to think cyclists on country lanes are selfish gits

[justonemorethen]

Ok not talking about children,people nipping around town or coming back from the pub.IMHO thats who bikes were designed for.
I just hate those people who use country lanes to do their time trials and cycle up and down the same hill to make their calves bigger than their brains.

Roads surely were designed to get people from A to B. They weren't designed to be a fitness track or a playground. I really resent getting stuck behind some lyric clad arse (and they are ususally in packs) at 20 miles an hour. I can't overtake cos it's a country lane you see. I'm not a speed freak, I am happy to slow down for horses or to be behind a tractor.The differnce is they are meant to be there. I don't think townie gits who have nothing better to do should clog up our country lanes when they could use country parks or dual carriageways.I wouldn't mind if they even appreciated the countryside they go through but I don't think I've ever seen one stopping to have a picnic or looking at the wildlife.It;s head down with those stupid glasses and clothes that would scare the animals

There are so many on a Sunday where I live that it's getting dangerous. Still it'll be the poor motorist blamed for going about their business rather than the cyclist won't it.

I would agree aobut the cycle lanes being crap and full of broken glass.

I once went on a "Pedal for Scotland" ride with my mum & dad. We ended up coming off the officual route because a) a lot of it was along canal paths with walkers who didn't realise it was a shared use path so we had to keep on getting off our bikes to get past and b) the final straw was the number of "kissing gates" along the route which are difficult to get bikes through and mpossible to get a tandem through.

All the experience from countries which properly support cycling is that the accident rate is reduced with a higher number of cyclists, so that car drivers stop thinking that they automtically have right of way. That includes having more properly maintained cycle routes - but also having plenty of cyclists on "ordinary" roads.

The idea of 'road tax' is a myth. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. Just like schools and hospitals.

Does anybody say I can't use the hospital because I don't pay any hospital tax?

I'm an occasional cyclist and I agree with the OP. Some cyclists (usually high-tech-clad men) refuse to travel in single file so drivers can pass. That's selfish.

Many cyclists I know travel in pairs in order to stop drivers taking crazy risks and trying to squeeze past them - it's much harder to squeeze past 2 cyclists, so you have to wait until there is a safe stretch of road to overtake on.

I'm not saying it isn't frustrating to get stuck behind a cyclist or two, but really, how long are you actually stuck there - 2 minutes, 5 minutes. It's really not a big deal to wait a few minutes til it's safe to overtake, is it? Some drivers really need to get a life.

I often get irritated by a "Sunday" driver pootling along at 30mph, even on straight stretches of country road - probably going slower that the cyclists in time trials.

But that is my problem and however impatient I am, I have to wait until it is safe to overtake them (or not - especially if there is a queue of traffic already built up).

As ihearthuckabees says, it is never normally for that long - and even if it is, that is still my problem. I don't have a god-given right to travel at the speed limit.

We are far too obssessed with getting places quickly nowadays.

Oh, Sunday drivers... don't get me going on them.

Actually, the highway code says this:

'169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.'

So if you are like the man of a certain age in the red Volvo yesterday afternoon, with eight or nine of us behind you, please move over next time.

"and how many cyclists do you think a have any idea what is in the highway code? If they are also drivers, they may have a very vague knowledge from when they passed their test,"

Well ditto for drivers!

Having passed a driving test doesn't mean that you know the first thing about current road laws or good driving practice.

How about let's show some equality here and ban ALL people who use the roads like monomaniac egocentric twats, hmm?

If you get an ignorant road-hog cyclist with scant regard for other road users, worst case scenario is probably that they kill themselves.

If you get an ignorant road-hog driver with scant regard for other road-users, worst case scenario is that they kill a pedestrian, child or cyclist, or are involved in a fatal crash with another driver.

You also seem to miss the point that when cyclists cycle what you perceive as "selfishly", they are usually trying to preserve their own life.

When drivers drive selfishly they are usually trying to get from a to b ten seconds faster, at the expense of someone else's safety. Which seems more important to you?

And all this harping on about their lycra and sunglasses is pretty unpleasant and smacks of the worst kind of ignorant prejudice. How about we start to take the piss out of your swimming costume or yoga gear - that has about as much to do with the debate.

I whole heartedly agree tyv!

Tyv that was an excellent post. Dh and all his cycling club applaud you

And 'lycra-clad' gets me too I mean do people actually speak like that other than on planet Tabloid?

The making fun of lycra thing's ridiculous - do you poke fun at swimmers wearing swimming costumes and goggles, or horseriders wearing jodphurs and riding hats?

try doing 80+ miles an not wearing cycling kit - you'll soon convert!

Brilliant post tyv. I'm a driver and a cyclist and have actually revised the highway code much more thoroughly since starting cycling.

On the lycra clad thing - some of them look pretty damn good... much better than most people in swimming costumes. Must be jealousy .

You will hear not one word of complaint from me after I was stuck behind a group of fit young men in Lycra, their thighs like ripe marrows but without the stripes.
Not that I was looking or anything...

-or should that be ?????

tyv,, re your 23.something post last night quoting me, I'd gone to bed before you answered my post last night. My point wasn't that I should have been able to do the 40mph limit on that stretch of road - I've already said there are stretches of that road that I would never do more than 10-15mph on, because I don't want to hit the potential child/cyclist/walker/horse/animal in the middle of the road. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to stop in the middle of the road round a blind bend though. Some people drive like nutters and regularly do 50-60 down that bit, so she's bloody lucky I was at the front of the queue of traffic. All of whom were gagging to overtake me. Basically, the point I was (albeit clumsily) attempting to make is that everyone needs to be responsible for their own safety. Stopping in the middle of the road at a spot where oncoming traffic can't see you is not taking responsibility for your own safety. Neither, sadly, is riding defensively, since there's always going to be someone who overtakes dangerously just to make a point. And for the record, that someone would not be me. A 30-second-shorter journey is in no way worth someone else's life or limbs.

And fwiw, the reason I DIDN'T hit her was because I always drive as though there's a possibility a sinkhole will have opened up round the next blind bend. I never ever travel at a speed over what I can see to stop in, iyswim. But not everyone does. And you won't change ignorant drivers by putting yourself at risk.

Yes but WDBSA, MY point was that a single stupid cyclist doesn't a) tell you anything about the sensible majority or b) detract from the right of cyclists as a whole to be treated courteously.

We could bang on all night about silly things we've seen individual people doing - but it still doesn't make blanket hostility like the OP's post ok.

Also your point about riding defensively not being a good idea is very ill-informed. So what if people try to over-take? They would try to overtake anyway, even if you were squeezed into the hedge. The difference is that if the cyclist is squeezed into the hedge, they bear all the risk. The car is more likely to try to squeeze past on a bend, and if the car makes a mistake there is no margin for error - the cyclist gets crushed between the hedge and the car.

Whereas if the cyclist is out in the road, the overtaking becomes dangerous for the driver, because they are forced to put themselves in the path of the oncoming traffic. If they make an error and overtake dangerously, the car is likely to suffer, but the cyclist can swerve to the left and has a margin of safety.

Also cycling far out means you are likely to be seen sooner by cars coming round a blind bend - if you think about the line of sight round a bend, you see the centre of the road before you see the left hand edge.

You are confusing what feels dangerous to you, as a driver, with what is dangerous for the cyclist.

Many studies have proved that cycling far out is much safer, forces cars to overtake more appropriately, and results in fewer fatalities. It is a routinely taught technique in cycling safety courses.

An interesting stat is that although there are many more male cyclists, women have disproportionately more accidents and fatalities. It is thought that this is precisely because women cycle more "politely" - hugging the left, not positioning themselves centrally at lights, generally effacing themselves on the road so that cars don't notice them and consequently they get hit more frequently.

A driver annoying you has at least achieved one very important thing - you have NOTICED them. You are annoyed because you are having to modify your driving behaviour, but you have modified your behaviour which is the key thing. The most unsafe cyclist is the one you don't even register - the one cycling slowly, hugging the hedge, who you don't notice until too late, after your wing has clipped their pannier at 40 mph.

Apols "A driver annoying you" should have been "A cyclist annoying you".

Message withdrawn

tyv my point about riding defensively was just badly made, sorry, I meant riding several abreast, not riding defensively in single file. I used to ride a motorbike, so fully understand how bloody awful it can be trying to share roads with cars who don't look, don't give you any room, etc. I'm not altogether sure why I posted last night, tbh. I don't share the OP's view (but then I don't share her experiences), and I was simply recounting an experience that really shook me up.

I think that the point I'm (still clumsily, still very tired) trying to make is that everyone should be able to use the roads without fear of inconsiderate gits spoiling it for them, but that everyone has the responsibility to not be said inconsiderate gits. However they're travelling. And everyone really should be responsible for themselves.

YANBU the slightest.

why tho is your getting from a-b valid than a cyclist in lycra?

I ride, my dh rides as a family we go out on bikes-I am teaching my 8 yr old ds1 to ride just left of the centre line for his own safety-dont really give a hoot if it means a car need to slow down for a few mins.

If you live in a countryfied place (as I do) then all this is to be expected along with tractors, horses and caravans. I cant even begin to see where you get off tbh!

Whydobirds - oh fine, yes I agree that riding several abreast is not really riding defensively per se. There are times when it's a good idea (if you are with a small child for eg, to force the car to give the child a wide berth).

But it does annoy me when people view cyclists riding far out in the road as somehow deliberately aggressive or provocative - when in fact it's just plain sensible.

I'm sorry if my reaction to your post seemed cross - but I think it irritated me because there seems to be a prevailing idea that cyclists are generally fools and idiots, and it's only the wit and intelligence of car drivers which saves them from being road-kill.

It is an attitude which subtly implies that it is not cars who are responsible for killing cyclists, but cyclists who are responsible for getting themselves killed. The poor drivers simply sit there while the cyclists throw themselves in front of their vehicles willy nilly.

If that's not your view then I'm very happy - however coming as a response to the OP's rude and hostile post, you can see why it appeared to buy into that mentality.