Over half of 2,000 drivers questioned by Confused.com (54 per cent) said that cyclists riding side by side along country lanes is the most annoying thing about rural driving. The survey found that this entirely legal activity narrowly edged out drivers speeding dangerously (53 per cent) as the top annoyance, followed by dangerous overtaking (48 per cent).
Flytipping (37 per cent), potholes (35 per cent), and tractors (29 per cent) also earned mentions.
The Hereford Times reports that 40 per cent of UK drivers suffer road rage when driving on rural roads. (Road rage is the threshold – the survey sadly doesn’t cover the kind of impatience that must be required to attempt a manoeuvre like this.)
Other findings were that 23 per cent of drivers express their anger by shouting, 34 per cent by beeping their horn, while 14 per cent deploy the middle finger.
Motorists don’t just lose their rag with cyclists though — 13 per cent of those questioned admitted shouting at an animal.
Of those, 17 per cent shouted at a sheep, 10 per cent at a cow, and 14 per cent at a bird. Shouting at a bird? That’s an impressive/frightening level of aggression to be carrying round with you.
47 per cent said they had swerved their car to avoid an animal.
63 per cent of drivers did not know the majority of fatal crashes occur on rural roads. The latest figures from the Department of Transport indicate that 93 fatalities were recorded on motorways last year, compared to 789 on built-up roads and 910 on non built-up — rural — roads.
176 thoughts on “Cyclists riding side-by-side is biggest gripe for rural drivers claims survey”
Ah come on… who hasn’t
Ah come on… who hasn’t shouted at a pheasant… Reckon I’ve shouted at 3 or 4 from my bike, in an entirely humorous, non-angry way, of course.
I lost it with a bat, a couple of years back. There’s an unlit NCN trail that I can take home from work; the overhanging trees create a tunnel effect, and around the time the clocks go back it’s dark when I get to it. There’s never anyone else around – just bats, owls and weird noises.
Bats fly up and down this tunnel, but this one must have thought I was chasing it, because it remained about 2 metres ahead of my bike, just above my head height, for quite a way, probably 200 metres. Not sure of the type, but it was biggish, decent bird-sized. I figured it thought I was chasing it, and expected it to dart off into the trees like they normally do.
Inexplicably, it then fell out of the air. Just dropped and swerved, hit me in the side/ribs. Stupid bat, not supposed to just fall into big stuff! I
shat myself and did a girly squeallet out a roar to show it who was boss, and then blurted out “Fucking… EVOLVE!” as I nearly fell off my bike. Just as my billion-lumen light illuminated a shocked man and his (about six year-old) son, both of whom I’m thinking hadn’t seen anything of a bat., and were looking at a bloke almost falling off his bike in the middle of a path, while swearing random insults.I made my excuses and left.
davel wrote:
I love flying along paths where the batas fly up and down, they someow make it seem like you’re going much faster, never had one crash into me despite them being close enough to reach out and touch, it must have been pretty stressed out to lose it’s sense of space like that, although probably pretty hilarious to watch
davel wrote:
Pedant Corner:
1. That isn’t how Evolution works; except with Pokemon.
2. What would you like it to evolve into? El Chupacabra?
Leviathan wrote:
Ohhoho: you’ve got me. In my moment of weakness I wasn’t able to quote On The Origin of Species verbatim at the SuicideBat. No, there wasn’t any logic to my exclamation. I might have even been begging myself to evolve to deal with the pedals. Imagine that craziness!
Or maybe it was a primal scream to try to turn you from some bitter loser into somebody who could experience joy through riding a bike, You. Fucking. Sad. Sack. Of. Shit.
Tell you what, you don’t pollute any of my future posts with your FullKit blobbyness and I’ll resist the urge to correct your teen ramblings.
TL;DR? Fuck yourself, you bitter little prick.
davel wrote:
Pedant Corner:
1. That isn’t how Evolution works; except with Pokemon.
2. What would you like it to evolve into? El Chupacabra?
— Leviathan Ohhoho: you’ve got me. In my moment of weakness I wasn’t able to quote On The Origin of Species verbatim at the SuicideBat. No, there wasn’t any logic to my exclamation. I might have even been begging myself to evolve to deal with the pedals. Imagine that craziness! Or maybe it was a primal scream to try to turn you from some bitter loser into somebody who could experience joy through riding a bike, You. Fucking. Sad. Sack. Of. Shit. Tell you what, you don’t pollute any of my future posts with your FullKit blobbyness and I’ll resist the urge to correct your teen ramblings. TL;DR? Fuck yourself, you bitter little prick.— davel
Bitter, moi? Perhaps you should read back what you wrote yourself. I didn’t even look at who had posted, just responded to something humourous with something tongue in cheek. I will respond to whomsoever I choose. You are getting quite an obsession with me; I am flattered. And I do quite enjoy riding my bike, I am here afterall.
Leviathan wrote:
Oh the irony!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Thank you for your contribution, Ms. Morissette.
Leviathan wrote:
Yeah, you’re all humour until someone has an opinion you don’t understand about a topic you feel you should be triggered on. The three of us remember you following and baiting SP59.
Your 40-going on-14 year old self is right, of course: you have the right to reply to any post. But for the sake of the forum and its other members, it’s best if we give each other a swerve.
davel wrote:
Thank you for your contribution, Ms. Morissette.
— Leviathan Yeah, you’re all humour until someone has an opinion you don’t understand about a topic you feel you should be triggered on. The three of us remember you following and baiting SP59. Your 40-going on-14 year old self is right, of course: you have the right to reply to any post. But for the sake of the forum and its other members, it’s best if we give each other a swerve.— BehindTheBikesheds
A menage a trois, who is your third, saucy? Davel BehindTheBikesheds with whom?
So it seems you think any response to you is ‘following,’ rather self centred don’t you think. I have no need to swerve, unless you are a pothole. “triggered” languaged used to keep people in their place, I would expect no less of you. It seems like you are the one trying to drive off people you don’t agree with. Doctor heal thyself.
Leviathan wrote:
No, no and no:
The 3rd person is you, because you remember what I’m referring to:
I do consider posting pointless comments to goad someone you’re not getting on with, like you did with SP59, ‘following’.
I’m not trying to drive you anywhere. You’re even more tedious than usual when you’re bickering with someone, and this isn’t my greatest contribution either, so let’s just agree to spare the others our shit.
davel wrote:
No thank you.
If you call pointing out BS ‘goading’ or following. I honestly didn’t see who posted the bat thing, but you made it about yourself. If you don’t like being goaded, don’t post drivel.
Leviathan wrote:
OK, now you’re into serious Mr Pot territory.
Did the sausage in your profile pic make the GB squad for the current world cup?
davel wrote:
don’t post drivel.
— davel OK, now you’re into serious Mr Pot territory. Did the sausage in your profile pic make the GB squad for the current world cup?— Leviathan
That is not a World Cup kit.
davel]
[quote=davel][quote=Leviathan]
[quote=BehindTheBikesheds]
so let’s just agree to spare the others our shit.— davel
Please
Goldfever4 wrote:
Them’s some mangled tags. But yes, of course.
Wow, that genuinely surprised
Wow, that genuinely surprised me, I thought there would be a few things they would think were worse, My biggest bugbears are potholes (whether cycling or driving) and people texting while driving. maybe some adverts actually pointing out it’s perfectly legal and actually recommended might gradually make people see they’re being unreasonable. Then again perhaps not.
The problem is that a lot of
The problem is that a lot of drivers think the cyclists are wrong to do that and their (drivers) righteouseness entitles them to shout abuse.
Drivers’ snarls, reminds me of William S Burroughs:
What’s needed is better public information about cyclists on roads and maybe include something about it in the driving test.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Blimey! Superb bit of writing from Burroughs there.
Feckin’ birds
Feckin’ birds
lolol wrote:
Everyone needs a hobby.
don simon wrote:
Good for you! Personally, I don’t think I could tell the difference between a hobby and a sparrowhawk or a kestrel, while I was out riding…
brooksby wrote:
Oooh! That’s good.
don simon wrote:
One of my favourite pub-quiz facts is that fun-packed table-top football game, Subbuteo, takes its name from the hobby. Inventor Peter Adolph wanted to call it Hobby, what was not able to trademark that. The hobby’s latin name is Falco subbuteo.
I had a buzzard tag alongside
I had a buzzard tag alongside for about half a mile recently, that was pretty cool. Felt like Michele Scarponi. Also deer
I have shouted at my cat on
I have shouted at my cat on numberous occasions and wiped his nose in it.
Also I once shouted really loudly ‘woaaahhh’ in the direction of a Badger.
So an easier to pass and more
So an easier to pass and more visible unit annoys folk because its legal
I will admit to one time argy
I will admit to an occasional argy-bargy with a vole.
It just shows that rural
It just shows that rural drivers are stupid.
I went to a large meeting
I went to a large meeting that the local plod held between residents and local cycling groups. One guy explained, with good slides, why it was easier and safer to overtake a shorter line of riders who were 2 abreast. Didn’t cut any ice.
One bloke intrigued me though. He’s been onto Strava and was complaining that 50,000 cyclists had been past his house in the last year. I didn’t understand why this was a problem. 50,000 HGVs I could understand him being upset.
I kicked a squirrel once, but
I kicked a squirrel once, but it wasn’t intentional…
I disagree with riding
I disagree with riding abreast especially when we are speaking just for two cyclists. It is illegal in other countries, riding abreast is mostly about recreational cycling versus people wanting to go to their jobs and doing their errands and it is really really dangerous. I practically never go for recreational riding apart from touring when I will have costantly to remind my overenergetic buddy to keep single file.
cyclisto wrote:
I don’t understand why you think it’s so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t understand why you think it’s so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.— cyclisto
Well this is a good thought but it has a fundemental flaw: that there is an ideal world where drivers will keep the 1.5m of overtake and so on. The thing is that if the ideal world existed, no riders would ever be killed! Exactly because there isn’t such an ideal world with fairies and butterflies all over, cars usually will come from behind you with much higher speed than the speed limit while they may be under the influence, talking on the mobile, too old, too tired, too dark or simply with a fogged windshield, all these making them see you at the last moment. Single carriageway roads can usually squeeze bicycle and a car per direction at an emergency but not 2 bicycles and two cars. Whoever wants to take his chances just for leisure he is free to do so, but I would prefer to stay safe and delay as less as possible car traffic.
cyclisto wrote:
I don’t understand why you think it’s so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.
— hawkinspeter Well this is a good thought but it has a fundemental flaw: that there is an ideal world where drivers will keep the 1.5m of overtake and so on. The thing is that if the ideal world existed, no riders would ever be killed! Exactly because there isn’t such an ideal world with fairies and butterflies all over, cars usually will come from behind you with much higher speed than the speed limit while they may be under the influence, talking on the mobile, too old, too tired, too dark or simply with a fogged windshield, all these making them see you at the last moment. Single carriageway roads can usually squeeze bicycle and a car per direction at an emergency but not 2 bicycles and two cars. Whoever wants to take his chances just for leisure he is free to do so, but I would prefer to stay safe and delay as less as possible car traffic.— cyclisto
I still think that cycling side-by-side is safer in most situations for the reasons that I mentioned.
Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?— hawkinspeterWhy don’t you go stand in the middle of the road and see how long it takes before someone hits you. We don’t have stats on that either, but I’m sure it will be dangerous. (PS: don’t do it!)
nbrus wrote:
That’s a straw man argument as no-one is suggesting that standing in the middle of the road is safe (although the middle of the road is probably safer than standing in the middle of a lane). However, opinion is divided about riding two abreast, hence my asking for any evidence one way or another.
nbrus wrote:
Surely a competent driver would be prepared for both situations, no? Driving standards in this country are crap, I don’t understand why you’d want to support this.
edit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk
don simon wrote:
I’m not supporting bad driving … I am being realistic … no one likes being held up by someone having a chat cycling two-abreast … if you want to chat, then pull over and chat. People don’t like it when others are choosing to slow them down so they can chat … its a screw you I don’t give a fu*k attitude and than naturally will piss people off. I don’t do it when I am out cycling with my buddy and the odd time that I briefly have I’ve been tooted at. I also find it dangerous as you can’t even see what is coming up behind and even if you have a mirror you’ve got no where to go if looks like they haven’t seen you.
nbrus wrote:
And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren’t constantly being driven into?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?— FluffyKittenofTindalosWhy don’t you go stand in the middle of the road and see how long it takes before someone hits you. We don’t have stats on that either, but I’m sure it will be dangerous. (PS: don’t do it!)
— nbrus And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren’t constantly being driven into?— hawkinspeterI find your posts amusing … I’m still trying to understand them. You seem to really hate cars and will post on any thread to say so, even if its off topic. There are far too many cars cluttering up our roads and streets for sure.
nbrus wrote:
I find your posts amusing … I’m still trying to understand them. You seem to really hate cars and will post on any thread to say so, even if its off topic. There are far too many cars cluttering up our roads and streets for sure.— hawkinspeter
Thinking isn’t your strong point, is it nbrus?
don simon wrote:
If you say so…
nbrus wrote:
I do and I can’t be arsed picking holes in your stand in the road comments while you try to put down Fluffyk, but yes, you’re pretty fucking thick. Don’t woory though.
don simon wrote:
I wasn’t trying to put down FK if that’s what you think … though I guess it could look like that … sorry FK that is not my intention. Just thought I’d clear that up. And DS, please feel free to pick holes in my stand in the road comments … I might learn something.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?— FluffyKittenofTindalosWhy don’t you go stand in the middle of the road and see how long it takes before someone hits you. We don’t have stats on that either, but I’m sure it will be dangerous. (PS: don’t do it!)
— nbrus And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren’t constantly being driven into?— hawkinspeterFK, I think I might have misunderstood your post the first time around as I assumed you were replying in relation to my response. Looking at this again I think you were actually comparing parked cars to two-abreast cycling which is what HP was making a statement on. If that’s the case then I misunderstood your post as normally when someone responds it is related to the last comment. Sorry if I got this wrong (just me being thick I suppose).
The point I was making is that you don’t need stats to tell you if something is dangerous.
As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren’t surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It’s a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren’t paying attention. It’s also not unkown for cars to drive into the back of slow moving (or stationary in middle of lane) vehicles such as tractors because they weren’t paying attention for a moment.
nbrus wrote:
Stats, actual information, objectivity: that’s exactly what this topic needs, as opposed to bias and supposition.
davel wrote:
The point I was making is that you don’t need stats to tell you if something is dangerous.
— davel Stats, actual information, objectivity: that’s exactly what this topic needs, as opposed to bias and supposition.— nbrusThis is a cycling forum … its going to be biased.
nbrus wrote:
So why hasn’t parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?
Also, it’s good this, it’s written in your words and everything:
“It’s a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists”
So what’s the problem?
“this can take drivers by surprise if they aren’t paying attention”
Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.
Thanks for clearing everything up!
alansmurphy wrote:
Parked cars do frustrate other drivers … it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.
The thing is … cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.
nbrus wrote:
And why is that my problem, when cycling or on the bus? It’s your car, you chose to use it for this journey where to park it is your problem, it doesn’t give you the right to obstruct a throughfare.
Besides, drivers do tend to alternate between complaining about slow traffic flow (very often due to so much of the road taken up by parked cars) and complaining about having nowhere to park. And complaints about parked cars just get displaced onto cyclists – who are only in the way because the space they could have been using has instead been taken by parked cars – or just general gripes about ‘insufficient roadspace’.
For the most part, drivers just don’t see parked cars, they will rail at the cyclist in front of them while not noticing half the road is being used as storage space.
nbrus wrote:
You continue to fuel your own idiotic view being an apologist for cars.
You don’t like cyclists riding 2 abreast though you suggest its rare, you’re angry that these people chat.
You don’t mind parked cars that by definition move slower than the 2 abreast cyclists as “cars need to be parked somewhere”.
However, you don’t like it when you can’t find a space or someone parks too close to your little piece of land.
You’re prat of the problem!
You ignore the fact that the dependency on the car/lorry has created 99% of the problems on the road and simply look for ways that cyclists can make it easier fore them to speed past drinking lattes and updating twitter.
alansmurphy wrote:
That bit is staying in, for the record.
don simon wrote:
No it isn’t.
alansmurphy wrote:
I like your idea of utopia where almost everyone gets around by bicycle. I don’t however think it is practical. The reason you own a bicycle is because it was delivered to you, or your local bike shop, by someone driving a lorry. Motor vehicles are essential to modern society. Getting people to use both cars and bicycles is a more realistic prospect. Not everyone can cycle (e.g. the elderly or infirm) and it isn’t an efficient way to cover larger distances, especially when carrying a load. Maybe car shares will become popular when self-driving vehicles are commonplace and reduce the number of vehicles cluttering up our streets. Utopia awaits.
nbrus wrote:
All the statements about the effects of parked cars are true and they probably result on more time lost on journeys than cyclists, but the do not frustrate drivers because like you they (we?) consider that the public highway is available space for storing cars. Regardless that it slowd traffic flow, reduces disability increasing risk and may even obstruct the passage of emergency vehicles.
This is among a long list of causes of delay which is acceptable, it’s only when it is cyclist that the delay becomes intolerable and leads to aggressive response.
And then because “cars must be parked somewhere” they move onto parking on the pavement.
When we bought our house we specifically looked for a place with a drive big enough for two cars, because we had two cars. We didn’t rely on being able to appropriate the highway for this purpose. What else am I allowed to store there? Can I get a bike locker and leave it in the space outside my house so I don’t need to bring the bike inside?
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m interested in the outcome of driverless cars in relation to parking. On the one hand, driverless cars can be parked in out of town areas and be summoned when required, but alternatively, they could be left driving around if you’re just popping out briefly. Either way, they could lead to a massive increase in traffic unless people plump for a shared usage model (I personally think that’s what will end up happening).
nbrus wrote:
Now I’m torn…
Hark to his cold inexorable logic
…or…
The tragedy of the commons…
You choose. I’ll get my coat.
cyclisto wrote:
What a barrel of laughs you are.
cyclisto wrote:
Cyclisto, which countries do you know where cycling two abreast is illegal?
janusz0 wrote:
Regarding big countries, it is forbidden in China and Japan and I have found similar on smaller eastern Europe countries. I am 100% sure though that such laws will be in other countries too, it is just that the language barrier prohibits from searching such a minor importance law.
But to be ownest, practically it doesn’t apply to UK on most occasions:
“never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends“
http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/66
I am not sticking on the law though when on bicycle or foot. Commuting by walking and cycling makes cities much better and therefore it is a top priority that these two groups will have nothing but the best legal protection in order to ensure that people are attracted to lock their cars at their garages. When there are laws that make me feel unsafe or inefficient on bike I will simply bend them.
cyclisto wrote:
Regarding big countries, it is forbidden in China and Japan and I have found similar on smaller eastern Europe countries. I am 100% sure though that such laws will be in other countries too, it is just that the language barrier prohibits from searching such a minor importance law.
But to be ownest, practically it doesn’t apply to UK on most occasions:
“never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends“
http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/66
I am not sticking on the law though when on bicycle or foot. Commuting by walking and cycling makes cities much better and therefore it is a top priority that these two groups will have nothing but the best legal protection in order to ensure that people are attracted to lock their cars at their garages. When there are laws that make me feel unsafe or inefficient on bike I will simply bend them.— cyclisto
As car aspoligists are fond of reminding us, the HC is only binding if it says “must”. This bit if the HC is plainly pretty fatuous and car biased, since those are exactly the situations when I do not want someone to overtake me unless it’s clearly safe to be in the other lane.
The fact that so many drivers
The fact that so many drivers find cyclists riding two-abreast particularly annoying speaks volumes about their wrongheaded idea of who belongs on the road.
Simon E wrote:
My biggest bug bear on country roads is the muppet who refuses to reverse when they’ve just passed a passing place.
Otherwise country roads are all about chilling out and who really gives a fuck if you’re held up by cyclists/a tractor/horses, sit back and enjoy the scenery.
Simon E wrote:
I think 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast should just do the simple courtesy of going single file when a car approaches from behind. It is courtious and creates a bit of good feeling between the 2 types of road user. it is simple to do and I often get a favourable accknowledgement. I can understand why so many car drivers get irritated by cyclists who arrogantly and blatently continue 2 abreast, so please can we all show cars some respect, we don’t own the road, we share it!
Its not illegal to cycle two
Its not illegal to cycle two-abreast but the wording in the highway code used to say that cyclists should make it easier for other vehicles to pass by moving to single file. That wording was changed to say cyclists should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads. The intent hasn’t changed, but cyclists (including Boardman) seem to believe that it is never busy enough to ride in single file. That is wrong just as drivers paying ‘road tax’ is wrong (its vehicle excise duty).
I don’t shout at wildlife … I just enjoy the view.
nbrus wrote:
Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it’s not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn’t make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we’d never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn’t be allowed to overtake either. It just wouldn’t work for anyone.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Well, I’ve never read so much bollocks … dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.
nbrus wrote:
Well, I’ve never read so much bollocks … dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.— ChrisB200SX
Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).
Jitensha Oni wrote:
I’m assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.
Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don’t want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe … usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs … and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it … it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.
Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl … if they misjudge things and/or weren’t paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.
Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.
nbrus wrote:
I seriously doubt any cyclist has ever “annoyed a vehicle”. What we probably do is annoy some drivers – probably the same ones who shout at birds, sheep and quite possibly hedgerows. Yeah, grovelling in the gutter will reduce their anger a tiny bit, but helps nothing when they fail to see you, or cut in after attempting an imbecilic manoeuvre. At least two abreast or single in primary I’m vulnerable only to the psychopaths ( a minority) and not to the inattentive half- blind eejits ( quite possibly most of them some days).
oldstrath wrote:
I think you may have things wrong … the eejits, inattentives and pshychopaths will get you regardless of your position on the road.
nbrus wrote:
Well why ride on roads at all then? I’ll agree nothing is perfect, but at least two abreast you’re in a position they do expect to see things, and it makes them decide how to overtake, if only to avoid the paperwork.
nbrus wrote:
nope, I will ALWAYS take primary when there is traffic coming the other way in their lane…
as far as I’m concerned, if there is oncoming traffic, then the motons behind must wait until it is safe and then I will move back to secondary.
There is no way I’m going to let them squeeze past me…
Paul_C wrote:
I’m assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.
Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don’t want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe … usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs … and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it … it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.
Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl … if they misjudge things and/or weren’t paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.
Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.
— nbrus nope, I will ALWAYS take primary when there is traffic coming the other way in their lane… as far as I’m concerned, if there is oncoming traffic, then the motons behind must wait until it is safe and then I will move back to secondary. There is no way I’m going to let them squeeze past me…— ChrisB200SX
It depends how wide the lane is.
nbrus wrote:
Could you please post a link to someone being killed by riding two abreast. I can find plenty of links about people being killed by people driving cars.
alansmurphy wrote:
Well, I’ve never read so much bollocks … dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.
— nbrus Could you please post a link to someone being killed by riding two abreast. I can find plenty of links about people being killed by people driving cars.— ChrisB200SX
Riding two abreast is no more dangerous – in fact, it’s safer in some instances.
A lot of the riding I do is on country roads that are wide enough for two cars to pass each other safely, but no way near wide enough for one car to overtake another.
In this instance, I’ll drop back to single file and wave the car on once it’s safe. There would *physically* be just enough room for the car to overtake whilst riding two abreast, but it wouldn’t be safe. Therefore, dropping back to single file is the most sensible option, as it leaves plenty of room for a car to overtake safely.
I do quite often see, and get frustrated by, one of the local cycling clubs that attracts older riders when I’m out cycling. They tend to ride two abreast (as they are entitled by law), but they ride particularly slowly (I mean, less than 15mph on the flat, slowly). When I’m cycling up (usually 25mph on the flat) behind them, it’s a struggle to get by, as they tend to sprawl out over the road.
As I mentioned, they are perfectly entitled by law to ride two abreast (and they can ride at whatever speed they want, for that matter) – just as horses are entitled by law to ride two abreast and just as tractors are entitled to drive slowly on main roads (they are obliged to pull over – but don’t legally have to).
All it takes is some common sense from all road users. I could happily cycle around the countryside all day two abreast, not stopping in laybys and hold up traffic for ages along country roads. But I don’t. Usually, I don’t even have to slow down, just pull over slightly at a layby and wave cars on – and usually, I get an appreciative wave in return.
nbrus wrote:
thanks mum!
nbrus wrote:
I belueve the intent hete is ride single file when roads ate narrow (so narrow there is no centre line) or so wide that a car can pass without crossing the centre line.
I don’t believe the intent is that overtakes which are dangerously close (less than 1m, due to the proximity of oncoming traffic) should be facilitated when the road is busy.
When you have the driver of a vehicle that is only 0.5m narrower than the lane complaining about two abreast I can only infer they want to carry out a dangerous overtake but are frustrated in doing so.
nbrus wrote:
Actually it is now ‘vehicle tax’
https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates
I let out a somewhat
I let out a somewhat desperate shout in the dark the other week when a squirrel darted out from the hedge right in front of me. It then changed it’s mind twice directly in front of my wheel, did a full 360º and then carried on as my wheel missed it’s tail by an inch or two.
I was doing about powering along at about 24mph at the time, everything went slow-motion, I’m not sure if I shouted at the squirrel or because I was convinced I was going to end up face-first on the tarmac.
I say hello to most domesticated animals, getting eye-contact usually helps, some dogs bark at the wheels regardless. Really can’t understand why you’d take out road rage on animlas though, says a lot about some of the people who have a licence to drive 🙁
“It’s really crap when two
“It’s really crap when two people want to take up nearly as much space as I do on my own” most drivers
When is singling out likely
When is singling out likely to be helpful? Well, if you’re going past parked cars and there’s traffic coming the other way. If it’s a narrow road with a long straight then maybe to let people pass. Some roads are so narrow that I have pulled my whole group into a driveway to let an accumulated queue of traffic pass. If the road is wide enough for two cars in opposite directions then singling out doesn’t help – it just makes the group longer (and can also encourage dangerous overtakes).
Leading a group you have to think 1) safety of the group 2) not annoying other road users more than is necessary but mostly rule 1.
So people are more annoyed by
So people are more annoyed by people doing something totally legal which may hold them up for between 0 seconds and in all likelihood a couple of minutes than they are by people putting their life in danger or the road surface damaging their car.
alansmurphy wrote:
Unfortunately, yes. Didn’t you read the article? And, no I don’t believe it is totaly legal to do so … that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a ‘busy’ road.
When was the last time you let someone jump in front of you in a queue at a supermarket checkout?
nbrus wrote:
Unfortunately, yes. Didn’t you read the article? And, no I don’t believe it is totaly legal to do so … that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a ‘busy’ road.
When was the last time you let someone jump in front of you in a queue at a supermarket checkout?— alansmurphy
Well, sometimes I have anger issues, and I’m a strong guy, but I cannot recall ever having killed a queue jumper.
nbrus wrote:
Unfortunately, yes. Didn’t you read the article? And, no I don’t believe it is totaly legal to do so … that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a ‘busy’ road.
When was the last time you let someone jump in front of you in a queue at a supermarket checkout?— alansmurphy
But the question in the survey didn’t even specify they were doing so “illegally” yet compared it to “dangerous overtaking”. Also, it says rural, this you’d suggest that busy isn’t too often, furthermore you are actually correct in that ‘busy’ is subjective like ‘safe passing distance’.
I’m not sure what point you’re making with the queue jump? In fact if I’m in front and someone has a wider trolley than me, I don’t think I’m expected to give up my space…
alansmurphy wrote:
If someone jumps in front of you in a checkout queue, then it will only hold you up a minite, but you will be pretty pissed off as you didn’t give them permission to do so and you may be in a hurry. That’s a bit like cycling two-abreast holding up other traffic just so you can have a chat. I couldn’t think of a better example at the time, but hopefully it illustrates the point I was trying to make. No one likes being forceably held up because someone decides they want to chat to their cycling buddy. Its selfish and unneccessary. Single out, let traffic past, then pull back out and chat.
nbrus wrote:
not at all the same because 1) we didn’t jump in front of someone, we were already there.
2) in most cases there is enough room to pass simply by using the other side of the white lines
3) in cases where there is not enough space to pass, there is only enough space to pass if the over take is dangerous. I don’t feel like facilitating drivers who consider a few seconds of their time more imprtant than my safety.
4) even then I don’t think any driver has been behind for a minute
5) And more often still the driver in question is caught up at the queue at the next junction. who is really losing time here?
remember that everyone in a car is travelling two abreast, even when they are on their own. Perhaps if they were so concerned they should get a motorcycle and pass at will.
The roads were wide enough for people travelling at different speeds to poass each other until people started driving vehicles that fill the lane, and now those people are the ones complaining about there not being enough room. The vast majority of roads in this country predate cars.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Nicely put!
nbrus wrote:
You are like those people who say that people keeping to the speed limit on winding rural roads with a 40 limit are ‘forcing’ people to overtake dangerously.
nbrus wrote:
Yep doesn’t quite work as suggested above, I am ahead in the queue. As for the ‘having a chat’ thing, again I don’t understand why one person’s leisure is any less worthy of road space than another person’s trip to the recycling centre, Costa with a mate etc. Do the motons get more pissed off sat behind a car doing the speed limit with a passenger on board.
It’s the absurdity of people’s perceptions that I’m arguing here. On a group ride we will shout car back as appropriate and dib in, wave them thru if the front of the group can see it is safe etc. Strangely, we are more inclined to do so if we here an engine purr up behind keeping its distance rather than a late brake, rev and stupid position on the shoulder.
I’m still baffled that people sit doing a survey and their blood boils about being held up for a few seconds, every so often, rather than someone endangering them…
nbrus wrote:
Well, while on the subject of permission, I don’t recall ever giving permission for oversized cars to clog up the roads and get in the way of my bike/walking/bus. Still less did I give permission for their deisel fumes to clog up my lungs.
That said, dropping back into single file occasionally, if there’s traffic building up behind, seems to be the polite thing to do (like letting someone ahead of you in the checkout queue if they only have one item vs your trolley full). Is anyone arguing that nobody should ever do that?
nbrus wrote:
Well, I guess what is ‘legal’ is undefined until there’s a test case in court to decide what constitutes a ‘busy road’. Until then, I don’t see that your belief about what that means necesarily trumps anyone else’s.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Given that the original wording said the cyclists should move into single file to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake (I can’t remember the exact wording or when it was changed) I would think it most likely that the wording was changed because there are some situations where riding two-abreast makes it easier for other vehicles to overtake (e.g. group rides, where a shorter group is easier to overtake). Also, on quiet straight roads there would be plenty of visibility and it would be easy to overtake two-abreast cyclists without requiring them to single out.
So both old and new wording are intended to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake and the new wording is to now make it legal to ride two-abreast in those situations where it makes sense. I don’t believe it was intended that cyclists should be holding up traffic because they have their own interpretation of ‘busy’ and it is never ‘busy’ enough to move into single file.
Those that do ride two-abreast regardless of other traffic are just taking the p*ss really, and its not surprising it annoys other road users.
nbrus wrote:
Given that the original wording said the cyclists should move into single file to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake (I can’t remember the exact wording or when it was changed) I would think it most likely that the wording was changed because there are some situations where riding two-abreast makes it easier for other vehicles to overtake (e.g. group rides, where a shorter group is easier to overtake). Also, on quiet straight roads there would be plenty of visibility and it would be easy to overtake two-abreast cyclists without requiring them to single out.
So both old and new wording are intended to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake and the new wording is to now make it legal to ride two-abreast in those situations where it makes sense. I don’t believe it was intended that cyclists should be holding up traffic because they have their own interpretation of ‘busy’ and it is never ‘busy’ enough to move into single file.
Those that do ride two-abreast regardless of other traffic are just taking the p*ss really, and its not surprising it annoys other road users.— nbrus
Again though, that’s just your belief, and doesn’t mean very much.
I never ride two-abreast on account of not knowing any other cyclists, mind you. Most people I know would rather be on a bus. So this is all academic any way.
As for what annoys other road users – a lot of things about motorists annoy me, particularly their being allowed to park in places where they really shouldn’t be – what is supposed to follow from that? It’s in the nature of the world that people will constantly annoy each other, unfortunately. We live in a world designed so as to put people into conflict (and not just on the roads).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
And what is your definition of ‘busy’ … and no it isn’t just my ‘belief’ … it fits with the highway code (past and present). It seems more the case that others’ ignorance of what constitutes ‘busy’ (i.e. never) is a
beliefself-motivated opinion more than it is fact and isn’t backed up by the highway code.I was riding single file as I
I was riding single file as I do being on my jack jones last Sunday and some selfish, sorry dane=gerously reckless cnut ‘rural’ driver decided they’d drive within 6-7″ of my elbow dspite all the other lane to use.
basically it doesn’t matter how you ride, there are an awful lot of drivers who live in the sticks who can’t drive for shit, are simply selfish bastards and shouldn’t be in charge of a wheelbarrow never mind something with an engine and the capability to kill people!
That these types count people doing something lawful as their top hate just shows you what cretins they are.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
‘Kin townies, innit?
No traffic on rural roads,
No traffic on rural roads, abreast. “Car back” or a lot of activity, tandem, please. Mirrors will help immensely. We have a bad enough rep, much of it undeserved. Inisiting on abreast on a busy-ish two lane, shoulderless road is poor PR at its worst.
biketime wrote:
Perhaps that’s the way forward, we just wear “Car stay back” stickers/jerseys and the cars will stay back, OR ELSE!
I’m waiting for Virgin to justify why they have “cyclists stay back” stickers on their contracted vans.
biketime wrote:
If there’s not enough room to overtake safely, don’t. Unless you’re a first responder or taking an MI victim to hospital, waiting will not cause anyone to die. Impatience might.
biketime wrote:
Mirrors don’t help one iota unless you’re physically incapable of not turning your head, you’re more likely to keep checking it andbe distracted and the ‘moving out the way because I saw something close’ reasoning woud have you shifting off your line constantly especially in built up areas.
As for the old “car/oil up”, frankly it’s wasted and not necessary, instead of deferring all the time it’s the responsibility of those that wield more power/want to overtake (and ultimately present massively more harm) to modify what they are doing to ensure those around them are safe, NOT the other other parties.
I think I’m a very courteous person, whether riding a bie, in the car or even whengod forbid I’m walking, I won’t defer and make my journey more difficult/less safe for the convenience of someone that can potentially kill me. I don’t see that gives me a ‘reputation’or that that should apply to others who go about their business by same mode just as I don’t walking or driving, that people do is the problem forthe mentally deranged and thus motorists need tobe modified or removed from the roads until they can behave correctly.
If I can drive and not kill/maim or put fear into the mind of the vulnerable and cede priority/way whilst in my 1440kg machine then it’s entirely possible for all to do it.
It takes a lot of thinking at times but I have the life of others at stake, I also wouldn’t do something to someone I wouldn’t want done to me.
Change the thinking of drivers not people on bikes/foot as has happened for over 100 years!
The extension of this logic
The extension of this logic is that all motor vehicles need to be made so that the passengers sit behind the driver and not side by side – otherwise all that 54% of the tossers are moaning about is something that they are doing themselves and actually taking up even more room on the roads that bicycles originally helped bring about in the first place.
leqin wrote:
Riding two abreast for a car would be two cars traveling side-by-side.
leqin wrote:
Do you have a problem with letting traffic pass?
Doff your caps boyz, don’t
Doff your caps boyz, don’t upset your car driving masters…
Overtaking cyclists riding two abreast rarely disrupts drivers more than overtaking a long line of riders, generally the opposite.
Remember, it wasn’t many years ago, many white folk felt sure every black person was going to rob them and every gay person was going to rape them. Just because an opinion is popular, it doesn’t make it right
Doff your caps boyz, don’t
Triple post!
Doff your caps boyz, don’t
Triple post
“Cyclists riding side-by-side
“Cyclists riding side-by-side is biggest gripe for rural drivers…..”
So stay on the effing motorway.
I can understand why drivers
I can understand why drivers get annoyed with us riding two a breast on country lanes. On a recent holiday to the UK I was stuck behind a couple of lads on quality road bikes riding from Malham Cove, Yorkshire. At no time did they move into single file, as is their right, and therefore I slowly drove behind them for about four miles. It gave me the chance to enjoy the beautiful scenery. This was not annoying for me as I was on holiday, but the cars gathering behind me were really pissed off, flashing their lights and gesturing for me to overtake the cyclists. The lane was too narrow for overtaking. My usual action when riding two a breast is to get into single file when I hear a motor vehicle behind. Just common dog f*ck really.
Carmic0 wrote:
The fact that you’re criticising the cyclist when they do no wrong and accept the irrational behaviour of the impatient drivers is telling.
If the lane was too narrow for overtaking, it was too narrow for overtaking. I had a complete and utter asshat in a BMW pass me on a singletrack road, 25m before I was going to pull into a gate and let him pass. Zero justification for that pass except being a selfish, ignorant twat.
don simon wrote:
And that, right there, is the whole f-ing point and should be the end of the debate IMO.
I think many motons DO get
I think many motons DO get angry following behind another motor vehicle which is observing the posted speed limit, if my own experience is anything to go by.
That said, many motorists seem to miss the irony (think it’s ironic: always get confused about that) – they will complain about cyclists taking up the whole road (whether in single file or side by side) while they (the Angry Motorist) sit in the driver’s seat of their (otherwise empty) six feet wide, two tonne metal box made to carry five or more…
brooksby wrote:
I think the word is ‘hypocrisy’ rather than ‘irony’.
what annoys me is the
what annoys me is the confused.com advert with the guy who looks a bit like that twat from Coldplay and his insufferable child, frankly I’m astonished they give no percentage for that, although having said that, it is marginally less annoying than the fake Russian accents of the rat-like vermin advert and fake Italian fake opera singer with the fake mockney imbecile cabbie advert, grrr
Exactly, the HC is still
Exactly, the HC is still massively motorcentric and in my eyes unlawful, it still advises hi-vis and helmets yet doesn’t for motorists and pedestrians (though does hi-vis for peds which is another load of BS)it still pushes the might is right style to road safety and many other piss poor aspects that effectively are detrimental to the vulnerable road user.
It fails to recognise/enforce that cycle lanes are a complete other lane and it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are clear before entering them just as they would do changing/entering lanes with other motorvehicles in them (So the motor vehicle left turning into a cyclist aready there cases have often hinged on the lack of inference that this is wrong/must not scenario to the detriment of cycling safety and THINK have then gone on to victim blame cyclists/push the onus of safety onto the vulnerable in their distgusting ‘safety’ campaigns backing up the ‘get out the fucking way or you’ll get squashed’ mantra.
I even had a discussion on headphones, I personally don’t wear them but in NL cyclists are banned from wearing them as far as I could read, if we go down that route then every single motor should have its stereo system ripped out and listening to music banned plus any pedestria going anywhere near a road banned from listening to music/be on their phone.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Listening to music in a car or other vehicle is not the same as listening to music while cycling, running or walking simply because in a car or other vehicle you aren’t wearing headphones.
Headphones block out a lot of the sound around you due to their placement directly over or in your ears.
When you play music in a vehicle like when you play it in a room you can hear other sounds around you if you don’t play it too loud. However if you do decide to play it loud as a motorist and the police think so, they can and do fine motorists. Cyclists, runners and walkers aren’t fined for this.
Oh and every road user whether using a motor vehicle or shanks pony should banned from fiddling with a smartphone or similar device while in motion.
Bluebug wrote:
Cars insulate occupants from road noise, it’s not different to headphones. I’ve heard someone recently claim they can hear better with earphones in because it reduces the wind noise. I can’t hear much when I cycle due to wind noise, but I hear even less going on outside of a car when I’m driving.
I’ve never heard of that.
Yep, because there is far less potential for danger.
Should deaf people not be allowed to walk/run/cycle/drive?
Bluebug wrote:
Seems to me cars by their very design blot out outside noise more than headphones do, even without a pumping stereo with extra bass-bins in the back.
I seem to keep seeing car adverts that directly emphasise that very feature – the car’s ability to completely insulate you from that nasty noisy world outside and ensure you (and your children, who often seem to feature in those sorts of ads) are in a world of your own.
I often get disturbed in my own living room by someone’s car stereo as they pass by in the street or park outside. I somehow doubt they can hear anything outside their vehicle. And, no, the police never do anything about such things – don’t be absurd.
And the idea that walking while using a phone is as dangerous as driving is even more silly.
Yet they make car glass
Yet they make car glass unnecessarily thick, put speakers front back and centre, for systems that play excessively loud music. I’ve even heard there are some modern cars that can exceed the speed limit. But you’re right, cyclists with headphones area terrible menace and must be stopped!
As a motorist I find it very
As a motorist I find it very annoying and bad mannered of cyclists who do not move into single file to let me pass. If they are on a country road where they are probably travelling at one third of the speed limit, it is good etiquette to move over to let motor vehicles pass. This is if there are maybe two or four of them. If it’s a large bunch then that’s a different story. As a cyclist, if I am riding two abreast, I will always move over to let motor vehicles pass. It would be so rude not to. It’s like deliberately blocking someone from passing you as a pedestrian. It’s just not cricket.
I swore at a pheasant the other day as it bounced off of my windscreen.
jazzdude wrote:
What a bizarre thing to say. Will you pull over to let me through in my Ferrari Testarossa? Equally, I was drawn, as is unusual, to swear as a peasant bounced off the windescreen. No damage fortunately, to the car that is…
Let you pass? Who the fuck do you think you are?
jazzdude wrote:
Quite frequently on busy pavements and shopping centres it’s not possible to pass slower walkers. I would NEVER expect a couple or family to move into single file to let me past. I would expect to wait a few moments until no one is coming the other way and go round them. That drivers expect this demonstrates the level of entitlement endemic in society. Well done chap you have acquired the financial means to obtain a motor vehicle you are now king of the road and all others should make way for you.
Remember police forces up and down the country are advising passing distances of 1.5m assume the cycles are single file 0.5m from the kerb, the far side of the car will be 3.9m from the kerb, but the typical lane width is less than that.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m not sure your analogy is fair. You are comparing pedestrians with pedestrians. In a shopping centre you can walk wherever you like as there aren’t any desiginated lanes.
On the open road cars towing caravans, tractors and other slow moving vehicles will often pull in to a layby to let a backlog of traffic past. Normally cars don’t slow down and pull in simply because a faster car is approaching from behind.
As regards drivers expectation of entitlement, that isn’t true at all (ignoring the idiots) … its more about allowing people to go about their business without getting in their way because you want to chat with your cycling chum. Its like not letting someone past you in a doorway because you haven’t finished chatting with your friend, so they should be patient and wait a minute … its just bad manners.
nbrus wrote:
I’m
notsure your analogy is fair. You are comparing people with people, I agree that it’s sad that some think they have a greater right to space than others, simply because they’re driving. I think it is right that slower moving vehicles (caravans, cyclists and tractors etc.) get out of my way as they are slower moving but can’t get my head around the fact that a faster car might want me to get out of their way. That’s not fair. I think it’s great that you’ve convinced your mate to come cycling with you, and as a fellow cyclist, I’m cool that you want to chat with them. We need more people on bikes, not fewer. I fully appreciate that some people move slower, it’s the selfish cunts that I have issues with.pedestrians with pedestrians.In a shopping centre you can walk wherever you like as there aren’t any desiginated lanes.On the open road cars towing caravans, tractors and other slow moving vehicles will often pull in to a layby to let a backlog of traffic past. Normally cars don’t slow down and pull in simply because a faster car is approaching from behind.As regards drivers expectation of entitlement, that isn’t true at all (ignoring the idiots) … its more about allowing people to go about their business without getting in their way because you want to chat with your cycling chum. Its like not letting someone past you in a doorway because you haven’t finished chatting with your friend, so they should be patient and wait a minute … its just bad manners.— wycombewheelerdon simon wrote:
My, what a clever clogs you are …
It would be nice if you had something useful to add to the discussion other than attitude.
nbrus wrote:
I’m not sure your analogy is fair. You are comparing pedestrians with pedestrians. In a shopping centre you can walk wherever you like as there aren’t any desiginated lanes.
On the open road cars towing caravans, tractors and other slow moving vehicles will often pull in to a layby to let a backlog of traffic past. Normally cars don’t slow down and pull in simply because a faster car is approaching from behind.
As regards drivers expectation of entitlement, that isn’t true at all (ignoring the idiots) … its more about allowing people to go about their business without getting in their way because you want to chat with your cycling chum. Its like not letting someone past you in a doorway because you haven’t finished chatting with your friend, so they should be patient and wait a minute … its just bad manners.— wycombewheeler
Do you really believe the only reason for cycling two abreast is to chat? Or perhaps you think we do it just to upset the poor dear drivers?
oldstrath wrote:
Enlighten me please … and I’m not talking about club runs forming a shorter group as that I can understand. Talking of which I suspect club runs would be much more annoying to drivers than two people cycling two-abreast. Club runs can be near impossible to overtake.
nbrus wrote:
I’m not sure your analogy is fair. You are comparing pedestrians with pedestrians. In a shopping centre you can walk wherever you like as there aren’t any desiginated lanes.
On the open road cars towing caravans, tractors and other slow moving vehicles will often pull in to a layby to let a backlog of traffic past. Normally cars don’t slow down and pull in simply because a faster car is approaching from behind.
As regards drivers expectation of entitlement, that isn’t true at all (ignoring the idiots) … its more about allowing people to go about their business without getting in their way because you want to chat with your cycling chum. Its like not letting someone past you in a doorway because you haven’t finished chatting with your friend, so they should be patient and wait a minute … its just bad manners.— wycombewheeler
Completely ignoring the fact that all they have to do to pass is cross the white line as they would for a car, tractor or horse. If they can’t there is unlikely to be enough room to pass a single rider safely on the majority of rural roads which are not A roads.
You are advocating we facilitate or even encourage unsafe passing.
For your reference here is a safe overtake as demonstrated in the highway code (rule 163)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
wycombewheeler wrote:
We all hate close passes and I remember one time when I was overtaken by a van on a road full of potholes and the van was less than 12 inches from my bars … very scary, even at low speed. My mistake was leaving enough space for them to try and sneek through. Lesson learned.
If you are single file, then there will be more space between you and the overtaking vehicle. Some roads are wide enough to allow normal traffic flow without needing to move into the opposite lane to safely overtake a cyclist. On other roads it may be possible to safely overtake a cyclist while straddling the central white line (often even with oncoming traffic). This makes it a much faster manouver and much quicker to execute before oncoming traffic reaches you.
You are much more likely to encourage unsafe passes by making it more difficult for other vehicles to overtake because drivers will take more risks due to impatience.
nbrus wrote:
I’m not sure your analogy is fair. You are comparing pedestrians with pedestrians. In a shopping centre you can walk wherever you like as there aren’t any desiginated lanes.
On the open road cars towing caravans, tractors and other slow moving vehicles will often pull in to a layby to let a backlog of traffic past. Normally cars don’t slow down and pull in simply because a faster car is approaching from behind.
As regards drivers expectation of entitlement, that isn’t true at all (ignoring the idiots) … its more about allowing people to go about their business without getting in their way because you want to chat with your cycling chum. Its like not letting someone past you in a doorway because you haven’t finished chatting with your friend, so they should be patient and wait a minute … its just bad manners.— wycombewheeler
Well said, let others go about their business and being polite! For example, I am cycling solo up a long hill on a single laned narrow road doing less than 8 mph most likely. A car comes up behind me and I know it can’t get passed, and the hill will take another 3 minutes. So I stop and put my left foot on the verge to let the car pass. The car is grateful and I haven’t got an increasingly angry driver on my wheel! It is just an attitude to other road users and many cyclists are letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!
saladfunky wrote:
I understand the point, but you seem to be suggesting to pull over in all circumstances. Sometimes it isn’t practical and most of the time the car will be able to pass soon enough. Besides, what do you base your calculation of need to get ahead on? How fast the road user can go? How impatient they could get?
What if you were in a tractor and couldn’t adequately pull over? What if there were 4 cyclists and one driver in the car behind? What if, like most car journeys, the lazy, impatient moton is making a pointless, polluting journey that could adequately be made in another form of transport?
You’re making a load of judgements seemingly in a driver’s favour just because they can go up a hill faster than you. But there are too many cars on the road causing too much death and pollution. Society needs cars off the road and meekly surrendering the road to them isn’t going to help, is it?
saladfunky wrote:
You would pull over and stop halfway up a long hill to let a car pass? While that’s very generous, halfway up a long hill is probably the last place I’d consider stopping, tbh. And I think you must be wearing rose tinted glasses if you think that the motorist would be *grateful*; remember, it’s their right to get you the tax dodging cyclist out of the way, just their right, nothing to be grateful for since you’re just doing what you should have done. I hope you also doff your cap as they pass…?
saladfunky wrote:
First, why do you think it so vital to permit the driver to pass? Unless you’re in the way of an emergency vehicle, a three minute wait is unlikely to male any real difference to anyone’s life. You’re just encouraging the eejit in his or her impatience.
Second, if you’re going to talk about arrogance and selfishness, most of that lies with the person using a tonne or so of metal and burning fossil fuel to move one body around.
Finally, what’s with the nonsense about ‘letting the rest down’? When did you, or anyone else, last write that motorists who speed, or text while driving, or jump red lights, are “letting the rest down”?
saladfunky wrote:
Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.
nbrus wrote:
Given some of the responses on this thread it would appear that it is totally impossible for a cyclist to be inconsiderate as that only applies to motorists.— saladfunky
Maybe that’s because riding a bicycle is inherently considerate e.g. consider the environment, consider air pollution, consider how much space you’re taking up on the road etc.
hawkinspeter wrote:
(won’t somebody please) consider the children!
It does seem however that cycling does have it’s fair share of people who become fixated on a target, reducing any sense of self awareness and turning them into blinkered anally retentive borderline obsessives – it gives internet thread posters a bad name, letting the rest down by just being arrogant and selfish!
(no names mentioned – to protect the innocent)
hawkinspeter wrote:
All true, but I would argue that most of us that take up cycling don’t do so for those reasons.
nbrus wrote:
Agreed.
Luckily, I’m a logical positivist, so I don’t put much faith in intangibles like “intent”. To me, it just matters what you do and not why you do it. (Humans are very good at “justifying” almost any behaviour, so I prefer to just dismiss all of that nonsense).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Thankfully the legal system doesn’t work that way otherwise there would be a lot people being charged for something that was not their fault.
nbrus wrote:
In think you mean “sadly”, because a lot of people would try harder to avoid causing ” accidents”
nbrus wrote:
I would argue that it does largely work that way (with some exceptions as in all things).
Evidence is critical for the correct application of laws and justice. Thought-crimes would be the opposite whereby someone can be found guilty of pure “intent” without any actual physical wrong-doing. Crimes such as “manslaughter” cover the non-intentional harming of others.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think ‘largely’ is the word I’d use. ‘Intent’ plays a large part in determining whether something was an accident or deliberate and that forms a large part of the justice system. By ‘thought-crimes’ I think you might be referring to planning of a crime without getting a chance to carry it out. Simply thinking about something illegal isn’t a criminal offence thankfully as we all do this every day (oops). As regards manslaughter, someone can still be guilty of ‘negligence’ resulting in a death even if there is no intent to kill … the intent would have been to carryout the negligent action regardless of the risks you were aware of.
nbrus wrote:
You’re begging the question with stating that intent is a large part of determining whether something was an accident or deliberate – those are the results of people’s intentions.
Here’s some examples of modern day thought crimes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/governments-terror-watchdog-warns-against-creating-thought-crime/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/met_police_wastes_2_1m_online_hate_crime_hub/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re begging the question with stating that intent is a large part of determining whether something was an accident or deliberate – those are the results of people’s intentions.
Here’s some examples of modern day thought crimes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/governments-terror-watchdog-warns-against-creating-thought-crime/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/15/met_police_wastes_2_1m_online_hate_crime_hub/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487
— nbrusInteresting articles … I never knew thinking could be considered a crime. However, how would anyone know that someone else was holding extremist views? The crime isn’t the thinking … the crime is displaying and promoting that hate to others, so there is ‘intent’ to spread hate. That’s a physical action and not solely a ‘thought’.
nbrus wrote:
I think the topic is much less clear-cut than you would have it. Firstly, people have on numerous occasions been convicted of planning a crime without getting the chance to carry it out (e.g. several Islamist terror plots), and there is a specific offence of ‘conspiracy’, no?
Secondly I don’t agree there’s necessarily a significant moral difference between recklessly causing harm and deliberately doing so.
What complicates things hugely is when an entire group collectively decides to be habitually careless with the well-being of others. In that case the moral culpability is shared by the whole group, and it becomes a tricky dilemma to what extent to put the entire blame exclusively on the one who ends up being the instrument of harm. (I think that might to a degree even apply to things like sexual harassment as well as bad driving).
In all cases I think the ideal is to try and remove the power-imbalances that allow the bad behaviour, so as to save the perpetrators from themselves as much as to save their victims.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s the ‘intent’ part.
There would be a bigger difference between an ‘accident’ and ‘deliberate’ … causing harm by being ‘reckless’ is still a crime, but is at a lower level than deliberately doing so, as it is still an ‘accident’, but you increased the risk of that ‘accident’ happening by ‘deliberately’ choosing to be ‘reckless’.
We are all individuals, so I don’t think its fair to put people into groups in order to apportion blame. None of us are responsible for the actions of others. And what constitutes a ‘group’? Is it all road users, or all motor vehicles, or only 4-wheeled motor vehicles? I would think the type of group you are really referring to is the one consisting of inconsiderate drivers, but why not just enlarge the group to include all inconsiderate road users who thankfully are a minority?
nbrus wrote:
But in your previous post you didn’t talk about ‘intent’, you talked about not carrying out a planned action.
There would be a bigger difference between an ‘accident’ and ‘deliberate’ … causing harm by being ‘reckless’ is still a crime, but is at a lower level than deliberately doing so, as it is still an ‘accident’, but you increased the risk of that ‘accident’ happening by ‘deliberately’ choosing to be ‘reckless’.
We are all individuals, so I don’t think its fair to put people into groups in order to apportion blame. None of us are responsible for the actions of others. And what constitutes a ‘group’? Is it all road users, or all motor vehicles, or only 4-wheeled motor vehicles? I would think the type of group you are really referring to is the one consisting of inconsiderate drivers, but why not just enlarge the group to include all inconsiderate road users who thankfully are a minority?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
But we aren’t all individuals, we are members of groups. And different groups have different degrees of power.
No, I wouldn’t enlarge it to ‘inconsiderate road users’ because only the ones in motorised vehicles cause significant death and injury. That’s the whole point.
Strictly I wouldn’t even say it was ‘all motorised vehicle users’ so much as ‘all who support a car-centric transport system and tolerate a low standard of driving’ (some of whom don’t even drive themselves). It’s perfectly fair to apportion blame to that group, because they are the ones to blame!
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are you Borg?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Are you Borg?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Nah, I’m just someone who can see reality. Aren’t you?
Edit – to be less sarky and expand the point – we aren’t autonomous entities with no characteristics or interests shared with anyone else, we don’t grow in a vat somewhere and emerge fully formed into the world. We have characteristics and self-interests shared with others (many of them determined by accident of birth, though motoring isn’t one of those), and will tend to act collectively in pursuit of those shared-interests, whether consciously or not (and with motorists it often is consciously, when they lobby as an organised group via their various organisations, but other times its quite unconscious when they vote or serve on juries).
It usually tends to be the members of the most powerful groups who insist they are ‘individuals’ above all.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Are you Borg?
— hawkinspeter Nah, I’m just someone who can see reality. Aren’t you?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m just a figment of some elder gods’ imagination.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Hmmm, Fair play, I don’t have an answer to that one!
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Absolutely this. By and large, ‘we’ are a reasonable bunch.
@nbrus et al: don’t mistake the rhetoric on here for anti-car – it isn’t. The noise on here isn’t the equivalent of the ‘all cyclists are wankers’ stuff that takes off on the likes of the Daily Heil.
The venom tends to be directed at problem drivers and people who support the current trajectory of cars taking over the streets. If you think it’s difficult to get through to some on here, you want to try reasoning with a moton.
davel wrote:
I’ve tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses … they couldn’t get away fast enough … so motons should be a walkover.
nbrus wrote:
I’ve tried reasoning with a pair of Jehovah witnesses … they couldn’t get away fast enough … so motons should be a walkover.
— davel
Don’t confuse walking away bored with winning an argument.
don simon wrote:
It’s impossible to win an argument with a Jehovah’s Witness … don’t confuse that with them being right.
nbrus wrote:
just curious how many hours did it take them to get you sussed?
beezus fufoon wrote:
Maybe you can asked them the next time you invite them in for a cup of tea.
nbrus wrote:
yes I will, but how do I make sure they’ll know who I’m takling about?
…he can’t see the wood for the trees, spends a lot of time on the internet, thinks he knows what reason is but is just a pedant…
eventually I’d have to do some impersonation…
“mam, I think I almost won the internet today…
well no, I almost convinced someone of something…
hmm, well I’m not really sure what it was, the goalposts kept moving…
well anyway, I wore them down, and the thread was even longer than the raceview cycles one …
are you still listening mam?
I even told them about that time I scared off the Jehova’s witnesses mam…
no, sorry, you’re right mam, they did just get bored mam…”
and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.
so you see my problem?
beezus fufoon wrote:
…he can’t see the wood for the trees, spends a lot of time on the internet, thinks he knows what reason is but is just a pedant…
eventually I’d have to do some impersonation…
“mam, I think I almost won the internet today…
well no, I almost convinced someone of something…
hmm, well I’m not really sure what it was, the goalposts kept moving…
well anyway, I wore them down, and the thread was even longer than the raceview cycles one …
are you still listening mam?
I even told them about that time I scared off the Jehova’s witnesses mam…
no, sorry, you’re right mam, they did just get bored mam…”
and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.
so you see my problem?
— beezus fufoonYes, indeed I do … you need to ask your mam for answers.
nbrus wrote:
damn you got me – like those Jehova’s witnesses you’ve made me run off due to the power of your relentless and ineffable reasoning skills. (also it’s my bedtime)
nbrus wrote:
Yes, indeed I do … you need to ask your mam for answers.
— beezus fufoonOn another note … you make a good point about me going on a bit too much, so I’ll stop now … everyone has their own views on the subject of this thread and that’s totally fine.
davel wrote:
I think you’ve just identified the group FK was really aluding to … its all motons that read the Daily Mail. Sorted.
nbrus wrote:
Well no, but it depends on the situation and the ‘considerates’ are applying blanket principles that aren’t always practical and everyone is getting caught up in the semantics.
Its interesting to see the
Its interesting to see the stats in sharp relief at the bottom of the page- only 93 fatalities on motorways vs 910 on rural roads.
Yet, I can’remember the last time I saw a speed trap on a rural road, vs the countless cameras I see on motorway bridges etc.
PRSboy wrote:
Its not the speed that kills on rural roads … its the getting distracted by shouting at animals bit that usually gets you.
nbrus wrote:
Well this thread has really captured people’s imaginations, truly it’s grown a life of it’s own.
I particuarly chuckled at Davels response to Leviathan at the top of page three, bonus internet arguing points for Davel, but they are taken away later on for calling him a ‘sausage’ on the next page….. and I learn’ed a new internet word… ‘moton’. I had to ask my Mum if that was a real word and she did tell me that it were if I wanted it to be.. Yay ‘New word Monday!’
PRSboy wrote:
How many miles of motorways and how many miles of rural roads do you think? I bet the difference is far more than a factor of 10.
Only a number of fatalities per million miles travelled on each road type is meaningful.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Its interesting to see the stats in sharp relief at the bottom of the page- only 93 fatalities on motorways vs 910 on rural roads.
Yet, I can’remember the last time I saw a speed trap on a rural road, vs the countless cameras I see on motorway bridges etc.
— wycombewheeler How many miles of motorways and how many miles of rural roads do you think? I bet the difference is far more than a factor of 10. Only a number of fatalities per million miles travelled on each road type is meaningful.— PRSboy
2016 DfT figures showed around twice as many passenger miles on A roads than M-Ways.
In our club the ride leaders
In our club the ride leaders have been on a ‘course’, and as most of you well know, 4 riders 2 up is the size of a large car, 4 in a line is the length of 2 cars, resulting in the said driver being ‘out’ for less time.
There needs to be some discretion here to single out and let traffic past, also it seems that no one has told the drivers why on group rides its done, as its actually to help them most of the time.
i.stuart wrote:
The trouble is that what drivers and Mr Brus think is the alternative is that we’ll all be so close to the edge of the road that they can squeeze past without caring whether a car is coming the other way. If a proper passing distance were actually enforced (or even taught and examined in the joke test) they might realise the benefits of two-up, but not before. Best solution this side of driverless cars is make Bikeability 3 or equivalent a condition of holding a driving licence, and retest every 5 years.
oldstrath wrote:
If the road is wide enough for two lanes of traffic and single file cycles then why not? Otherwise as i.stuart says 2 up on narrower roads for group rides is just fine and your won’t find any drivers complaining. Most riders I see do actually behave in this way, but there are always a small minorty who don’t give a f*ck.
So many cyclists have awful
So many cyclists have awful discipline and awareness, in the middle of the road swerving about, keep a tight double paceline FFS, you can tell the ones who don’t race or even do the club chaingang. Makes me even more angry, because as a cyclist, you get tarred with the same brush.
I mean people tend to dislike everybody else anyway in general, such a sad society.
J90 wrote:
you sound like fun
J90 wrote:
Like you, being angered by people who don’t even do the club chaingang.
J90 wrote:
Pfft! I can assure you that being perfect is bloody hard work and generally a thankless task. But hey, give it a go one day…