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?

Since the OP is back on this thread, can I check I'm understanding correctly? You were on a single track road and were expecting the cyclist to pull in to the far left of the road so that you could squeeze past?

BTW if you really think that out of "the hundreds of motorists I encounter daily" its "the handful of cyclists I come across are probably 50 percent ignorant entitled dangerous idiots" then I suggest you check the road casualty statistics to see how many people are killed by the dangerous cyclists, and how many are killed by the perfectly safe drivers.

OP I could be projecting here but do you think your view on cyclists is because you are more aware of them (a good thing)? Loads of drivers probably do twattish things, but unfortunately the risk associated with either an error or deliberately risky behaviour on two wheels is so much greater than on four.

BTW I notice many a twattish cyclists and it annoys me no end. Likewise we both mentioned dogs on cycle paths upthread - I encounter many well behaved dogs who come to heel or are on leash. Mostly (locally) I encounter idiots with herding breeds off leash on the cycle path. That's not 'most dog owners' either though. That's 'dog owners who choose to take their dogs with a natural herding instinct on route 1, off leashing during rush hour'.

I do think you're being a bit unfair and perhaps considering a narrow picture, but you're entitled to your view of course. From what you've posted though, the cyclist was not in the wrong (perhaps not uber-polite and deferential, but not wrong).

What do they do in the Netherlands?

I'm also surprised that 50% of the cyclists OP sees are "ignorant entitled dangerous idiots". I have seen some very idiotic cycling on occasion, but proportionally, I think there's a smaller % of idiotic cyclists than idiotic motorists. Perhaps because the consequences of risky behaviour are generally worse for cyclists?

And as for some posters not wanting to have to leave extra time in case they get stuck behind a cyclist - surely if you have to be somewhere at a set time, you leave extra time anyway? In the last week alone, I've had car journeys delayed by volume of (car) traffic, unexpected road works, lorries, tractors, cyclists, tailbacks due to road accidents and cars going 20 mph under the speed limit for no good reason. Why get hung up on delays caused by cyclists in particular, when there's so many other potential delays?

Shadowkat

Those cycle paths in the Netherlands look fantastic compared to here.

I got held up by buses too last week. They've only got the proper bus stop lay-bys on one side of the road near my house.

I commute by bike in London. I am quicker in traffic than a car (and I ride safely, legally and obey red lights). If I'm taking the lane it is because something about the road layout tells me it is safer for me to do so. Being stuck behind me for a short while won't delay your journey significantly.

I used to live up North and got serious hassle one night on the way home from work from an arse in an expensive car with a personalised plate. He was one of my neighbours and was very surprised to see me waiting outside his house when he finally got home - I waited to show him that letting a cyclist have the advanced stop wasn't going to slow his journey home it was the traffic and one way system....

Last night I almost got knocked off by a car turning left. I was cycling in a dedicated cycle path but this Porsche overtook me and the immediately turned in front of me. I'm really sorry but I think that is totally unreasonable.

I've asked for a go pro for Christmas as I feel so vulnerable a lot of the time.

Oh and having been on a bike once in your life doesn't entitle you to use the advanced stop box. you need to actually be on a bike!

I think one thing I wish all cyclists would do is have a fluorescent backpack cover and preferably fluorescent trousers - car drivers mainly see you from the back and your tiny flashing red light is rarely visible at all. Because the bike moves about and any reflectors are small they usually don't help either.

At junctions etc it's all fine, I just check my mirrors more and make sure I signal clearly but at night when visibility is bad and someone is wearing a black backpack and black bottoms they are almost invisible.

What about pedestrians Wilkommen?

Pedestrians don't walk on the road. Except in the countryside, where any sensible ones use a torch.

your tiny flashing red light is rarely visible at all. Because the bike moves about and any reflectors are small they usually don't help either.

It would help if you drove with your eyes open, Will.

Why get hung up on delays caused by cyclists in particular, when there's so many other potential delays

I agree. Very rarely does my journey get held up by cyclists, and even on the occasions that it does, its just minutes, thats all. Theres many more factors that hold me up in the mornings, which is why I leave plenty of time for my journey. Far less stressful that way and I'm less likely to act like some of the stupid cunts on this thread who think is ok to put vulnerable road users at risk of injury or death, because their very important journey has been held up for a few minutes.

The suggestion by some that cyclists should ride as close to the kerb as possible so drivers can squeeze past is frankly terrifying. As others have said it is the responsibility of those passing to do so safely. Current advice is for cyclists to "take the lane/primary position" (ie ride down the middle of the lane) where it would be unsafe for them to be passed. There is never a reason to really hug the kerb although most of the time passing can be helped by keeping towards the left.

Sorry to repeat as I know it's ready been said but I hate the idea of cyclists being pressured into putting themselves into a more vulnerable position in the road.

Gasman - that's happened before to me too and it is so irritating. The driver has overtaken you. HOW have they not seen you? How do they think it's safe to turn? The answer is I suspect they think you're slower than you are. Now I really am pretty slow so if you're nearly hitting me then your speed judgement is seriously warped.

Current advice is for cyclists to "take the lane/primary position"

From whom? That sounds like madness and a guarantee of causing maximum annoyance to other road users.

Cyclists will not have "equal rights" on the roads until they are forced to have a number plate and compulsory insurance. If they did that I'm pretty sure other road users would show them more respect. They want the best of both worlds and (in some cases) world domination.

Posted too soon.

If they are identifiable and can be held responsible for the results of stupidity then idiot cyclists would be much reduced in numbers and the decent ones afforded more respect.

"From whom?"

From govt endorsed and funded cycling bodies such as British Cycling who have studied all the research which proves its safer.

Cyclists legally already have equal rights n the road Sunna. So I'm afraid you're wrong saing it won't happen until we have insurance, etc.

The govt are never going to make insurance compulsory because they want to encourage cycling. People cycling saves the govt money. Reduces congestion and pollution. Lowers obesity rates therefore saving the nhs money.

Sunny cyclists do have equal rights on the road. Not in your head though it seems.
You really do need to inform yourself in the subject before you wind up killing someone.

Some people on this thread come across like that young woman who knocked a cyclist off his bike, drove off and then laughed about it on Twitter. Saying it served him right, etc.

Thankfully she was prosecuted, lost her job, etc.

Why is it madness? If it is not safe to pass it is not safe to pass. Primary position ensures that the cyclist is maximally visible to other users who are not tempted to pass without space.

I was taught this by an adult cycling course (govt backed) and have felt so much safer on the road since. I rarely hold anyone up for more than a few seconds which they can quickly make up if the road is clear ahead. If it is not it's not me holding them up is it?

TBH as most cyclists I am also a driver. If we all left our bikes at home and drove around I suspect we'd impede your journey far more. Those who are so opposed to sharing the road with cyclists should maybe put their efforts into campaigning for more off-road dedicated cycle tracks.

The thing I hate about getting stuck behind cyclists in my car is that I am sometimes then stuck in front of really scary maniacs in cars - tailgating me and trying to put pressure on me to overtake before there is a genuinely safe opportunity.

I sometimes "take the road" (as in deliberately drive closer to the centre) in my car to prevent bad drivers trying to double overtake my car and the bike (or often bikes) when it is clearly not at all safe to do so.

We know that being behind the wheel of a car can make people aggressive and lose consideration for fellow humans.

What's interesting is the people who are still arseholes when they are no longer driving, and boast about their dangerous behaviour

f they're hogging the road, we just pass them with just enough room to make it safe, but still uncomfortable for them that a big vehicle is close.

I find this thread quite comforting.

It was less than 4 years ago that I read a thread on here about how a cyclist who was killed by a bus was an example of "natural selection", with few dissenting opinions.

Admittedly I couldn't give one becAuse I was and unable to formulate an argument.

"...If they are identifiable and can be held responsible for the results of stupidity then idiot cyclists would be much reduced in numbers..."

Well, that hasn't worked for idiot drivers - not going by the numbers of them that I see on the roads.

guarantee of causing maximum annoyance to other road users.

Yes of course cyclists should be more concerned about not annoying drivers than their own personal safety. I meant what's more important, your happiness or my life?

Sunna you are a dangerous driver YOU should not be on the roads.