

I've also suffered quite a bit of random abuse from passengers in cars, have had juice squirted at me a couple of times, and a car follow me with a manic chav shouting "get her".

I tend to cross over the white lines when I overtake cyclists.

Absolutely. I would only overtake where I could do that but I also previously wouldn't have overtaken two abreast even where I could cross the white lines on the roads round here.

Now I will feel comfortable to overtake them where there are centre lines because I know they mean that the road is wide enough to pass another car in either direction with plenty of room to it's fine to do the same to cyclists riding abreast.

There is a maximum of 14 of us.

That's a lot to overtake together, even in a pack. Why not split into two sevens for everyone's convenience and safety?

Those tales are awful LMA. And really sobering.

I get quite fed up with drivers who deliberately move towards the kerb in slow moving traffic so I can;t file past them one the inside. They know I am there as they have just passed me. A few times I've pushed their wing mirror in as a form of protest. If they can't navigate a lane, they need a bit of assistance.

That's a lot to overtake together, even in a pack. Why not split into two sevens for everyone's convenience and safety?
I read that largely as 'for drivers convenience' tbh. I already do a lot for drivers convenience and mist riders do all the time.

mist?? Most.

Goldmandra That's a lot to overtake together, even in a pack. Why not split into two sevens for everyone's convenience and safety?

Ah, they can't be an odd number, it better to be even! They would be better being a six and an eight. The pack formation is meant to be the most aerodynamic, allowing consistent training. Two cyclists lead and frequently change the leaders by one moving down the line and the other moving to the left. If its fast, they won't tend to stay together too long. The groups you have seen might not have been doing this and just out on a leisure ride. I think in Holland there tends to be smaller packs with more of a paceline, which is one cyclist leading followed by the group but they tend to use the whole road, and especially in some parts of rural Netherlands on a Sunday you would really be frowned upon to be driving around in a car. But Holland has a much higher population density than the UK so less space. Supposedly.

I think also the roads are busier than they were even 10 years ago, and that's when a lot of cycling clubs sort of established their training.

BMW

"TBH cyclists are more of a danger to me, a pedestrian, than car drivers are.
The cars stay on the road."

Did you see the DFT stats posted earlier? As a pedestrian on the pavement, you are over 100 times more likely to be killed by a car mounting the pavement than by a cyclist.

Ask yourself "how many people do I know who have been injured by cars" vs "how many people do I know that have been injured by bicycles?".

Personally, I have a close relative who was only 10yo when he was hit by a car jumping red lights at a crossing and left permanently disabled, and have several acquaintances and friends of friends who have been seriously hurt in road traffic accidents. I don't know anyone - nor even heard of friends of friends - who has been hurt by a cyclist.