To get annoyed at cyclists in the middle of the road

[ILiveAtTheBeach]

There are loads round here. They don't cycle to the side. They cycle in the very centre of the lane you are in. So you can't overtake if it's busy. Thus you drive to your destination in first gear. I. Haven't. Got. Time. For. This. Aargh!

I will get flamed for agreeing with the OP.
The "leave earlier" argument is ridiculous. Rearrange my day on the off chance that I am or may not encounter a cyclist who has divine right to travel at a speed of their choosing - usually 4 miles a fortnight- which I have to accept because its what they want to do? Cars travelling at excessively slow speeds are a hazard and drivers can be fined for causing an obstruction and not keeping up with the traffic flow, but for a cyclist its ok?
There is a hill on the way to my work, very windy, no overtaking. There is almost always a cyclist, puffing away inch by inch, followed by a line of traffic sometimes up to half a mile long. How can one person have the right to hold up so many others simply because they think their preferred mode of transport has priority? If you want the exercise, get off the damned thing and push it up the hill so the rest of us can get on with the day without having to crawl along behind your Lycra-clad arse!

I don't know why some car drivers act like they have priority over other road users. They seem to think that their car is somehow more important than a motorcycle/cycle/horse.

Eh - did you read my post? I said that normally cyclists around here are very considerate and the crazy 15 minute delay behind the two cyclists was a one off

Yes I read your post. Very strange to be delayed for 15 minutes, but if it was a one off it is just one of those things that sometimes happens, not something that is generally representative of cyclists.

I live between a town and a village that are each 10-15 minutes away. Usually you are fine if you allow 15 minutes to get to school/swimming lessons/work, but there are sometimes delays, mainly caused by road works, sometimes caused by tractors, sometimes caused by random traffic. You do have to allow extra time if you want to be sure that you won't be late.

That would seem to be obvious.

Yes, and if you have kids with you, take them to a local park or somewhere for some food before you go to where ever you are going to.

I have a few friends I know cycle around our local towns so I find it helpful to think that any cyclist I come across could be one of my friends who I don't want to a) harm/kill or b) behave like a dick in front of and they realise itself me being a dick.

I always try to overtake a cyclist with my passenger side wheels on the other side of the white lines. I find the wider berth I give cyclists, the wider the cars behind me pass them.

There's an old bridge on my commute to work which is narrow but easily fits 2 large cars, one going each way (but no HGVs fortunately). The number of times I see a car go to overtake a cyclist just before the hump of the bridge is innumerable. So if a car is doing the same on the other side there will be a head on collision and both car drivers will be in trouble and both cyclists could well be killed. I therefore slow down and follow cyclists over the bridge. Especially because going both ways the roads widens to 2 lanes straight after so you only need to wait until the other side. But I get car drivers right on my tail harassing me to overtake the cyclist.

Yes OP I too get frustrated when I am delayed by a cyclist in front of me. But. I remember it could be a friend of mine and just suck it up for their safety.

There is almost always a cyclist, puffing away inch by inch, followed by a line of traffic sometimes up to half a mile long.

Must be a very long hill. I sometimes have to wait behind a cyclist on a hill for ooh maybe a minute?

Slow vehicles are very rarely prosecuted for dangerous driving. You would have to be driving erratically on the motorway. On the other hand many people are killed every year because of impatient drivers.

There is almost always a cyclist, puffing away inch by inch, followed by a line of traffic sometimes up to half a mile long.

Maybe its in the Alps?

if it was a one off it is just one of those things that sometimes happens, not something that is generally representative of cyclists

Yes that is what that means. At no point did I say it was representative.

That would seem to be obvious

HAhahahahahahahaaaaa.

take them to a local park or somewhere for some food before you go to where ever you are going to. What every time I have an appointment somewhere? So I don't have anything to do BEFORE leaving my house. If it's pissing down..if i have no money for going for something to eat....if my kids are ill... I am well aware that delays happen. I'm not overly concerned about them - just stated they do happen and have happened to me. I have also clearly stated that they have happened as a result of both cyclists and drivers. I'm just not buying the "everyone going on a journey should add X amount of time to allow for delays" cause that just isn't real life is it?

"everyone going on a journey should add X amount of time to allow for delays" cause that just isn't real life is it?

Not trying to be funny - genuinely confused. I do always allow an extra 10-15 minutes (sometimes more). If I allow the minimum time and there is an unexpected delay, I accept responsibility for being late.

Also, you are in a car. If you get somewhere early you can stay in the car.

Oh, and Senpai? The only thing that irritates me is that cyclists don't follow traffic laws. They want to be treated like cars, but then don't act like cars

As far as I can see more than half motorists exceed the speed limit regularly, drive too close to the vehicle in front (or too close to a cyclist), and have little empathy for other road users. Cyclists could teach most motorists a thing or two about observing traffic laws.

I wasn't aware the two ideas were mutually exclusive.

We were talking about bikes, not cars. Of course cars drive like idiots, everyone already knows that from driving to work every morning. Just because cars don't follow traffic laws, doesn't mean it gives bikes the right to as well. They're more vulnerable and have more to risk. Which is why it drives me nuts when they act like suicidal deer playing in the road.

-

Clearly where you are bicyclists aren't the most intelligent lot.
Not sure what kind of intelligence this came from, btw... what the hell?

LWegi...

A car goes fast. A bike goes slow. Fast cars are expected to avoid slow bikes. Yes?

A bike goes "fast". A pedestrian goes slow. But you seem to think bikes are incapable of avoiding pedestrians when they go much slower than a car. If a bike is incapable of slowing down and moving around a person, they obviously aren't intelligent enough to ride a bike in the first place and need to use the bus. Ergo, the bikers in your area must not be very intelligent if you truly feel they can't maneuver a simple side walk.

That said...

An average bike goes 15mph. Which means even if a child jumps in front of them they have much less momentum, longer reaction time, and longer stopping time than a car would going 25-30mph with a bike jumping in front.

If they are close to hitting a person or if the side walk is crowded, they slow down just like cars are expected to for a bike. The side walk is safer for them.

A bike crashing into a person will not be fatal, a bike is barely 230lbs, including the rider so stopping will be quicker since only 230lbs total needs to come to a stop. A car crashing into a bike will severely injure them, as a car is 1500lbs+ and if the driver doesn't hit the break pedal in time that 1500lbs+ of metal will break bones on it's weight alone not even accounting for the momentum, which with 1500lbs+ slows down the stopping time even more. Basic physics will tell you heavier objects stop slower than light ones.

Therefore, bikes should have to ride the sidewalks, not the roads.

A bike crashing into a person will not be fatal

It's certainly faithful if either of them is knocked into the path of a car.

Most importantly there are no rules for how pedestrians use pavements. They can veer from side to side, stop, run, turn round, have poor vision, be 2 years old, use a phone, eat food, have poor mobility, suddenly lie down on the road and have a tantrum, have a dog on a lead, read a magazine - and all because they aren't supposed to be sharing the pavement with vehicles travelling at 15 mph.

Fatal, not faithful!

Why would it make someone stressed by a car being driving at 25mph in a 60mph zone? Surely it would be the other way around that would be stressful as it could kill a person

My great grandmother was killed by a bike running into her as a pedestrian.

They can cause serious injury and death that is why it is a criminal offence.

Are you not in the UK Senpai?

i agree with the op too, it's bloody dangerous to cycle in the middle of the road, though road here it's the bloody dress up like your in the tour de france on a sunday morning brigade who cycle all over the place.

But you seem to think bikes are incapable of avoiding pedestrians when they go much slower than a car.
Of course they are not incapable, but as I and others explained, pedestrians aren't expecting bikes nor have mirrors, and there are very vulnerable pedestrians who think they are and deserve to be safe on pavements. Children, blind, elderly and so on.
Surely it's not hard to grasp.

southeastastra - have you read the thread and the explanations by cyclists as to why it is often much safer to do exactly that?

I'm just not buying the "everyone going on a journey should add X amount of time to allow for delays" cause that just isn't real life is it?

If it's not important I don't leave extra time. If it's important I do add that extra time. It's common sense.

it's bloody dangerous to cycle in the middle of the road,

How? And why?

Annoying, maybe, but dangerous???

Lweji bang your head against a brick wall its easier and the wall will understand more

Why would it make someone stressed by a car being driving at 25mph in a 60mph zone? Surely it would be the other way around that would be stressful as it could kill a person

Because it is dangerous too. It causes other drivers to overtake and with cars coming at 60mph in the other direction that can cause accidents that can be fatal not only to the overtaking vehicle but all other vehicles nearby. So yeah - it's stressful.

A bike crashing into someone would not be fatal
It's not common but it is entirely possible and happens.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263354/Cyclist-knocked-down-and-killed-teenage-girl-court-hears.html

no i haven't read all the thread it went on a bit

dangerous as people will overtake forcing them into oncoming traffic

we can think we would like to live in a lovely bicycle loving town like amsterdam but it isn't going to happen.

Driving at 25pmh does not cause people to overtake, that like saying having a wooden shed is the cause of an arsenist setting fire to them. No one makes a driver overtake dangerously

You are projecting the blame away from the guilty party to justify a dangerous manover in a car

but southeastastra as is explained so patiently above that is exactly why people are cycling in the middle of the road. On an average road you shouldn't overtake a cyclist unless you can safely go onto the opposite side of the road. If you can do that safely then it makes no different if the cyclist is in the gutter or the middle. If you can't do it safely then you shouldn't be passing the cyclist until it is clear.

Cyclists cycle in the middle of the road to stop motorists shaving past them at times when it is dangerous to pull out.