AIBU Cyclist Twats

[TractorAndHeadphones]

Walking down lovely canals with DP. Supposed to be romantic - but every 5 minutes we were interrupted by a cyclists whizzing along! Some had the courtesy to ring the bell but even so they rode straight at us instead of around us.

This really boils my piss because cyclists always complain that cars overtake dangerously and that’s it’s their god given right to hold up traffic. But cyclists can ride straight through pedestrians?

There was enough space for a cyclist to ride alongside us if they’d been slower ; even so you don’t expect people to walk in single file on canal roads which are meant to be enjoyed slowly! There were families in front of us, mothers with prams etc. Thé cyclists were probably scared of swerving into the lake but if you can’t control your bike then dont bloody ride!
It really ruined my day.

This has also happened on pavements with people whizzing along in the middle. Even if the road is dangerous there’s no need to go that fast.
AIBU to think that cyclists are twats and should be licensed?
People often complain that cars are rude to cyclists but IMO people in general are twats. Cars can do more damage but they’re not behaving worse than cyclists.

@PattyPan my mistake about the road tax but cyclists do need number plates.If you're riding on a road you could cause or be involved in an accident.Your bike should be registered just like any order vehicle on the road imo.

[quote MintyGreenDream]@PattyPan my mistake about the road tax but cyclists do need number plates.If you're riding on a road you could cause or be involved in an accident.Your bike should be registered just like any order vehicle on the road imo.[/quote]
You can cause or be involved in an accident as a pedestrian too. Should pedestrians have number plates? What about children on bikes?

[quote MintyGreenDream]@PattyPan my mistake about the road tax but cyclists do need number plates.If you're riding on a road you could cause or be involved in an accident.Your bike should be registered just like any order vehicle on the road imo.[/quote]
Leaving aside the practicalities of exactly where you put a licence plate on a bike for it to be sufficiently visible, bike licencing is a stupid idea. It's been trialed in other countries and all it does is discourage cycle use as well as costing a fortune in admin costs.

@hangrylady

I have no objection to people cycling to get somewhere, but the lycra clad bellends do my head in. Move the fuck over and let me overtake I have places to be and don't give a shit about your hobby.

Wow! The entitlement of some people (motorists) is staggering.

@MintyGreenDream

They need number plates and road tax so are identifiable.

They need number plates and insurance, that’s for sure.

@lockdownmadnessdotcom

Why do you think the car driver is more important? You must do because you're saying the cyclist must frequently stop throughout their journey to let the cars past

If I am out for a leisure ride I will let cars past if there are no easy places to overtake, because they may be going to work or doing a duty visit to an aged relative. They may be on their way to the beach. But I don't know, so I'll let them past if I can.

And I do the same if there are no easy places to pass. There’s a 2 mile lane near me where you can’t get a car past a bike so I will always pull in at the first gateway. But I won’t pull in on a two lane (one each way) road unless excessively bendy but normally there’s straight bits between the bends.

@lockdownmadnessdotcom

I didn't say it was inconsiderate to ride two abreast. I do it myself but when I do it I make sure I don't unnecessarily inconvenience other drivers. I said it was inconsiderate to ride two abreast and not take any account of car users if you are holding them up.

The info give by Surrey police is for roads with two full lanes running in opposite directions. Lots of country roads aren't that wide. I hope you aren't suggesting that in that situation you literally can't overtake a cyclist? 🤦🏻‍♀️😂😂. Some of the country roads around where I live go on for miles before widening - you would have to be a real jerk to expect cars to drive behind you the whole way. You CANT overtake two cyclist riding abreast but you can, carefully, overtake one.

@PattyPan
Thanks for the excellent graphic, really good explanation.

The info give by Surrey police is for roads with two full lanes running in opposite directions. Lots of country roads aren't that wide. I hope you aren't suggesting that in that situation you literally can't overtake a cyclist?

If it's not safe to overtake a car, it's not safe to overtake a cyclist, so no you shouldn't, no matter how "carefully" you go. Cyclists can fall into your path, or may need to swerve to avoid potholes.

No road user - whether a car, bike, horse, tractor, van, or lorry, has the right to go fast and be in front of others. You'd have to be a real jerk to think you do.

You MUST drive and ride safely however, which involves not performing dangerous overtakes where you don't have enough room. Again, you'd have to be a real jerk to think your wish to travel faster is more important than safety and the law.

Hang back, have patience, and wait until it's safe to pass. It's polite if someone slower moves over so faster vehicles can pass, but it's not obligatory.

@RunningStrong

People always lump "cyclists" together.

The people riding down a canal tow path are not the same people you see on the road. Road cyclists wouldn't want that kind of a ride.

Really? You've lumped the road cyclists together, haven't you?

Where I lived in British Columbia, quite a few road cyclists would sail through stop signs or red lights, ride on sidewalks and scream at or knock pedestrians who got in their way, ride 3 abreast on the road thus slowing traffic to a crawl amongst other antics. Some of them don't even know the rules of the road and think not knowing is a good enough excuse if they are called on their bad behaviour. Once two cyclists collided on a sidewalk because neither would give way to the other. They immediately blamed cars even though cars weren't anywhere near them.

I always wondered why some cyclists seems to think that once they're on their bike, they don't have to or can't stop.

I have a question...Why exactly is public transport a better option?

I cycle and try and keep to the left (unless overtaking), I'll use cycle paths when they're there (and whilst we're on the topic of cycle lanes...i'm just going to ignore the fact that AT LEAST 50% of the time they're unavailable to use anyway because someone has decided to park/stop in it..)...I try and be considerate as much as I can to road users/other cyclists/pedestrians..Plus my main selling points for cycling..it keeps me healthy and it's free..

Public transport takes twice as long to get anywhere, gets pretty expensive quickly (a day saver in my town costs £4.50...do that five times a week... £22.5.. Suddenly i've spent nearly £90 on a commute that is inconvenient, takes longer and still doesn't get me directly to my destination.. (And before anyone says its the cost of a coffee...that's only really relevant if you actually buy a daily coffee in the first place...I don't and I take my own lunch)

For example my office is on the other side of down and it's pretty much a straight line along a busway/next to the river/through the park and the last .5 of a mile is on the road.. to cycle the 5 miles it takes me around 20 minutes.
For the bus..I'd have to walk 10 minutes to the bus stop, get a bus into the city centre (another 15 minutes), change buses to one that goes back out of the city centre in another direction (another 20 minutes) then walk another 10....
So a commute that takes me 20 minutes would take me almost an hour...and cost me for the privilege? I'm struggling to see the benefit?

Rosebel- the most dangerous vehicle in that scenario was yours, not some school kids getting to or from school, I wish more kids cycled to school

Vinycafe, I often think the same about cars, sailing through red lights, or not slowing down whilst trying to over take or cutting me off at junctions, or using mobile phones whilst driving, etc etc

A car is dangerous for sure but don't tell me kids swerving over the road, riding 4 abreast and blocking the road isn't dangerous.
They obviously feel that they are perfectly safe and everyone will make room for them. And as for no helmets, do you really think they don't need to take any responsibility for keeping themselves safe?

@TheatricalGiraffe

I have a question...Why exactly is public transport a better option?

I cycle and try and keep to the left (unless overtaking), I'll use cycle paths when they're there (and whilst we're on the topic of cycle lanes...i'm just going to ignore the fact that AT LEAST 50% of the time they're unavailable to use anyway because someone has decided to park/stop in it..)...I try and be considerate as much as I can to road users/other cyclists/pedestrians..Plus my main selling points for cycling..it keeps me healthy and it's free..

Public transport takes twice as long to get anywhere, gets pretty expensive quickly (a day saver in my town costs £4.50...do that five times a week... £22.5.. Suddenly i've spent nearly £90 on a commute that is inconvenient, takes longer and still doesn't get me directly to my destination.. (And before anyone says its the cost of a coffee...that's only really relevant if you actually buy a daily coffee in the first place...I don't and I take my own lunch)

For example my office is on the other side of down and it's pretty much a straight line along a busway/next to the river/through the park and the last .5 of a mile is on the road.. to cycle the 5 miles it takes me around 20 minutes.
For the bus..I'd have to walk 10 minutes to the bus stop, get a bus into the city centre (another 15 minutes), change buses to one that goes back out of the city centre in another direction (another 20 minutes) then walk another 10....
So a commute that takes me 20 minutes would take me almost an hour...and cost me for the privilege? I'm struggling to see the benefit?

And not to mention unless its an electric bus its not friendly for the environment

I'm with you op. The difference between a cyclist and a driver is that one is insured and tested and has a set of numbers that make them identifiable. If I hit a cyclist with my car they can claim damages from my insurance if a cyclist hits my car or me you might as well shrug your shoulders. Cyclists are a nightmare, they have cycle paths on main roads yet STILL they choose to ride in the road.
Cyclists round here are the reason I have a dash cam.

[quote ItsNotMeAnymore]@lockdownmadnessdotcom

I didn't say it was inconsiderate to ride two abreast. I do it myself but when I do it I make sure I don't unnecessarily inconvenience other drivers. I said it was inconsiderate to ride two abreast and not take any account of car users if you are holding them up.

The info give by Surrey police is for roads with two full lanes running in opposite directions. Lots of country roads aren't that wide. I hope you aren't suggesting that in that situation you literally can't overtake a cyclist? 🤦🏻‍♀️😂😂. Some of the country roads around where I live go on for miles before widening - you would have to be a real jerk to expect cars to drive behind you the whole way. You CANT overtake two cyclist riding abreast but you can, carefully, overtake one.

[/quote]
No, in general on a single track road there isn’t space to overtake even a single cyclist. You need to use a passing place same as if you were passing any other vehicle.

Personally I think it's time we all took greater responsibility for the way we behave on the roads. I don't think it's right that cyclists get to absolve themselves of responsibility in accidents which they are often at least a contributory factor in.

I also think it's time that cyclists should be compelled by law to have at least 3rd party insurance, to wear a helmet and hi vis/ reflective clothing - in fact I think all road users should wear or have available hi vis items. They also should abide by the traffic laws and stop at red lights, pedestrian crossings and not undertake other traffic.

But I also think that all of us need to be more aware of how our behaviour affects others. If your engaging in an activity of the roads which is restricting other traffic from using the roads at the normal average speed for the road, then you need to be aware of it and behave accordingly.
Cycling in groups of 30 or more down narrow windy roads where it is impossible to overtake you - is at best inconsiderate.

Last week I witnessed a teenager doing tricks on his bike down the high street. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He only had his rear wheel on the ground and he almost knocked over a small child on a pedestrian crossing. He didn't even apologise to them! Just laughed and carried on!

@PixieLaLa tell us about your hobbies then? And if you actually have any, do you dress appropriately for them?

I wear Lycra to cycle. I wear it to run as well.

I really don't know why wearing the correct clothing for the sport you are doing makes you a twat. Must be missing something.

When I rode horses I wore jodhpurs and long boots. Was I doing it wrong? Did that make me a twat too?

@Lockheart

The info give by Surrey police is for roads with two full lanes running in opposite directions. Lots of country roads aren't that wide. I hope you aren't suggesting that in that situation you literally can't overtake a cyclist?

If it's not safe to overtake a car, it's not safe to overtake a cyclist, so no you shouldn't, no matter how "carefully" you go. Cyclists can fall into your path, or may need to swerve to avoid potholes.

No road user - whether a car, bike, horse, tractor, van, or lorry, has the right to go fast and be in front of others. You'd have to be a real jerk to think you do.

You MUST drive and ride safely however, which involves not performing dangerous overtakes where you don't have enough room. Again, you'd have to be a real jerk to think your wish to travel faster is more important than safety and the law.

Hang back, have patience, and wait until it's safe to pass. It's polite if someone slower moves over so faster vehicles can pass, but it's not obligatory.

Equally nobody has the right to hold others up for their own pleasure. If your using the road at a significantly slower pace than the average speed of the road users then you should pull over and let them pass. Walkers do it Horse riders do it Tractors so it Cyclist don't!

I have to say in many years on MN I don’t think I’ve seen a thread slagging off all motorists (maybe with the exception of “white van men”). Yes, there’s been threads slagging off a motorist from a particular incident or boy racers but not all motorists.

I think that’s because most people identify as a motorist themselves so realise that it’s not all motorists but only a small number.

But most people don’t cycle/don’t identify as cyclists so it’s easy to “other” them as a group. And then the nastiness starts.

Coming home last night at 10pm - there is a canal bridge, lots of over hanging trees, and a flicker of movement at the bridge - so, I slowed down, and there - in the darkness, pretty much invisible, all in black, no lights, nothing - is a cyclist, busy wandering over the road. If I hadn't caught that movement I could have killed him. As it's a really busy road much used by the Royal mail lorries from a local depot, and Aldi wagons, also going to their warehouse this person must have a death wish. I really don't think a lorry would have seen him

If your engaging in an activity of the roads which is restricting other traffic from using the roads at the normal average speed for the road, then you need to be aware of it and behave accordingly.

There is no normal average speed for a road defined anywhere in law. And no road user has the right to travel at the speed they want to, no matter what. You must travel according to the road conditions on the day and if you find yourself behind a slower moving user (whether it's a cyclist, a horse, a combine harvester, or someone with a broken down car limping along home) or if you come to an obstacle (e.g. a fallen tree) then you wait until it is safe to do so before you pass.

It is a nice gesture if other slower road users move over to let faster traffic past, but it is NOT obligatory and it may not always be safe to do so.

As a driver, you can only control your actions on the road. Therefore if you find yourself behind a cyclist or horse or tractor that you can't overtake safely then you need to wait until it's safe to pass. Driving closely, leaning on the horn, shouting, or passing too closely are not legitimate options in this scenario.

@Dobbyafreeelf and how do you think children should obtain third party insurance? I agree though about helmets and high vis (at night) and that all road users should abide by the traffic laws and stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings. Unfortunately most of the vehicles I see not doing those are cars, in particular taxis around here don't seem to be able to see zebra crossings. I've never had a near miss with a bike as a pedestrian but there is a crossing I've had to stop using due to so many near misses with cars
Good luck stopping teenagers from acting like knobs whether on a bike or not though

The gate of our last house opened straight onto a wide pavement. The number of cyclists who use the pavement and not the road is ridiculous. I’m in a wheelchair and I’ve lost count of the amount of times they’ve rung the bell and expected ME to get out of the way !! Was in the car, sitting at traffic lights once and as they changed to green I pulled away. I heard a crash and looked in my rear view mirror to see a cyclist in a heap on the floor behind me. Thinking I’d caused a problem, I pulled in to make sure he was OK. Turned out he’d been holding onto the back of my car while he waited at the lights and he wasn’t prepared when I drove away, and fell off !!