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...

yes IF there is a tail back. NOT a bike has to pull over every time a car wants to go faster. Whic hwas the scenario I was answering to.

Well no one suggested that scenario.

The comment was made that the bike wouldn't necessarily know how many people were waiting, I pointed out that he would be aware that at least one vehicle had been behind for a reasonable period of time. So, he could have taken the opportunity to let that vehicle and any others past when there was an opportunity, it's not just about the amount of vehicles, it's about the time they've been waiting too. He could easily take a judgement on the likely size of the build up based on the general busyness of the road and the time he was aware of the vehicle for.

What is the most frustrating is when we are out walking and they seem to consider the country foot paths (clearly signed no cyclists) fair game as well and wizz down them, tinkering their little bell for you to shift out of the way.

I'm not sure many serious cyclists would have a bell on their bike.

DH complains about the opposite. People walking their dogs or just strolling along a specific cycle route. If they hit anyone at the speed that they cycle along those paths they'd do someone & themselves some serious damage.

I'm a serious cyclist and I've got a bell on my bike. And I pull into laybys etc. where it's appropriate to do so. One of the difficulties with this is that you often have a car (or, just as often, white van) rammed so far up your arse that to stop would run a significant risk of them driving straight into your back wheel. In such circumstances there's no safe alternative but to keep on pedalling.

I agree that a lot of cyclists act like twats. So do lots of drivers. The drivers kill and seriously literally thousands of times more people than the cyclists.

When did we stop putting mirrors on bikes anyway? I used to have a mirror on mine and my friend had two....and they were on her Chopper

Professor Google/Amazon tells me that bike mirrors are indeed available and cheap and some fancy pancy ones even attached to bike helmets!

yes wanker - you've just re-asserted that a person on a bike should be expected to pull over to allow at least one vehcle past.

And now, according to your last post the bikist is being expected to do a quick running survey of traffic trends and road usage and estimate the number of vehicles behind him. Would that include vehicle colours, whats on the cd players etc?

I've a bell on my bike.

I think it's required to be there at the point of sale for all new bikes.

FFS, not another thread.

FFS don't be ridiculous - the bike rider (the same as every other road user) should be aware of road conditions including how busy it is etc yes, and yes, if he has held up a vehicle who want's to go faster for a period of time and has a safe opportunity to let him past, then why wouldn't he? Anything else is just bloody mindedness and causes frustration and accidents.

Highway code and police advice is that if someone is tailgating you then best practice is to find somewhere safe to let them past and carry on your journey. I'm not saying the car is always tailgating, but the same principle applies. When out driving we often pull in and allow vehicles to pass if we are going slower as we might want to enjoy the scenery, it may be an unfamiliar road etc. So, should we just be bloody minded and tootle along at 40 in a 60 just because technically it's only one car and therefore not a tailback? What about if the car behind gets so fed up and makes an unsafe maneuver and ends up killing someone in a car coming, sure it's the drivers fault but if you can prevent frustration with little or no impact then seriously why wouldn't you? I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need to pull over the second another vehicle appears behind you, that's obviously unnecessary.

So Wankers in your world, it's okay for a car driver to tailgate a cyclist (thereby endangering them) but not okay for the cyclist to refuse to pull over?

As I've explained upthread, you'll often have a car so far up your arse that it's not safe to slow down as s/he risks going into the back of you.

Wanker - we're just going to have to disagree. Can't be bothered with any more internet table tennis. It isn't up to a bike rider to make one driver's driving experience less bothersome by making their own more bothersome. What your saying is not consistent with the HC or anything sensible.

I said they didn't need to be tailgating for the principle to apply and also if the car is attempting to overtake, it may very well be closer than normal.

All I am saying is that common courtesy applies both ways.
And yes, we will have to disagree as common courtesy and application of the highway code doesn't seem to apply to some groups of cyclists.

The Highway Code says slow movers should pull over and let traffic overtake. Pancan Or doesn't that apply to you?

Do you know where it says that unexpectedbaggage? Genuine question, I'm interested to know. I wasn't aware of it being in the Highway Code, though I do generally pull over where it is safe to do so, out of common courtesy.

As a cyclist when Im i. A city im often going faster than the cars.

Do they show consideration and pull over for me?

Do they bollocks, fucking selfish wankers thinking it's ok to hold the cyclists up all the time. hogging the roads and being entitled. Bastards.

And btw in more rural areas I frequently pull over for cars.

I have a bell and use it.

I have a mirror.

I stop for all horses and take the flag off the back of my bike until they've gone past. One day there was some horse event and I had to stop literally more than 100 times as the amount of horses was crazy but I did for every single one!

dancingbear I shared a picture saying that on like the very first page.

UB - have a proper read of what I had written and you will find your answer.

You appear to be another driver to whom the HC is a stranger.

Rule 169:“Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle."

I don't mind individual cyclists or small numbers (and I cycle myself as well as driving) but it does annoy me when there are big groups of lycra clad default white middle aged middle class males from cycle clubs going up local country lanes at the weekend causing a substantial tailback of traffic. I'm all for fitness but why should your hobby make people late getting to theirs?

Yesterday, about 40 other drivers and I were stuck behind a slow-moving and very wide agricultural vehicle. We went for several miles at a crawl, and nobody was able to overtake as it was a winding country road and there was a lot of traffic coming the other way.

The driver pulled into the first lay-by that was big enough, and let us all past.

I'm struggling to think of any A road where a single cyclist wouldn't be able to be overtaken pretty regularly. Around corners maybe, but there are always straight sections occasionally, and if the cyclist is only doing 5mph it would be very quick to overtake them. That is different to a tractor where it is often impossible to overtake unless they pull in.

The cyclist near me all seem very entitled. There is a long stretch of road with a cycle path, which they refuse to use preferring to cause traffic to build up behind them!

If all the cyclists are not using the cycle path, there will be a good reason for it. A lot of them are not fit for use and some are downright dangerous.

We often get cyclist on our lane which leads onto the main road, its maybe 3-4 miles long and very windy and difficult to overtake safely.

However, as long as cyclists aren't riding 2 abreast they have every right to be cycling on the road and i wait until its safe to pass.