AIBU to bloody hate cyclists

[FortyAndFlagging]

I have just trailed three cyclists during the course of the day. Honest to God, why don't they just pull over and let people pass?

All these people who say that bikes won't kill someone when they run a red lights and cars do. You missed the point.

As a pedestrian, I don't fancy getting seriously injured by some hopped up cyclist either running a red light.

Cyclists should be fined for running red lights, and if you wish to cycle which I'm not against, be registered, do a test. Be on the road fine, but don't break the rules or do a silly manouvre just because you're a cyclist. We all deserve to be safe not just cyclists.

I don't think anyone is disputing that cyclists should try not to hit people, and can cause serious harm if they do. Unlike a car, when a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is likely to come out just as badly as the victim! However, cyclists simply are not the greatest danger to pedestrians on our roads.

You say "we all deserve to be safe, not just cyclists", but many of the posters on this thread clearly DON'T think cyclists deserve to be safe. This thread was started by a car driver (i.e. the least vulnerable road user group), and other car drivers have posted aggressive threats and jokes about hurting/killing cyclists. Given the number of cyclists killed every year, and the level of dangerous aggression cyclists receive from drivers, it's not funny at all.

We all deserve to be safe not just cyclists.
Yes, we do. Do you understand the relative safety stats between people on bikes and people in vehicles?

(Update to my earlier post, we've just had the 3rd death of the day on the roads. 2 more to come today. None of them caused by two wheels, yet where is the focus? )

fairweathercyclist I am fine with cyclists using bells. I meant those who cycle along at some speed expecting everyone to dive out their way. And who don't seem to realise or care that some people are deaf or can not move fast.
My point really was that there are idiots who drive cars, who rise cycles, etc. If you are an idiot you are going to be a danger to road users who are more vulnerable than you.

@twojackrusselsandamoggie

Yes that's right. To overtake a cyclist safely you should be over on the other carriageway, as, as the HC states, you need to give cyclists the same space you would give a car. Hence the HC saying riders can ride two abreast. If they are in a single file line, you'll be over the other side of the road for longer, which is more unsafe.

Cyclists are entitled legally to take up as much space as your car. You do not have more right than them to be one the road.

Yes I repeat, to overtake safely I would have needed to be on the opposite carriageway. Correct. I agree. No need whatsoever to @ me, quote me, and then somehow use it as an opportunity to patronise me and tell me off. Sanctimonious much.

Buzzshitbag There are a lot of car accidents. Just that when cyclists are hit the consequences tend to be more deadly. Those idiot car drivers hit cars too, I have had some very narrow misses with cars being driven idiotically and have seen cars overtaking on windy roads that have narrowly missed being in a major car accident, including once when a car nearly hit me coming in the opposite direction overtaking on the opposite carriageway. We were inches away from being killed by him. Those same drivers are extremely dangerous to cyclists.
I do think that some cyclists seem to think car drivers have a vendetta against them, when it is I suspect the same idiot car drivers driving like that with everyone. So I hate getting stuck behind cyclists on a windy country road, but I wait until I can pass safely. Idiot car drivers don't whether it is a cyclist or car they get stuck behind.

I don't actually agree that over taking two cyclists in single file is more dangerous. The thing that makes overtaking cyclists after you have been stuck behind them, is you need a long enough run of road to build up speed on the other carriageway. That is what makes it more dangerous. The amount of time to pass two cyclists rather than one is miniscule compared to that.

YABVU I have every right to be on the road and you have to be patient. As for those who mention road tax, it doesn't exit anymore since 1937 and replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty. This is a tax on cars, not roads, and it goes straight into the general Treasury fund.

I'd be interested to know whether any pp or lurkers on this thread have come away with new learning or understanding of this issue - perhaps re the waving on, the bells, the riding 2 abreast or in the middle of the road etc?

I don't mean in a MaryJane "hope you all die" way, more in a "ok, I didn't know that and now I do, I understand a bit more, cool" way.

I do think that some cyclists seem to think car drivers have a vendetta against them, when it is I suspect the same idiot car drivers driving like that with everyone.

The thing is, you don’t need to be cruella deville to hurt vulnerable road users when driving. You just need to be careless, distracted, or slightly stupid.

No I don't understand cyclists waving on Buzz. I always ignore cyclists doing this as they do not know my car and its acceleration. I need to be sure it is safe to pass, so I will always ignore cyclists doing this.

No I don't understand cyclists waving on Buzz. I always ignore cyclists doing this as they do not know my car and its acceleration.

OK, but pp were saying they thought it was being done in anger or arrogance etc; and it was explained by several that cyclists are trying to be helpful or show appreciation for the driver's patience and let them get them on their way asap. It's not them being rude twats.

That sort of understanding?

Sorry apologies. No I don't think it is being rude or arrogant at all.

The highway code disagrees with you.

And what about passing 3 or 4 cyclists (many people on this thread are complaining about large groups)? 3 or 4 cyclists can be equivalent to a large lorry in length (single file) or equivalent to a mini (riding abreast).

But passing a lorry where you only have to slow down a bit is easy. I wait to overtake cyclists until it is safe to do so and give them plenty of room. But I also often have to overtake cyclists after having being behind them driving at under 10mph. It takes time to build up speed and overtake them. That means I have to have a lot longer time on the other carriageway to overtake a group of cyclists, than I do overtaking a lorry. It is not comparable.

Able bodied people should all be cycling in city centres frankly. Traffic jams and pollution ridiculous all sitting stationary pumping out pollutants. We went to London recently by train and used Santander bikes. Awesome. For £2 we had use of bikes all day and could just log them back next to places we visited. Way pleasanter than tube bus and car. Bikes need to be prioritised cars limited for the disabled/ deliveries etc. Would help obesity crisis too.

But I also often have to overtake cyclists after having being behind them driving at under 10mph. It takes time to build up speed and overtake them. That means I have to have a lot longer time on the other carriageway to overtake a group of cyclists, than I do overtaking a lorry.

Then you're doing something wrong!

I am A&E doctor.

When a car hits a cyclist, it is a horrible mess. Almost always when that car is overtaking the cyclist. Cyclist usually dead or life changing injuries.

Driver usually irreparably damaged, in the head. Never at peace again. And often, but not often enough, legally damaged too.

I tell the children, partners, parents of the cyclists what has happened to their loved one. That's a dreadful task.

But if you think that you arriving 15 seconds earlier to the next set of traffic lights, or to sit behind a tractor or whatever, is worth the risk of all this, then you go ahead OP.

But the speed is consistent in both cases..... Building up speed from 10mph to overtake something mini-length is easier than building up speed from 10mph to overtaken something lorry-length.

Cyclists go at the speed they go at, they can't change that. They can however try to present a shorter obstacle for you, and most will try to do so.

The other reason they ride abreast is because it makes it difficult to carry out unsafe overtaking. Which is what all of the dangerous drivers upthread were objecting to.

Why am I doing something wrong?

YABU. How about just being more tolerant? Roads are not just for cars.

Greeper what a sobering post. Dh commutes quite far always on a cycle path but when that was shut for repair he was forced onto the road and got hit by a van. Thank god it was only broken ribs. The van driver was in tears it was entirely his fault. This cycling hate gets me down. We are so vulnerable to you. My friends lovely dad was killed on his bike recently. It’s people’s loved ones out there so please curb the Jeremy clarkson type hateful ranting and be mindful. It could be your father or husband cycling along.

1) Bike is doing 10mph
You only need to speed up to 20mph to be doing double the speed of the bike and overtake quickly and safely (for every 40m the bike covers, you will cover 80m).
It takes very little time at all to get from 10mph to 20mph, and you can gain the rest of the speed after you've pulled in, quite easily.

2) Lorry is doing 40mph
If you speed up to 50mph (the same absolute increase as above), the differential between you and the lorry isn't that great (for every 40m the lorry covers, you will cover 50m). You will take longer passing that lorry than you would passing the cyclist at 20mph.

Why am I doing something wrong?

If I am preparing to overtake a slower moving vehicle, I can drop down a gear which gives me the burst of acceleration I need to pass quickly. I don't (for example) stay in 3rd and dribble past them.

I guess(?) automatics work the same way but maybe a bit less instantly if there is a chip working out what you are trying to do?

Why can't we agree that:

• there are cyclists who hop on their bikes for tge some purpose of avoiding traffic commuting. They want to prove they can get to work quicker than if they drove and will take risks to do so. They are dangerous idiots.
• Cyclists have the sane rights on t b e roads than care drivers. But yes, it us annoying when you are constantly have to vastly reduce your speed when you are cruising because of cyclists enjoying themselves. It's OK to be annoyed by it. It is not OK to act on it. Curse them in yiyr head, but treat them with the respect they deserve.
• Cyclists are, on the whole, not acting in strange ways but in a safe way which unless you cycle yourself might kit be able to understand. They are also sometimes trying to do things to lower your frustration with them, not to put you at risk, because most cyclists are also car drivers and know it is annoying to be stuck behind cyclists. Don't retaliate in a way that is likely to scare them, they are not going on a cycle ride with t g e purpose to annoy car drivers.
• Do respect that ultimately, they are doing something that is healthy and are therefore a good role model. They don't deserve to end up injured or worse, dead for it.