To think cyclists should allow cars to overtake them?

[Twitterqueen]

If you're cycling and you know a car is behind you and wants to overtake, should you let them / facilitate the overtake or deliberately refuse and shout 'wait' at the car? When the road ahead is straight and clear for well over half a mile, when the car has been patiently waiting for a safe, straight stretch, there is no other traffic but the road is just that little bit too narrow for the car to want to do it without some kind of affirmation from the cyclist, ie stop pedaling for a few seconds and move a bit closer into the side of the road?

I just wince when I hear of anyone dropping their child off at nursery on a bike.

If you'd seen as many RTAs as I have (and I'm not a medic, just live near a busy road)...

Sunna. A lack of accidents doesn't mean you're a good driver. Maybe you've been lucky. More importantly maybe others have been lucky/got out the way in time.

You might not like lack of insurance but you'll have to live with it whether you like it or not.

As a cyclist I have no particular objection to displaying a number plate on my bike and having to have third party insurance, but only if everyone else has to as well. Currently if a pedestrian steps off the pavement without looking and a cyclist or driver crashes into them, causing damage to their bike/car or injuries, they're equally uninsured and unidentifiable.

I've personally had near-misses as a result of poor driving, poor cycling and poor "walking". If you're going for equality here then make the same rules apply to everyone.

You might not like lack of insurance but you'll have to live with it whether you like it or not

And that makes it OK? Cyclists are somehow financially immune from their idiocy and other drivers aren't. Legal but hardly just.

I suspect that's likely to change, I really hope so.

You Should wait, cyclists have as much right to the road as you.

I bet you are also one of those people who thinks pedestrians should get out of your way ( when there isn't a pavement) I deal with these twats everyday.

OP your ignorant and rude.

Motor vehicles are heavily regulated because they are so very dangerous.

It is not desirable to regulate people travelling by foot or using non-motorised, non-dangerous machines to travel.

It is in nobody's interests to demand the level of administration required if every road user needs to be registered and carry insurance.

It also strikes me as an unjustified intrusion into people's freedom of movement.

WillkommenBienvenue I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you say it you are wrong. Cars, lorries and buses cause congestion, cyclists do not. I've never been stuck behind a queue of cyclists, ever, but I sure as hell have been stuck behind mile+ queues of cars and lorries.

You can't nip through central london now because there has been a massive increase in the number of cars on the roads, not because there is an increasing number of cyclists.

Insurance situation isn't going to change. Like I said yesterday the govt are really wanting to encourage people to cycle. Not discourage them. They know that with compulsory insurance cycling rates would plummet.

I do actually believe in and have insurance myself. For my own benefit as well as anyone else's. if some hit and run driver wrecks my bike I don't want to have to pay 4k for another one.

And I don't know if cyclists are immune from their idocacy? If they caused an accident and didnt have insurance couldn't they be sued? Dunno.

I think they could, viva, as negligence. But then home insurance usually covers some legal liabilities too, not sure if that would cover it.

I have insurance too, though my bike isn't insured, just me as a rider.

I don't think it should be mandatory though. We simply need more awareness, more consideration and more education.

But people dont have to live with it, they could campaign and get it changed.
Nothing so funny as someone calling someone else ignorant when using incorrect grammar :)
I think the insurance should be to protect the cyclist themselves (some cars are apparently uninsured driven by people with no valid licence.)
I think the issue is cyclists didnt used to generally go so fast, less likely to endanger pedestrians, car drivers, skip lights. I mean when taking kids all cycling for fun you're less likely to behave dangerously, setting a bad example.

I suppose i put the behaviour down to
Risk takers
Commuting
No way to be fined/penalised

Its just encouraging it.
Maybe if it was more a family cycle their own bikes to school it wouldnt be some road race. Of course cars race too but i rarely see one not stop at lights (if they do they missed seeing them)

Why did you cut this?
VivaLeBeaver Mon 01-Dec-14 22:42:37
"Cyclists need to learn manners and consideration for other road users. they are not entitled and they do not own the roads"
No. Possibly one cyclist needs to learn manners. Not cyclists.

In my experience LOTS of cyclists need to learn some flaming manners, and so do a lot of car drivers!

I have lost count of the number of times i have seen cyclists go through red lights, across zebra crossings etc nearly hitting pedestrians - There was a great bit on a cyclist on 'police camera action' (or similar) a few years ago about some arrogant tosser (in Brighton?) who argued himself into a fine - twat

Crunchy.

You've copied and pasted part of my post but not the bit where its obvious that what I wrote refers to the cyclist that the OP was talking about possibly needs to learn some manners. From her one encounter with that cyclist she can't say all cyclists need to learn manners.

It could well be that the OP needs to learn manners and was revving her nuts off at the cyclist! Who knows I wasn't there. But there's generally two sides to every story.

If you want to say Crunchy that the cyclist you saw going through a red light needs to learn manner, etc then that's fine. But I know that not all cyclists need to learn manners. I know I don't.

I was hit last week by a HGV while walking on a pavement. I'm not saying that lorry drivers need to learn manners. I'm not that stupid. I'm quite aware that some bad drivers don't mean all drivers are bad.

As a law abiding decent cyclist believe me the red light jumper cyclists, etc wind me up as much as they wind you up. Just because we both ride bikes don't make me responsible for them, I don't own them, I'm not related to them, they're not my friend.

Nothing so funny as being a pedant about grammar when half their sentences don't make sense.

Interesting the red light and going throughness. ime it's drivers that actually do this faaar more than bikes. I think drivers just don't see it.
When setting off across the junction at lights it's usual now to let the last car turn across my path before proceeding - yes the one that 'sneaked through' on red. But other drivers tend to dicount that behaviour as largely it's something they do themselves. Possibly.

As for cyclists riding peloton style, taking up the whole lane, it is much easier/safer to pass a tightly bunched group of cyclists, than the same cyclists strung out over a long distance in single file.

This thread is certainly providing plenty of laughs. From Bulbasaur deliberately passing too close to Sunna who doesn't think s/he should have to look in mirrors or blind spot to Chile who acknowledged the islands in the road were there to stop unsafe overtaking but still overtook to Wilkommen who has the answer to 21st century traffic congestion - bikes are the problem and are clogging up the roads. Honestly every time I think it's impossible for somebody to say anything more laughable, up pops somebody else to take a shot at it.

It's really terrifying that any of you have licences and are responsible for other people's safety on the roads.

Please, please try and locate a grip and rethink your dangerous behaviour BEFORE you hurt somebody.

'Maybe if it was more a family cycle their own bikes to school it wouldnt be some road race' - d'y know, this is the time of day I see the most ignorant drivers.

Everyone is in a rush, they squeeze past, then cut me and the kids up, then sit there fuming when I overtake them in traffic. They don't give the kids enough space. They speed, or drive without lights. A BUS full of kids today had to do an sharp stop because I was an approaching on my bike and he was going to drive straight across a roundabout without looking to his right. Maybe motorised vehicles should be banned!

I live in a village, but school run time on the 30mph road there is just as hard as riding in London in rush hour!

I just think it's frightening how people don't get how easily they could kill someone.

Everyday to get to school dd and I make a right turn (she has a trailer bike thing attached to me so is peddling too). The right hand turn is on a straight bit of road and I (and dd) signal an appropriate distance in advance. What SHOULD happen is the cars coming up behind me (I always shoulder glance before signalling) slow and hold back allowing me to come to the middle of the road and then make the turn if no oncoming traffic. What actually happens I would say 8 times out of 10 is that the cars coming behind me ACCLERATE and overtake me - with me signalling and moving towards the centre of the road - on the RIGHT. This is of course very dangerous. I expect it and compensate accordingly thus possibly annoying the drivers do slow because I make damn sure they're keeping back. I don't wonder who those drivers who overtake a signalling cyclist and child are. They're some of the people on this thread. People who have no regard for others and are in fact both dim and callous. An unfortunate combination.

I'll just dip in again to correct something else from the queen of inaccuracies:

Sunna ^As has been said people can buy bikes and take to the road with no training or traffic awareness. They are not even insured to compensate those hurt by their actions or to pay for repairs of any damage they cause.

Doesn't seem fair to me. I'm not a great believer in rights with no responsibilities.^

In reality you'll find that the vast majority of cyclists do have insurance. That's because the vast majority of cyclists live in houses and have home insurance which provides third party cover. This insures them for cycling.

The really interesting bit is the standard exclusions on this third party cover exclude driving motor vehicles. This is obviously because the level of claims due to driving motor vehicles is so high that it is not a risk they are prepared to cover. Yet they are quite happy to insure cyclists...

Of course the other misunderstanding is who is insured. Even on the rare occasions when a cyclist causes damage to a car due to their own fault, cyclists are quite small, light and soft and don't do huge amounts of damage. Typically the sort of damage which if it was done by a car, the driver would choose to pay for the repairs in cash rather than risk losing their NCB and excess. I wonder if the same could apply to cyclists even if they didn't have insurance...

I'm not one to suggest that irresponsible cyclists should be able to avoid liability if they damage other people's property, but the lack of insurance is not only inaccurate, it's also an irrelevance. Not only that, but as mentioned before, if a cyclist hits a car it does tend to just be property, if a car hits a cyclist (a far more frequent occurrence) that's not necessarily the case.

Oh and Sunna and WelcomeWelcome really should check out the road casualty figures if they think it's the cyclists who need licensing, regulating and removing from the roads.

And equally - car hits house - you'll need some serious repairs. Cyclist hits house - house makes out just fine thanks. Cylist needs repairs! Same for lamp post/wall/ancient monument and so on. Cars do much , much more damage.

The reason for compulsory third party cover for motor vehicles is to cover damage done to humans by motor vehicles and the people in charge of them.

Cyclists don't pose any major risk to humans.

Sure, there are some twats who think that just because you are unlikely to kill someone that it's OK to risk breaking their limbs or causing them to have a miscarriage.

But there is no need to force cyclists to have insurance to cover the damage done to people by bikes, because that damage isn't even on the same scale as that done by motor vehicles.

When he was at University, a woman tried to sue my DH for damage done to her car when she turned right, across him, sending him over the bonnet.

A student lawyer defended him and there were several witnesses so the stupid cow lost