Who was in the right me or the cyclist?

[crazycatladys]

Had a huge argument with a cyclist today and thinking about it, maybe i was wrong or was she? Let me know what you think...

Turned into a road which could only fit one car down and some cars were parked on the left, It is a road near my house and i use it often. A cyclist was coming the opposite direction. She was riding as if she was going to go into me, in my opinion she could of went on the pavement to get around me, the pavement is dipped in several places or waited on the side however she choose to ride right up to my car, bang on it and we started arguing.
I said to her she is not a car and she can go around me i cannot go around her because there is no room, she said i should of waited for her to pass.

who was right?

[duckyneedsaclean]

Some cyclists don't go in the cycle lane because they don't want to be held up by slower cyclists.

So they go on the main carriageway and slow down other vehicles, and increase their vulnerability. Sigh.

[MetalMidget]

I can't tell if the OP is a troll, or a genuinely stupid driver with a dangerous lack of knowledge about the rules of the road.

[BarbaraofSeville]

Magnum I agree with you on the cyclists and lights issue, but until you have tried to use a cycle path you should not comment on why some cyclists don't use them.

Cycle paths are often full of parked cars, pedestrians not paying attention, broken grates, litter, broken glass, traffic signs, or they stop and start without warning, cross busy roads and hence dangerous, are narrower than the recommended width, or are dangerous or impractical for all manner of reasons, so sometimes it is easier and safer to use the road, as they have the right to do so.

And for every commuting cyclist, that is one less car on the road. Imagine how bad traffic would be if all those cyclists drove instead.

[SummerTimeSoon]

I agree that cyclists should be treated with the same respect as any other road user and given the right of way and space they're entitled to but I do think as another road user banging cars and being aggressive is wrong. Road rage doesn't help matters and if a car driver was cut off by another it would be unacceptable to start hitting out and shouting, it's best to be sensible and keep on driving safely, same goes for cyclists I think it's unacceptable to get aggressive.

[OneMagnumisneverenough]

Oh Barbara I have used the cycle path and I know exactly why they don't use it. In this case it's because there are side streets and the cycle path has give way on it to the side streets so if they use it they may be inconvenienced if they have to follow the rules and stop and wait for vehicles exiting/entering and they don't want to do that so they use the road instead where they then have right of way. I realise that waiting or at least checking, might be a tad inconvenient, but instead of getting on with that, they choose instead to inconvenience others. I suppose in the end it's swings and roundabouts with someone having to bear the brunt of the issues of there not being good space for everyone to use safely. I'd quite like for my teenagers to be able to cycle to school but can't as they would have no option other than to cycle up and down a 60 limit country road and I don't think that's safe.

I do think though that in the same way that a car is expected to have fully functioning lights which have to be used, bikes should be the same. Not only for their own safety, but also for pedestrians crossing etc. Though maybe we should go the whole hog and require pedestrians to be lit up too :) Especially runners who seem to favour black running gear...

[gasman]

magnum why don't you address your concerns to the council.

Your cycle path sounds like a lot of cycling infrastructure - terminally badly designed.

Would you seriously want to drive along an A-road where you had to stop to give way at every side road. Especially when the energy to restart came from your legs and not just a slight depression of your right foot?

Of course you wouldn't and you are naive to think that anybody would.

I am totally fucking sick of moronic officials wasting money on schemes that either put a cyclists at more risk or inconvenience them in a way they wouldn't inconvenience a car. And then this is compounded by moronic drivers whinging that we don't use the facilities, Yup we don't because they aren't fit for purpose.

They cycle route I used to use to get to work (central London) involved a right turn. The right Turn was controlled by traffic lights but was designed in such a way that cyclists had to dismount and walk across the traffic Island merged itnwith the pedestrians - when I'm walking I don't want my ankles bashed by a bike and when I'm cycling I really don't see why I shouldhave to get off, That is like controlling the entry into a side street for drivers with a gate that requires them to get out and open it.

It is bonkers. So the schemes become enormous white elephants that inconvenience everyone.

[Redderred]

You are clearly in the wrong. Why couldn't you have waited 30 seconds?
But most cyclists are menaces, I (pedestrian) nearly got ran over by one the other week because they went through a red light!

[OneMagnumisneverenough]

sorry gasman, I was probably confusing things there, the cycle route is in a normal 30 zone, there is no cycle path on the A road, otherwise my boys would be using it to get to school regardless of whether they had to stop and wait.

I do appreciate that they would rather not stop and wait occasionally but equally I'd rather not travel a mile or two at 10-15 miles an hour as I can't safely pass whilst driving along side an unused cycle path. They are currently doing some more stuff to it (widening it and narrowing the road further) and tightening the bends into the side streets which I take it is in order to have cars slow further before turning in which is fine. I guess we will see if that makes any difference. Though for other reasons (eliminating a level crossing) I think that this route will soon not be a through road for vehicles so it may force the cyclists down the cycle path if that still allows them to cross the railway further down. cars and pedestrians will be re routed to a new bridge. So yes, could be a lot of money spent on something that in the next year or two becomes a non issue.

[BolshierAryaStark]

No most cyclists are not menaces, some are.
OP goady fucker as has already been pointed out numerous times you were clearly in the wrong & might want to brush up on your Highway Code.
As for the vehicle excise bollocks some choose to spout to justify their behaviour to cyclists-Our house owns two cars both of which have a high duty paid on them, we're also a 4 bike household so fuck the fuck off.

[OneMagnumisneverenough]

My rule of thumb, even though I am not always the most reasonable person on earth or indeed a perfect driver is, what would I like a vehicle to do if it was my child on the bike/the learner driver/the jogger etc? I also take care to pass on to my own children the possible consequences of some of the unsafe activities we see when we are in the car/out on bikes/walking so that they can hopefully be aware of others might do and also have some consideration for others. I try to do this instead of swearing etc :o

[SoupDragon]

for every commuting cyclist, that is one less car on the road

Very unlikely. Not every cyclist can drive, not every cyclist has a car, I imagine that many would use public transport.

[witsender]

Many don't use cycle lanes here because they are full of potholes as the edge of the road gets neglected. It's not hugely safe to cycle through with cars everywhere, similarly you are very vulnerable stopped on a corner waiting for cars to turn round you, I would always expect to wait for a cyclist to cross the end of an adjoining road in the same way that I would a car.

[DropYourSword]

"Could of went"? What on earth do you mean? Do you mean "could have gone", perhaps?

xenapants this is just unnecessary pedantry. If you genuinely can't work out what the meaning is here, you have more of an issue that the writer to be honest. Yes, it's not correct, but the meaning is obvious and you pointing this or doesn't actually make you look intelligent. It makes you look like a bit of a twat.

[malmi]

which neither party comes away from looking particularly good, but it's clearly the car driver who was at fault

[Magicpaintbrush]

If the obstruction (parked cars or similar) is on your side of the road then you stop and wait as it's not your right of way, let the oncoming traffic past until the road is clear. That's surely an easy enough thing to remember? The cyclist shouldn't have thumped your car though, but I can understand why she was upset at the possibility of being squished by your car.

Can we have a moan about middle lane hoggers now? :-) :-)

[SohowdoIdothis]

OP, read the highway code before you drive again.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

Can we have a moan about middle lane hoggers now? :-) :-) Can we, can we?

Also there is something called a Saskatchewan roadblock. When two cars drive at the same speed side by side and no one can pass. Bastards.

[whatsthatcomingoverthehill]

Good to see that a pretty obvious question about a particular incident, where the cyclist was clearly not in the wrong, has yet again seen completely unrelated supposed cycling misdemeanors, with 'cyclists' being seen as one homogenous group where the crimes of one individual are held against the rest.

"Cyclist think they own the road"
"i think all cyclists should be banned from all roads, entitled bastards."
"Cyclists can be a pain in the backside"
"You pay road tax ... And insurance... So you win"
"Cycling on the pavement is fine when they choose to do it."
"There are some things which make me really mental, such as cyclists with no lights and dark clothing, headphones in their ears, jumping a red light (one of those morons almost hit me and my daughter once as we were crossing the road on green)"
"However I do think that some cyclists don't take proper precautions and often cycle without lights and wearing dark clothing "
"So they go on the main carriageway and slow down other vehicles, and increase their vulnerability. Sigh."
"But most cyclists are menaces, I (pedestrian) nearly got ran over by one the other week because they went through a red light!"

[lljkk]

I would have gone on the pavement myself (as a cyclist).
And been flamed on here for it.
The pavement that gets used by 3 walkers for a combined total of 3 minutes a day, usually.
Sometimes being nice is against the rules & other ideology.

[OneMagnumisneverenough]

Oh christ, now we have the thread police...99% of threads end up talking about other stuff than the OP.

[diddl]

"I would have gone on the pavement myself (as a cyclist)."

That's great if you could easily get onto it!

Here we have cycle paths, or rather you can ride on the pavement.

There are places where being on the road is easier, though.

[InsufficientlyCaffeinated]

I cycle commute and car drivers do this to me all the time. They just assume because they're in the bigger vehicle the can force people out of the way, same for pedestrians crossing side streets and people driving at them. You were in the wrong if she was on the road first. I wouldn't have banged on your car probably but sometimes you can have a few incidents like this on a short journey and just get incredibly angry.

And to people saying all cyclists do x, do bore off.

Thanks to those saying the cyclist was in the right. Sometimes just trying to get to places makes me despair for humanity, it's nice that some of you don't hate us just for the mode of transport we use

[ComposHatComesBack]

It constantly amazes me how people, seemingly utterly unaware of the rules of the road manage to get through their test or don't end up in a multiple pile-up every time they go out driving.