To think this cyclist should have pulled over?

[MsMarvel]

I'll say first that indont know the specific rules of what a cyclist should do, im not a cyclist and im haooy to be told that actually cyclist was in the right...Im not posting this to start a bunfight!

Was driving to work this morning, along a windy country road that is pretty busy, lots of traffic both ways, hgvs etc.

Get stuck in a queue of traffic going about 5 miles an hour and look ahead to see that about 3 cars in front of me, aorry is stuck behind a cyclist.

At this point im thinking fair enough, windy road, cars cant safely overtake, doing the safe thing and sitting behind cyclist until safe opportunity arises, but knowing the road that could take miles.

See a sign for a parking bay and think that the cyclist can easily pull over without even stopping and letting the (now 10) cars pass him. He cycles right past, staying very confidently in the middle of the road lane. In the end cars started overtaking him on dangerous spots, which isnt acceptable no matter how frustrated you are, but AIBU to think that the cyclists could have moved over slightly to avoid the dangerous isituation occuring?

If it was a slow car or lorry with a queue of 10 people behind him there would be no discussion over whether they should have pulled over, but not sure if the rules are different for cyclists...

[5moreminutes]

ThisPan because there is no reason for cars to be going slower than bikes unless there is a traffic jam or it's a 30 zone and the cyclist has managed to get above a very low speed limit by going all out down hill...

[YelloDraw]

Well, I'd have pulled over into the bay and let cars go past. But then I'm not a complete dick head and sometimes you do the 'nice' thing even if it is your 'right' to keep doing what you are doing.

[UnexpectedBaggage]

doctoratsea do you realise that the word you used to describe car drivers is considered disablist and thus offensive on MN?

No, it isn't. MNHQ have made that clear on this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2699995-tv-on-when-visitors-are-round?pg=1

[carefreeeee]

The point is that although the cyclist's behaviour might have been irritating it was not of itself causing danger to anyone. Whereas anyone driving any kind of car/lorry/van etc is causing an immediate risk of death to others just by choosing to drive it. Therefore they should be more tolerant towards vulnerable road users, however 'annoying' they may be.

As an aside some people tend to get annoyed very quickly. I would usually pull in fairly quickly to let a car past on a narrow lane (unless a steep hill) but some drivers get infuriated within less than 5 seconds - I kid you not - beeping and accelerating at you as soon as they set eyes on you. These are probably the same ones who come on here and claim they were stuck for half an hour behind a cyclist doing 5 mph....

I don't see why as a cyclist i should instantly dive off the road to let someone past. If they are stuck for more than a few seconds fair enough, but this is very rarely the case - usually they overtake pretty soon without any problem.

On a busier road it might be tricky as the cars can quickly build up a queue and if you let them past you would only have to do it again every 30 seconds as there is so much traffic. I personally would avoid these roads but of course cyclists and horse riders have the right to be there, and to go at a slow pace if they want/need to.

[seventhgonickname]

I don't know where others live but tractors don't pull in to allow queues of traffic pass around here.I mostly get annoyed at the hgv drivers in country lanes when the are going in the opposite direction and drive down the middle of the road expecting you to be able to evaporate into the hedge.

[BluePancakes]

My bugbear on country roads are the 40mph-drivers - you know, the ones who drive solidly at 40mph on a winding country road, where the conditions are good, dry with high visibility, so no need to go much slower than 60, but due to the windiness/hills it's near impossible to overtake safely so a massive queue develops behind them. Then, when you hit a village, the speed limit changes to 30mph, but the idiot still drives at 40 so now the queue is behind me because I'm obeying the speed limits. Finally, when we come out of the village, I have further idiots trying to overtake me as I'm accelerating back up to 60, before I have to slow again, as I've caught back up to the car that just overtook me, as they're now stuck behind the 40mph driver.

[WankersHacksandThieves]

bluepancakes Are you me?

I do a journey every day that goes 20/30/50/60/40/30 - I regularly have people in front of me that do 40 for all of it (well maybe not the 20 but pretty much all the rest) :(

[5moreminutes]

Oh god yes BluePancakes - the ones who drive at 40 in a 60 zone almost inevitably still drive at 40 in a 30 zone, and veer towards the middle of the road in the few places it might be possible to overtake them on straight, clear stretches of national speed limit road...

[MsMarvel]

To give abit more info, layby was maybe the legth of 6-7 cars, on a straighter bit of road, (and no hills!) but not straight for long enough for a car to overtake keeping in mind the upcoming bend.

Cyclist would have had to slow down slightly in the layby to leave enough time for the cars to pass, but qouldnt have had to actually stop, if timed well.

Country road was an A road so major-ish but still pretty windy (lovely scottish roads...)

[PlotterOfPlots]

MsMarvel you know cyclists don't have mirrors don't you? Try assessing the queue length and speed differentials next time without using any of your mirrors - a quick glance over the shoulder doesn't give anything like the same level of info.

Also a cyclist's opinion of whether it's a hill and a driver's opinion are often completely different things! Depends on wind too.

[ThisPanCan]

Hmmm...average car length about 10 feet. 6 cars equals 60 feet.

Are you really saying that the person on the bike could have slowed down slightly but wouldn't have to stop, in order to allow 10 cars past, given that he would have been traveling around 15-20mph rather than the 'claimed' 5 mph.

Do you see why this OP and the later detail looks so inauthentic, and gets filed in the cabinet with the rest of the bike bashing threads??

[WankersHacksandThieves]

Cyclist would likely be unaware of exactly how many cars he was holding up or what length they were etc. But he would be aware that he'd been holding up at least 1 vehicle, presumably for a reasonable period of time since it has allowed a queue to build, so regardless he could have pulled over to let the car he did know was there to pass and then join on at the back of the group of cars when he then discovered that there were more than 1.

Cyclist seem to have no issue bobbing in and out of lanes/on and off pavements/across pedestrian crossings etc when it suits them to do so.

Common courtesy.

[BeingATwatItsABingThing]

Blue, you could have taken those words from my head and typed them up. This annoys me no end! It's not an average speed for these stretches of road!!

[ThisPanCan]

Well no, person on bike we are told could have slipped into the laybye and by simply slowing down could have let the world and his dog past. Which s ridiculous.

The trouble with providing inaccurate information which can be shown to be so leads to doubt about lots of other 'facts' being reported.

And by the same token car drivers have no issue with 'nipping through' on red lights, speeding, driving with no insurance, drunk, kill people and clog up our towns and cities for the purpose of the carriage of one person.

Touche.

[5Foot5]

unescorted presumably the cyclists going faster than the cars are either undertaking queues of traffic or breaking the speed limit, if they are travelling faster than the cars?

5more No they aren't doing either, but in a twisty hill a cyclist can easily go faster than a car. A car rarely manages the speed limit as soon as there are a few bends. A cyclist can go much faster than a car around a corner.

unescorted I drive on the Cat and Fiddle road very regularly and I have seen cyclists overtaking cars on the inside. On the occasion I am thinking of there were lots of cyclists - some of them individuals out for a ride and many serious cyclists doing time trials or similar. On the downhill stretch where there were bends, the cars were having to go slowly because they couldn't safely pass some of the cyclists. Meanwhile other , faster cyclists caught up with the queue of cars. Some overtook on the outside, some on the inside and some even began to overtake one side and then the other weaving in and out between the cars. Incredibly difficult for the drivers in that situation.

I have to admit when I set off up that road and I can see a club cycling event is taking place then my heart sinks. This has nothing to do with me being impatient and not wanting to be held up. It is because I know the behaviour of some of these cyclists could make it a difficult and stressful few miles.

[ThisPanCan]

and of course why on earth would it be incumbent on person on bike to pull in to let one driver past?
Are you really suggesting that?

[WankersHacksandThieves]

Statistically more bikes jump red lights than cars. I know people who regularly go to the pub for a few pints after a bike ride and then cycle home.

I agree that car drivers do all the things listed but per car journey made the instances are actually very low unless we are talking about 22 in a 20 limit, etc. and not all car journeys carry one person.

Cyclists often have no insurance and are drunk and skip lights, the difference is that they are less likely to kill someone, though it's possible they cause an accident between other vehicles or they hit a pedestrian. They are for sure far more vulnerable than car drivers but it's the fact that they are aware of that vulnerability, still dick about on the roads in the stubborn assertion that it must always be the cars fault. there was a argument debate on here before about the possibility of having an assumption of fault in accidents on behalf of the car driver in all cases. Don't really want to get into that one again though :o

[WankersHacksandThieves]

and of course why on earth would it be incumbent on person on bike to pull in to let one driver past?
Are you really suggesting that?

Well, why not?

Would you deliberately stop someone getting past you when they clearly want to go faster than you because they are only one person?

[ThisPanCan]

Wanker - I am suggesting that most of the assertions you made there are just made up, and there is no way of supporting or denying them. It's evidence of nothing other than a prejudice.

[ThisPanCan]

Because the driver can wait until it's clear and safe. People on bikes are not 2nd class citizens - car isn't king.

I'd ride at my normal speed and IF someone wanted to over take me they can do when it's safe.

Crumbs, some attitudes and thought processes on this thread are bonkers.

[UnexpectedBaggage]

I'd ride at my normal speed and IF someone wanted to over take me they can do when it's safe.

How arrogant are you?

Crumbs, some attitudes and thought processes on this thread are bonkers.

And mostly yours.

[ThisPanCan]

Arrogant? I am applying the HC there. You must have heard of it?

[IrianOfW]

It would have been nice if he had pulled over but the onus is on the drivers who overtook dangerously not to do so. However why he was on the road makes a difference to how unreasonable he was being IMO - if he was cycling for pleasure/exercise/training he could have pulled over. If he was trying to get somewhere (the thing that bikes used to be used for) not so much. If you half an hour to get to work you don't have the time to keep stopping and pulling over whenever a tail builds up.

[WankersHacksandThieves]

Nope there are statistics available from reputable sources, they've been posted on threads before and I'm happy to look for them again.

I'm not denying that there are terrible drivers out there, but cyclists seem to be supported as being squeaky clean.

I think the stat if I remember it correctly said that there were something like 10 (or maybe even 100) times more red light jumping accidents involving cars than cyclists but clearly there are more that 100 times more car journeys made than bike journeys so statistically bikes jump the lights more often or are certainly involved in a higher ratio of accidents caused by them jumping lights which may of course be a different thing.

Call me prejudice all you like. If you really want evidence of cyclists drinking after their bike ride, I can give you the name of the pub and approximate day and time and you can go along and look for yourself.

maybe I'll need to get a dash cam and send you the evidence of bikes weaving in and out and over the pavement/pedestrian crossing since I am clearly talking bollocks.

The dash cam would also clearly pick up drivers doing shit driving as well though, I am not saying that doesn't exist.

[WankersHacksandThieves]

Arrogant? I am applying the HC there. You must have heard of it?

yes, there is a bit in it about slow moving vehicles taking the opportunity to allow other vehicles to pass...