A Volkswagen Passat driver overtaking club cyclists on a group ride last month almost caused a head-on crash with another vehicle, with the motorist having to slam their brakes on so hard that you can hear the tyres squeal and see smoke billowing around the tyres.
Footage of the incident was filmed on the morning of Saturday 23 October by road.cc user Sevenfold, during a Wylde Green Wheelers group ride heading towards Nether Whitacre in North Warwickshire.
He said: “The white pick-up performed a perfect overtake having sat patiently behind us for a couple of minutes, then the driver of the blue VW Passat decided to overtake as well …
“Reported via Operation Snap with the result being that the driver has been sent a warning letter by Warwickshire Police.,” he added. “The vehicle is also untaxed so this has been handed over to DVLA to follow up.”
Although there’s no forward-facing footage, it’s apparent from how hard the driver had to brake that they had not ensured “the road is sufficiently clear ahead,” as required by Highway Code Rule 162.
Moreover, Rule 163 tells motorists to “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so,” and to give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.”
It’s possible that some non-cyclists viewing the video might question why the cyclists are riding two abreast and not in single file.
Despite a widespread misconception among many motorists that riding two abreast is illegal, it is expressly permitted by the Highway Code, and it is also often safer for groups of riders two cycle side-by-side rather than in single file.
Besides reducing the time it takes a driver to overtake the group, riding two abreast can also discourage dangerous manoeuvres – here, for example, had the cyclists been in single file, it’s not hard to imagine the Passat driver trying to squeeze through a non-existent gap between the riders and the oncoming vehicle.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
198 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 652: Driver overtaking group ride almost causes head-on crash (includes swearing)”
The number of incompetent
The number of incompetent drivers on our roads is a serious problem that the government and enforcement agencies mostly ignore, and the legal system and politicians are culpable in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries every year.
That driver, and the many others featured on this website and elsewhere, have demonstrated beyond doubt that they are not fit to be in control of a death-dealing machine in a public place, and should be prevented from doing so for public safety. Instead, we have a system which protects them, not the vulnerable. We need a system which protects us, not the ones killing us.
Never mind, all this will be addressed when the review of road laws reports etc, etc.
For many years, it’s struck
For many years, it’s struck me that the only thing that will really make the difference is to properly recognise that a driving license is just that – a license not a right – and to deal with issues regarding licenses on the civil burden of proof.
Yes, criminal penalties realistically would need to be dealt with on the criminal standard, especially when you get to custodial sentences. But why is the privilege of driving a car only taken away if you have have endangered other people’s lives beyond all reasonable doubt?
Comparisons with other spheres of life don’t make it any easier to justify. I’m damn sure pilots, train drivers, operators of heavy machinery etc… can’t hide behide cover of reasonable doubt if they make mistakes. Why should a lorry driver be judged differently?
A very good point, especially
A very good point, especially when you consider how many people are killed/injured by pilots, train drivers, heavy machine operators etc, compared to those killed and injured by drivers.
I think this all stems from when laws were originally devised to control drivers, which were weak and badly enforced; because it was the poor who were being killed and the rich who were killing them. Cars are much more widely distributed in our economic groups now, but the privilege embodied in those rules marches on unimpeded.
TedBarnes wrote:
My son is a licenced commercial pilot (still in school though.) If he does something momentously stupid, why can’t he use the “livelihood” plea even moreso than a driver who has to use his car to commute to an office? If his licence is taken away, he can’t do the career he spent half a decade and a lot of money training for anywhere, for anyone.
Safety culture is built in to
Safety culture is built in to flying even before going Commercial. Keeping a log of all flights and detailed license tiers with specific competencies evaluated by skilled instructors and formal exams. It’s a very different experience to learning to drive a car. Then there’s Attitude and Airmanship to express diligence and self improvement. So culture is everything and along with engineering excellence makes flying the safest mode of public transport. So it’s not that it can’t be done, rather that there is no political will…
It seems as if driving has
It seems as if driving has become a ‘right’, and nothing can change this. Pass a test, and the majority think they’re the complete drivers. All to often the evidence proves rather contrary.
On passing my test 35 years
On passing my test 35 years ago, both my father and instructor after congratulating me, told me that I was now on a steep learning curve and to keep my wits about me and the authorities would be more than happy to seize my licence if I behaved like an idiot on the road!
giff77 wrote:
Was it true then? Because it certainly isn’t now.
It seems you get to cause 3-5 deaths (must be separate incidents) before there’s any real risk of it being taken away.
Pretty much. Living in
Pretty much. Living in Northern Ireland meant that you really did chance your arm in driving like a silly beggar due to the number of unmarked vehicles around. Also there was a real impetus to reign in dangerous drivers due to the stupidly high levels of road deaths at that time. There was also a judge at my local court who was quite happy to throw the book at you if you appeared before him and always seemed to be the one who picked up the driving offence dockets.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
It’s the minimum acceptable standard.
Just as you suggest, many can’t even do that safely…
I’ve seen a fair number of
I’ve seen a fair number of poor and aborted overtakes, but I’ve never seen such a bad one that they’ve had to emergency stop on the wrong side of the road. Did the driver even look ahead of themselves?
This is why i stopped going
This is why i stopped going on club rides in big-ish groups (more than 6).
Whilst I am fully onboard with the legality and safety of a well drilled group of 12 riding around, I am all too aware of how group rides in this number enrage Neanderthal motorists, and have been on the receiving end of too many dangerous ‘punishment’ passes and tooting horns.
I want to enjoy my time out group riding, not be constantly on edge.
It’s shame, but now I restrict myself usually to just riding with a couple of friends and i generally have a nicer time.
You are not alone in that.
You are not alone in that.
Yep – me too.
Yep – me too.
Mainly solo, occasionally two, very occasionally three.
Although – not two hours ago (riding solo) exactly the same thing happened to me when a van tried to overtake (just before a T junction where we all had to stop FFS!) and forced the oncoming car to slam the brakes on and move into a side road.
But I was FORCED to overtake
But I was FORCED to overtake on a blind bend on a narrow winding road with no visibility.
If they’d been in single file It would have been safe to overtake
… think they own the road. Well I’ve got new for them. I think I own the road…
….Bradley Wiggins…
…Hi-viz…
… Road tax…
…HWC (just as long as you don’t count rules 160 -170, 213, or any of it) ….
….pass a test…
…pavements….
Cannot use the road tax
Cannot use the road tax argument, vehicle was untaxed at the time & remains so. MOT has expired now as well.
Sevenfold wrote:
Jesus.
That was a horrible situation, just glad that you all stayed on your bikes.
I’d be keen to see the HRM traces of that part of the ride though….
Thanks – there was one or two
Thanks – there was one or two who were more than a little shaken at the back of the group. We’ve had close passes before but this is by far & away the worst I’ve experienced. I run an @PassPixi sign which has resulted in a significant decrease in closes passes when riding solo & in a group when I am at the back. As I was in the front, I doubt the driver saw it before well you can see the rest.
Sevenfold wrote:
Isn’t it odd that drivers who fail to notice a living breathing human being in front of them and perform an adequate risk assessment, are able to take notice of a warning about being filmed….
Oh they notice you alright,
Oh they notice you alright, they just don’t give a flying XXXX about you as you are ‘only a bl00dy cyclist’ UNTIL they see the camera sign…then they care a great deal about their licence.
There was no worthwhile
There was no worthwhile footage from the forward facing camera as all the ‘action’ was taking place behind… What it does show is the group aproaching a blind RH bend (following the road) & an alternative ‘straight on’ option (which we took). What the driver was thinking I cannot imagine as it would have been unlikely they could overtake all of us in time to take the bend under control & in no way could they see what was coming round it.
A warning letter is such a
A warning letter is such a tragically insufficient outcome. Perhaps due to the absence of front footage? But some forces just love sending them as a default
I did submit the front
I did submit the front footage to Warwickshire Police via the Nextbase portal but as I was at the front of the group it did not show anything worthwhile apart from the approaching bend. At least they responded which is more than WM Police do who normally get my submissions.
lukei1 wrote:
Many police forces prefer rear facing cameras.
That hasn’t come up before
That hasn’t come up before
Which ones are these ?
hirsute wrote:
I’m talking with several police forces at the moment about some of these issues, and how to solve them (which is about as much as i can say at present). I can’t say much about which ones other than Sussex.
There’s some consensus from some of the officers on the ground that they prefer a rear facing camera, due to the “dynamic kinetic envelope” and how a rear facing camera allows the viewer to (perhaps) better see the cyclists direction of movement in relation to the pavement (and whether they swerved or not as a motor vehicle passes them).
Both views is best (but there’s obviously financial constraints on people’s expenses), but where only a single camera exists they seem to prefer rear facing.
where only a single camera
where only a single camera exists they seem to prefer rear facing
What they actually prefer, and I am of course writing mainly about Lancashire, is whatever isn’t available. It’s just the dodge which has replaced the old ‘if only we had some evidence…it’s just your word against his’ dodge. They are now saddled with the evidence and they don’t like it- so they resort to ‘if only we had different evidence’. It would be ‘we need distance-calibrated vertically-overhead drone footage’ if we let them get away with it. No evidence is ever enough if they’re determined to take no action. LC would definitely prefer rear-facing for cases like this 35 tonner crashing through a red light. This was 13.11.20- official MG11 statement made, but no action and no response to enquiries about the case
wtjs wrote:
I haven’t spoken with Lancashire. For total clarity my previous point was not about some sort of “dodge”, I’m working (discussing “stuff”) with some forces.
That said if you’re unhappy with how you’ve been treated then i suggest making a complaint or multiple complaints as i have done. I’ve had complaints upheld by Professional Standards. I’ve written to my PCC and I’ve followed up as much as I can. It’s my life being put at risk (and i’d rather ride outdoors than totally indoors) and i’ll make time to a) solve this issue and b) complain.
I’ve had complaints upheld
I’ve had complaints upheld by Professional Standards
I can assure you that you wouldn’t in Lancashire. Neither would you receive a sympathetic hearing from the useless and ineffectual PCC Snowden. The response to complaints mainly about no action being taken about multiple red light crashing offences was a shockingly inept letter informing me that there is no legal minimum passing distance or cyclists, and no mention of red light crashing at all. Lancashire traffic policing is in a bad way as a result of this unholy alliance.
More to the point, why has
More to the point, why has the driver only received a warning letter? At the worse case this should have been prosecuted for careless, and at best should have been prosecuted for dangerous.
It’d be interesting for Road.cc to get a response from Andy Cox as to why this particular incident has been let off so lightly, as well as from the Warwickshire Force as well. Such dire ‘punishments’ (ooo! a letter, that’ll stop me) need investigating.
Text-book example of why
Text-book example of why group rides should be limited to a small number of participants for safety reasons. Glad everyone is OK.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Textbook example of one group using the road in full compliance with the law and another person breaking the law but the trollmeister siding with the latter simply because s/he’s in a motor car and they are on bicycles.
At 8-9s into the video, you
At 8-9s into the video, you can see clearly that the width of the lane and the width of the car are closely matched, and no amount of positioning would have made any difference to the need for any overtake to be done on the other side of the road.
The size (length) of the group is also a red herring, since the car had not even adequately* cleared the rearmost pair before the brakes locked up (* not just ahead, but clear enough in front for it to be a safe pass). That’s without considering what we may euphemistically call the driver’s “thinking” time.
A large group actually makes it clearer that the pass is unsafe.
I’d like to thank Nigel for supplying once more the idiot comment, although it would be useful if he used some kind of symbol to indicate, “we all know this is a stupid comment: I’m just playing devil’s advocate”. Otherwise we’d think the idiot comment was being stated from a position of sincere idiocy.
Rendel Harris wrote:
“Trollmeister”? Trollinfant, or trollbaby, surely?
It’s a good point, we should
It’s a good point, we should extend that to drivers. The roads would be much safer if we place limits on how many cars/vans/hgvs we allowed on them at the same time.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Textbook example of why Nigel Garage should just disappear.
You need to learn to cope
You need to learn to cope with opinions that differ to yours.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Different, Yes,
Stupid, No.
And who will judge the
And who will judge the stupidity quotient?
Oh, you of course!
Again, think you need to accept that an opinion is not automatically ‘correct’ just ‘cos you hold it!
Or, to put it another way – think you need to grow up a touch. You know, become a fraction more mature in your approach to issues.
.
.
[img[https://4.bp.blogspot
How small a number of
How small a number of cyclists is it safe to overtake approaching a blind bend? Even if you genuinely believe small groups are safer, this is a textbook example of nothing but dangerous driving.
quiff wrote:
It absolutely is dangerous driving, which underscores the point of my post.
What I guarantee will have happened is that a tailback of vehicles formed behind the group as they enjoyed their leisurely social, with people having to wait quite a while for the opportunity to pass. Most drivers will have the patience to wait for the appropriate moment, but every now and again a driver will let frustration get the better of them and attempt a pass in a dangerous situation. Perhaps the van had to wait an inordinate amount of time to overtake the group which led to the car trying to overtake in a dangerous location, it’s hard to tell as the video is so short.
This wouldn’t have been the case if a single cyclist (like myself) was on the road, as it’s much easier to overtake a single rider than a large group. Groups, as the law stands, have every right to ride in the manner shown in the video, but that doesn’t make it safe or sensible.
Hence why my original statement is correct: “Text-book example of why group rides should be limited to a small number of participants for safety reasons.”
Nigel Garage wrote:
I, for one, am amazed that no-one wants to cycle with you.
I reckon he was in a cycle
I reckon he was in a cycle group and was kicked out sharpish once he had opened his mouth a few times to give his thoughts. Hence his hatred for them.
No-one?
No-one?
I’d happily ride with him.
So you’re wrong again.
He’s just upset because I
He’s just upset because I turned him down.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
But he wouldn’t ride with you, because he only rides alone.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Then we should be banning these people from the roads, not trying to appease them. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and people shouldn’t have to put themselves in danger to appease dangerous drivers.
Nice one Jeno, well put!
Nice one Jeno, well put!
This would still have been a
This would still have been a dangerous overtake even on just one or two cyclists – as someone else has pointed out, the driver is barely clear of the rearmost pair before they see oncoming traffic and have to perform an emergency stop. If you think that riding in groups creates conflicts – fine, that’s your prerogative. But if you think this is the textbook example to illustrate your point, I think you’re doing your argument a disservice.
Last Saturday afternoon I was
Last Saturday afternoon I was out cycling on my own. I had a similar incident when a car overtook in an inappropriate place and caused an oncoming car and the overtaking car to brake sharply before the overtake was abandoned.
I don’t ride with a camera. I think it was less likely to happen if I had been on the Club run rather than a single cyclist.
Sniffer wrote:
I got clipped by a car doing a dangerous close pass recently. The driver was wearing what looked like an NHS nurse uniform…Can’t upload the video for a couple months since it’s gone to the police.
Nigel Garage wrote:
You really have surpassed yourself with this one.
It’s also bobbins because the
It’s also bobbins because the law permits speed restricted 40ft long vehicles to be driven on the same roads and car drivers need to be able to safely overtake those as well.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
No. Until he came back with “…holding up lots of important adults in cars trying to make necessary journeys to attend to serious life business immediately” I was actually considering directly asking after his welfare. Still would like to see some paper tiger / bogeyman / figurehead to be mentioned (Mikey / Top Lawyer… / Trump / Khan) before I’m confident all’s well.
Text book example of why you
Text book example of why you’re a liar.
If the group had only TWO people, the situation was exactly the same. The driver has made a mistake trying to overtake the group (which was about the size of a bus) and barely overtook only two of them.
IF the group had two members, the situation would be exactly the same.
The driver’s is on failure.
Your conclusion is incorrect.
Nigel Garage wrote:
With less riders the car would have likely attempted a close pass, since they’re in such a hurry. Your “solution” would have put the riders in more danger.
“Reported via Operation Snap
“Reported via Operation Snap with the result being that the driver has been sent a warning letter by Warwickshire Police.,” he added. “The vehicle is also untaxed so this has been handed over to DVLA to follow up.”
Pathetic. The car is untaxed, so just seize it and crush it.
Text book example of the
Textbook example of the safety benefits of disciplined group riding by adopting the correct 2 abreast formation.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Absolutement mon frere
Also textbook example of why knowledge of HWC rules 162-169 are vital to any driver. Any that do not understand them are a risk to all other users (adopting any mode) and should be removed until they can demonstrate otherwise.
That is one video where you
That is one video where you honestly wonder whether the motorist looked *at all* before starting their manoeuvre…
brooksby wrote:
Only one?….
One for emphasis, not meaning
One for emphasis, not meaning that’s the only one.
I’m in little doubt that I’m
I’m in little doubt that I’m noticing two things whilst out on the bike.
1) I’m certainly being given far more space when being overtaken by the vast majority of drivers.
2) Drivers are increasingly overtaking in, frankly, fucking stupid places such as bends and brows of hills.
The video is a good example of both. The van being point 1 and the car being point 2.
Actually the van was a
Actually the van was a perfect example – he waited behind us for virtually 3 minutes patiently (I’ve checked the full rear recording) then overtook. No horn honking, abuse, histrionics, hand gestures or a ‘punishment’ pass – just how an overtake should be. It’s a shame there is no livery on the vehicle as I would have phoned to pass on my appreciation to his manager/H & S representative.
A “warning letter” for
A “warning letter” for dangerous driving on a car that’s already untaxed. The police are a complete joke – why can’t they speak to the driver or better still prosecute?
open_roads wrote:
It’s official policy of Warwickshire Police to issue only warning letter for the first two incidents, unless there is an actual collision.
It’s mind boggling really. But that’s the situation.
That driver could do exactly the same again tomorrow, and they would just get a ‘sterner’ warning letter.
That is a ridiculous policy.
That is a ridiculous policy.
You could have three members of the same family, all on the insurance policy. Two drive dangerously, generating two warning letters for the registered keeper. Then the third does a half hearted close pass and gets investigated.
Or someone gets two warning letters and sells the car on sharpish.
Poor
Just another thought. The car
Just another thought. The car is a modern Passat and will have ABS as standard, so how come the wheels have locked up hard enough to cause them to smoke?
Capt Sisko wrote:
Certainly demonstrates the crap driving
Anti-lock is a bit of a misnomer – they do lock, just as soon as they do they release, then lock, then release. This allows the wheel to still turn therefore maintaining directional control whilst reducing skid. But it doesn’t completely prevent it.
So the rubber still burns, just not as much.
Having driven one of those
Having driven one of those for a number of years it’s almost impossible to lock the brakes in dry weather at low speeds. He was overtaking in a 30mph so to me the tyre smoke either means he’s speeding, or the ABS is faulty (which might also explain why the car now has no MOT).
Oh, what a surprise, from the
Oh, what a surprise, from the recent MOT history:
YC61XVZ
kil0ran wrote:
Nice bit of detective work! chapeau
Had to lol at the MOT history
Had to lol at the MOT history, having owned one of these nails it’s full of the usual faults – ABS, electronic handbrake (why god, why?), and airbags. Plus the usual tyre failures indicative of maintaining it on the cheap.
kil0ran wrote:
My old scenic had an electronic brake which never let me down – only thing was to unwind the caliper every couple of MOTs. It also had WING MIRRORS. I have a Touran now, which is pretty good, but the EHB is, shall we say, temperamental – new car <15k miles – and it is something of an uncertainty whether it engages when the engine is switched off. I only know cos Mrs Badger doesn’t leave it in gear, so a couple of times it has begun to move, luckily when we were still sitting in it.
I do take pleasure in the fact that I can now definitely say “and that’s why I leave it in gear”…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Nope – The Renault Scenic definitely has DOOR MIRRORS.
swldxer wrote:
ODD HOW THEY DON’T MOVE WHEN THE DOOR IS OPENED.
swldxer wrote:
AUDOOR CONTRAIRE….Captain Badger wrote:
PS congratulations on being the recipient of my 3000th post on this esteemed organ.
1st prize is a voucher for a spleenectomy, redeemable at any hospital
Captain Badger wrote:
That’s not bad, but personally I’m more impressed that swldxer has managed to post DOOR MIRRORS the best part of 176 times.
mdavidford wrote:
Life goals MD, life goals…
hm
It’s almost like you knew
It’s almost like you knew this before you posted… Well played. (Though I’m now waiting for some excuse like “they’re A-pillar mirrors”)
quiff wrote:
You can bet that the driver
You can bet that the driver would blame ‘bloody cyclists’ getting in their way…..Absolutely shocking driving!
Should be forced to re-test after a 6/12 month ban……
At least the Womble didn’t
At least the Womble didn’t cut in too fast on the pack. I had an off years ago where the driver did just that (cut in fast rather than have a head on) but I was cycling alone the presence of a group maybe saved them ?
I think the cyclists are
I think the cyclists are stupid riding in a group like that on a narrow busy road – before you have a go at me, I’ve been a club cyclist for 64 years and done thousands of club runs, cycling like that is very selfish and dangerous.
Really….. you’re full of it
Really….. you’re full of it mate!!!
Cycling Common sense learned
Cycling Common sense learned from a lifetime of cycling – about 500,000 miles worth – is that what you mean?
kingleo wrote:
Surely cycling alone would be selfish…
And would the outcome have been any different if it was one rider?
Before you have a go at me I’ve been a driver for less than half the time you’ve been a club rider, and I would never overtake in that situation – it would be selfish and dangerous…..
It’s a 30 MPH speed limit
It’s a 30 MPH speed limit
Where should they cycle – only in a 20 ?
There were only 3 or 4 vehicles behind – hardly busy.
Hang on, you are the bloke who a few months ago claimed in one thread you could hardly walk, then the next day in another how you go jogging with your mates.
Another fantasist/wum.
Not very consistent are you
Also worth pointing out of
Also worth pointing out of course (to them not you) that the speed limit is a limit, not a target, and that all road users are entitled to progress at the speed they see fit, within reason, and 20mph in a 30 zone falls well within that remit.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Afraid not – going too slowly is an offence and dangerous to boot. See https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/slow-drivers-creating-dangerous-driving-scenarios/ for more.
A road user can only be
A road user can only be charged with moving too slowly if “they are a hazard to other road users”. Clearly 20mph in a 30mph zone does not cause a hazard, the only hazard created is by a driver trying to make a dangerous pass. If you can find me a single instance of a road user being sanctioned for travelling at 20mph in a 30 zone, I’d be most interested to see it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think all drivers going less than flat out at all times are dangerous. And don’t get me started on sitting stationary in traffic jams. Bloody cyclists
Too bloody right! Driving a
Too bloody right! Driving a portly diesel MPV style car I cannot tell you the number of times I have been caught by a minimum speed camera while accelerating away from a stationary start to reach the target speed.
And as for driving into the back of unexpected cyclists going slower than the limit round a blind bend? Why sometimes, and I am ashamed to admit, that I’m not driving fast enough and have to close my eyes instead.
Nigel Garage wrote:
And yet
Licence Categories for mopeds and motorcycles
Category AM (moped) – minimum age 16
two-wheeled vehicle with a maximum design speed of 45 km/h (28 mph)
So it is, in the minds of motorists and their sympathisers, an offence to travel below the speed limit, and yet the let 16 year olds ride motorbikes or scoooters on all roads other than motorways, but limit their vehicles to less than 30mph ?
Tractors, illegal on national speed limit roads? No
Horses ? no
Milk floats – just about evrywhere? no
mobility scooters? no
Your road safety website doesn’t look very offical, but also makes no mention of there being an offence except where minimum speed limits exist. In fact it doesn’t look to disimilar to the roadsafety twitter account that got removed after losing an argument with the surreypolice twitter.
I’m nearly sure the only time
I’m nearly sure the only time the police will pull you for being too slow is a motorway. I’ve yet to see ‘slow’ drivers being pulled on either A roads or B roads.
On top of that, larger
On top of that, larger vehicles are required to drive 10 MPH slower than cars and motorcycles are permitted to on national speed limit single carriageways… up to 20 MPH slower in Scotland. They must be hit from behind nearly constantly!
(and dual carriageways)
(and dual carriageways)
Rendel Harris wrote:
Bloody marxists
Both comments are correct.
Both comments are correct. Cycling like that gives a lot of motorists more than enough reason to use their car as a weapon to teach cyclists a lesson. Ride in single file if there is traffic queuing up behind you on a club run.
Do you agree with my comment that you have quoted and do you agree
with my comments about the cyclists, if not, why not?- It looks very dangerous to me.
Your issues have already been
Your issues have already been discussed and comprehensively answered by posters in the thread.
You are also victim blaming.
kingleo wrote:
It’s really quite simple – cycling in a group does not justify criminal behaviour. Those with a short enough fuse to use their car as a weapon will find something to complain about however we ride – there’s not a lot we can do about them. But riding in a group at least provides some protection from the merely incompetent who might otherwise try to squeeze past a single line when there’s not space.
I think it is worth pointing
I think it is worth pointing out that in the clip attached to this story, that there are 8 cyclists and 5 car drivers including the one coming the other way who narrowly avoided a head on collision. So which minority road user group is causing the most nuisance to the majority?
How does riding in single
How does riding in single file help when there is insufficient space to pass with oncoming vehicles.
Generally on those roads, there is enough room to pass when two abreast, the problem is there is insufficient visibility to see far enough ahead to pass even a single cyclist.
The question is therefore, are you saying cyclists should ban themselves from specific roads where using them could cause delay for motorists?
If so, I suggest you get the OS map out and suggest routes that you can cycle from say Meriden to Atherstone without ever going on such a road. I don’t think you’ll find one.
As a cyclist, I don’t take joy in impeding others’ progress and we seek to minimise the impact, but the reality is that there are times when for a minute or two motorists are going to have to accept that they need to wait for a safe place to pass because certain sections of road are never safe places, regardless of riding configuration.
Riding alone does not solve it – it actually encourages drivers to take a risk. The worst are nervous drivers who don’t pass at a place where a firm decisive pass is ok, then they panic as a car comes up behind them and guilt overrides driving ability and they then overtake in poor positions.
I believe the idea is to
I believe the idea is to squeeze through with mm to spare.
Our British roads are built to such a standard that there is no risk from a pothole or other poor surface.
This roman road is still in pristine condition, centuries later.
hirsute : you are a liar, I
hirsute : you are a liar, I did not state that I go jogging with my mates – I’m nearly 80 and have been seriously ill, I can hardly walk upstairs but I can do very short rides on my bike – about 30 to 60 min.
I try to help you young cyclists but you keep turning it into a, I’m better than you are competition.
kingleo wrote:
He’s not lying, I remember very clearly you making that claim and how you were roundly called out as a bullshitter at the time.
Go back to the Daily Mail
Go back to the Daily Mail comments website where you trolls belong – what article was that comment made in? I bet you a £1000 that you made it up?
I was an elite veteran runner for 35 years – I was never a “jogger”, won a fun run when I was 61.
kingleo wrote:
That’s a fantastic achievement kingleo. I know the dedication required to be an elite runner – I have a friend who is a professional ultrarunner, and his determination and perseverance are the stuff of legends.
Ignore what others say here – you’re perfectly entitled to your logical, common sense reasoning.
You can’t teach stupid- If others want to ride around windy busy B roads in big groups (or A roads for that matter – the A507 near me springs to mind), don’t be surprised if the next headline is worse than a near miss.
Does one ‘win’ a fun run?
Does one ‘win’ a fun run? (Also, “Won a fun run when I was 61” sounds like a song lyric. Is it Blur? That one about knowing claret from beaujolais?)
Yes, me.
Yes, me.
Good. Good. You have a real
Good. Good. You have a real skill for understanding and persuading people.
Time you went in to politics?
You did say that.
You did say that.
In fact it started with how you laid someone out with a punch when you were young but you couldn’t do it now due to your age/physique then the next day you talked about your jogging with your mates.
Your last sentence does not relate to anything I have written.
hirsute wrote:
Oh yes. I remember now
Stop making up facts – troll,
Stop making up facts – troll, where is the evidence?
kingleo wrote:
Yes, it does 2 hours ago that your comment appeared.- look at the evidence.
So what would you have this
So what would you have this group of cyclists do? Single out? Then what would have happened when the driver decided to overtake into a blind bend?
What would happen if the
What would happen if the driver decided not to overtake on a blind bend?
If a group of cyclists rides round a blind bend there is a good chance they will be hit from behind by a vehicle – it has happened, motorists going round a blind bend don’t expect to see a group of cyclists in front of them.
I know they have to drive slowly around blind bends so they can stop in the distance they can see, but in the real world, they don’t, it’s more likely to be performance adrenaline driving.
But in this example, the
But in this example, the driver can clearly see these cyclists, and chooses to overtake into a blind bend. So how would singling out have changed the situation?
kingleo wrote:
how fast are they going that the did not see the cylists before the cyclists went round the bend? Never mind that they should at all times be able to stop in the space they can see to be clear.
Cool story Bro.
Cool story Bro.
S13SFC wrote:
2008 called, it wants its very dated meme back.
Captain Badger wrote:
Sorry, not aimed at you. An obscure reference to an exchange I had yesterday.
With someone else .
I’ll get me coat
kingleo wrote:
Yadda, Yadda, ‘ I’m a keen cyclist’. It’s not a narrow road, it’s fine, the only problem is idiot drivers, who fail to pass safely, and need to hand in their driving licences.
kingleo wrote:
That road really isn’t narrow – unlike the minds of an increasing proportion of the population.
The only selfish and dangerous (as well as stupid) behaviour was exhibited by the driver
We club ride in that area
We club ride in that area once every couple of months and the driving standards of noticeably worse than Warwickshire and Worcestershire.
In part it is the winding nature of the roads. We sometimes ride single, sometimes two abreast and it doesn’t seem to make any difference. We had one full stop head-on near miss where the driver then re-passed to go up the drive no more than 100 yards further ahead – causing the front of the group to need to slow.
The other gem was the group right turn where some divvy tried to overtake as the group had already started turning right.
Basically, some of the roads just aren’t suitable for passing in that area. We try and take the back lanes, then we get even more abuse because it is physically impossible to pass on a single track road and it is extremely difficult to bring a group of cyclists to a halt in a gateway to let irate motorist past on their urgent journey to the cafe we are also heading into half a mile ahead, so we tend to hold our ground – though people feel obliged to single out which baffles the motorist as we tend to slow down to do this and they still can’t get past.
It is also an area where we get the maximum calls of “Single out” from oncoming traffic, or overtaking cars that have to slow down to shout at us, rather than go on their merry way, having no difficulty passing on a clear section of road.
Thats all very nice, but has
Thats all very nice, but has it ever occurred to you that riding in a big group is the root cause of the problem?
Define ‘big’, as the Mr
Define ‘big’, as the Mr Spencer didn’t.
Honestly, on a road like that
Honestly, on a road like that, I wouldn’t fancy going out in more than a pair. And even then I’d probably want to avoid that road if I could or go out at a quieter time.
Casting aside the moral problem with large cycling groups for a moment, if I wanted to be safe going out in a group of 6 or more I’d stick to a different tried and tested route, with easier passing places and/or quieter/slower traffic.
When councils rip up the road
When councils rip up the road network to link together suitable roads and remove blind bends you might have a point.
As to group riding, I’ve never had a serious actual accident in a group, but riding alone, for example every time I go to the start or from the finish I can guarantee that a driver will put me at risk.
I’ll settle for annoying a few motorists for my safety for a few seconds over permanent disability.
On a similar theme, why shouldn’t motorists be obliged to drive vehicles suitable for the roads they travel on? Why is an OAP going down a country lane to an NT property causing havoc acceptable use of the roads when a group of 8 cyclists is to be complained at?
Tried and tested? These are routes our club has developed over decades. We’ve been group riding these roads for more than 80 years.
IanMSpencer wrote:
The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren’t riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren’t riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.
So their ride serves no practical purpose. They don’t “need” to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community. This contrasts with the example you give of the elderly person (which seemed a pretty ageist thing to write to be honest) who needs to use a particular road to get to a specific destination.
I’ve ridden around 20,000 miles solo in the last 3 years and have never had an incident like the one posted here. Perhaps I’ve been lucky. Perhaps the motorists round here simply reciprocate my politeness and courtesy when they carefully drive past with a friendly wave.
The only people around here I ever have trouble with are groups of cyclists covering the entire width of the road, coming in the opposite direction around blind corners.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Did I miss a memo somewhere? I never saw in the HC that you can only use the roads for a ‘practical purpose’.
brooksby wrote:
It happened during lockdown – you can only use the roads for purposes such as driving to somewhere that you can walk your dog or going to Barnards Castle so that you can check your eyesight.
Half of journeys are for
Half of journeys are for leisure and shopping – just think – we can eradicate congestion overnight !
Nigel Garage wrote:
Multiple Bingo! Your first fallacies are:
“cycling is not serious transportation”
“journeys in vehicles are all necessary (and / or utilitarian)”
Apologies – they haven’t got a category up for that yet but I will forward your thoughts on and maybe we can them added!
“elderly people can’t cycle and need cars” (I know you didn’t write exactly that but logically you’d probably have to also bar all the drivers here unless they could prove they were elderly, wouldn’t you?)
That one’s there: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/5/elderly-people-cant-cycle
To be kind (or unkind? I’m not versed in S&M so you’ll have to forgive me…) the point you’re asking to be abused on really is “How do we divide up our possible space for travel? What’s the best way to most widely and equitably manage the right of / share the benefits of mobility”?
Relevant helpful articles:
https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/walking-and-cycling-should-become-the-norm-for-short-journeys
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/health-and-cycling
Slightly on the side but it fits the “everyone else can double-up but not cyclists because they’re just doing it socially” subtext: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2016/08/mass-cycling-requires-sociable-side-by.html
chrisonatrike wrote:
Straw man, I said this particular outing was without a practical reason.
“journeys in vehicles are all necessary (and / or utilitarian)”
— chrisonatrike
Straw man, I didn’t mention whether journeys by other form of transport are necessary or unnecessary.
For the record, other forms of transport also have similar antisocial behaviour which serves no purpose.
It’s also false to call these kind of group rides “journeys”, as a journey has to start in one place and end in another. A journey can’t start at point A and finish at point A.
“elderly people can’t cycle and need cars”
— chrisonatrike
Straw man, I didn’t write that.
the point you’re asking to be abused on really is “How do we divide up our possible space for travel?
— chrisonatrike
No, that really isn’t what I’m asking to be “abused on”. Hope this helps your understanding.
Nigel Garage wrote:
No, you didn’t. That might be what you meant, but you said, “these cyclists aren’t riding for any utilitarian reason” – “these” could refer to the specific article, or to a broader sense emerging in the subsequent discussion; “aren’t”… given the incident is ctegorically in the past, it somewhat implies a continuous sense of non-utility cycling. It’s not a straw man, it’s a reasonable extrapolation of the argument that was reasonably inferred from your statement.
He’s not quoting you, he’s quoting the general myth under which your comments stumble. Cycling for fitness or social pleasure is not antisocial. You misunderstand the purpose of roads and the nature of a right of way – the right to pass and repass as of right (not purpose).
It’s also false to call these kind of group rides “journeys”, as a journey has to start in one place and end in another. A journey can’t start at point A and finish at point A.
— Nigel Garage
That is your personal definition and, by no mild coincidence, utter nonsense. In Highways terms, any excursion by foot or vehicle would be counted as a journey.
“elderly people can’t cycle and need cars”— Nigel Garage
Straw man, I didn’t write that.— chrisonatrike
No. You wrote, “This contrasts with the example you give of the elderly person (which seemed a pretty ageist thing to write to be honest) who needs to use a particular road to get to a specific destination.“, which again separates and seeks to justify validation of some road users over others by the purpose of their journey. The myth is well-described and calls out your false assumptions and assertions.
GMBasix wrote:
That is your personal definition and, by no mild coincidence, utter nonsense. In Highways terms, any excursion by foot or vehicle would be counted as a journey. — Nigel Garage
Your entire post falls on your lack of understanding of the word “journey”, a basic word my son learned in Year 1 at school. A journey has to have a mutually exclusive start and destination.
According to Oxford dictionary, the word is defined as “an act of travelling from one place to another.”
According to Cambridge dictionary, it means “the act of travelling from one place to another, especially in a vehicle”
According to Macmillan, it means “an occasion when you travel from one place to another“
According to Merriam-Webster, it means “an act of traveling (sic, US) from one place to another“
According to Collins, “the act or an instance of traveling from one place to another“
I’m sure you’re getting the idea now. This group of cyclists didn’t partake in a journey as they didn’t arrive at a place different to where they started.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Oh dear. So, last Saturday I went to see the All Blacks play Wales in Cardiff, then I came back to London. Did I not make a journey because I ended up back in my own home? Ah, says you, you made two journeys, one to Cardiff and one back again. Fine, so let us assume these cyclists had a cafe stop at some point in their ride, they made a journey to the cafe, then they made a journey back home. Now stop your nonsense please, it really is indicative of your paucity of argument that you are reduced such petty semantic quibbling.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Under Nigel’s new concept of “necessary journey” that serves “a practical purpose” that wouldn’t count. I think he’s preparing for even more stringent regulations than the main covid lockdown…
Nigel Garage wrote:
No it doesn’t; and no, it doesn’t. You’ve selected a sample of dictionaries, none of which represents technical analysis of highway usage, and all of which are reflective of general usage, not prescriptive.
From the government web site, “a ‘journey’ represents travel between adjacent junctions on the network”. Journeys represent usage of the highway network, and, for the purposes of the discussion, it is perfectly reasonable to use the word ‘journey’.
If it helps ease the constraints of your technical knowledge, we could use ‘trip’, ‘excursion’, ‘outing’ or anything, so long as it does not premise an exclusion of a particular cycling activity – which would be a circular argument and, therefore, by your own definition, invalid.
How would you know? Or is this an inadvertant, dispirited reflection on the fact that your son has overtaken your own lack of progress in self analysis.
GMBasix wrote:
So – to conclude – if you change the word “journey” to a word that has a different meaning, and pretend I wrote it, you can indeed prove that the resulting made up sentence is incorrect. Thanks for that piece of wisdom.
Sounds like we’ll need to
Sounds like we’ll need to update our collective wisdom:
“A journey of a thousand miles begins and ends in two different places”
It also sounds like it’s not possible to “ride to the ride” – you would need to take another mode of transport at two points or not return home else it would cancel itself out.
Again though let’s not lose sight of the point – (apart from getting a reaction of course…): a group of cyclists wearing lycra are
(a) obviously cycling recreationally “to socially engage with each other”
(b) this “serves no practical purpose”
(c) …compared to a selection of purposes of “get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school.” (What happened to ambulances – they used to be popular victims?)
(d) This therefore detracts from whatever “practical purpose” “journeys” are serving (with a “because not in a car” unstated but intended) because this is prioritizing “decadent pleasure over the community” (which community?)
(e) And something about getting in the way / taking resources from old people (not sure about that bit…)?
At least Nigel recognises “decadent pleasure” as an attraction of cycling! The devil got all the best tunes!
Also we’re back to classic “Creationist argument” style:
1) State something – I have merely stated the truth, my opponent must justify his quibbles.
2) State something inexactly and/or with internal contradictions then claim that any response your opponent makes didn’t understand what you said and therefore is attacking a straw man.
3) Fall back on arguments about side issues e.g. the definition of a journey.
Yup. That.
Yup. That.
Can we remember that before
Can we remember that before Nigel distracted the thread that we had a perfectly lawful activity, cycling in group, going about their lawful business within the highway code. Then an idiot in a motorcar put their safety at request through his negligence.
The rest is just distraction from the unacceptably poor driving.
We should have warnings
We should have warnings before such a brutal dissection of a comment – I’ve never seen so much blood!
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t “do” Halloween; but sometimes one just has to get gory.
Nigel Garage wrote:
I didn’t mention men, or straw, ergo your argument is refuted! If you are unhappy with this “logic” then I’m happy to resume in the universe of logic as it normally works as long as you are…
Nigel Garage wrote:
Since you’ve mentioned your speed on the bike before maybe you are just too fast approaching these blind corners? A careful cyclists might scrub off a bit of speed just in case – after all there could be a car overtaking a tractor on the other side. (Edit – or Dr. Helen Measures)
It does sound like a nice part of the country to be cycling round if there are so many in these cycling groups that they fill the entire road. Or is the Essex Critical mass movement taking over the countryside too?
Tractor driver overtakes
Tractor driver overtakes cyclist on blind right hand bend.
Kills cyclist
Slap on wrist
https://road.cc/content/news/240901-tractor-driver-who-killed-cyclist-due-error-judgement-when-overtaking-avoids
Nigel Garage wrote:
So its ok to drive in order to socially interact with others? but do it on a bike and thats wrong?
If the cyclists stop at a cafe for lunch before returning does that make a difference? If not can we exclude any journey where a motorist drives to a pub or cafe for lunch and then drives home again?
As I cyclists I have never ridden on the wrong side of the road around a blind corner, where have you seen this? I would that that such cyclists would quickly be removed from society. Or do you say road when you actually mean lane, in fact a group of cyclists taking up the same space as a single person in their car.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I don’t understand how this point is so hard for you all to grasp. This group of cyclists aren’t riding to somewhere (i.e. making a journey) in order to socially interact with others. The ride itself is the social interaction, therefore they are not making a journey.
If they stop somewhere to have a cup of tea, or a wee, or anything else, it’s completely incidental to the purpose of the outing – which was to have a leisurely bike ride while chatting to each other.
I have nothing against that in principle, after all it’s probably good for mental health. However, if you choose to do this on a busy minor road, putting yourself and others in danger, there’s a negative societal cost attached to it, as well to the cyclists themselves.
Think about going for a leisurely, circular walk with family and/or friends. You probably wouldn’t choose to walk down a busy road with no footpath. You also wouldn’t use the word “journey” to describe the activity would you?
Nigel Garage wrote:
It’s not hard to grasp; it’s just bollocks – and you know it is.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Sounds more efficient than making two separate journeys to do that (there and back). Very efficient. What’s not to like?
You won’t because it doesn’t but your challenge would be to explain the “putting others in danger” bit. A common trope, I know. The clearest I’ve ever seen that explained always comes down to something like “forcing drivers to overtake dangerously” which would be hilarious if it weren’t sometimes accepted at face value in courts.
Cost? What cost? Only one I can see is if “society” consists of yourself and a couple of others on here and no-one else, and the negative is “causes us to take to the internet / local talking shop and bore on about it”.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Isn’t the problem there, that such a minor road is so busy?
There is no evidence that it
There is no evidence that it is busy. That is just an assertion.
You cannot step into the same
You cannot step into the same river twice. Ergo, if I go out for a ride, the home I return to is not the same as the home I left, and I have made a journey from one place to another.
You have a point there,
You have a point there, Heraclitus!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Bless you!
Your head must explode trying
Your head must explode trying to justify the still quite commonly seen sign “Leisure Drive”.
Anyway, I pre-empted your expected rant against purposeless journeys by pointing out the OAPs going for an NT visit.
Take our local Packwood House. Many people go there specifically to go to the cafe and drive home again. Is their journey legitimate by your rules? We always cycle with a destination in mind – that we get to enjoy the fresh air of the countryside, save the NHS millions by keeping much fitter than the average driver and may talk to each other seems to count against us compared with two people driving 10 miles to meet each other at a cafe with no other purpose to their journey.
Still keep jumping through your logical hoops. I’m sure we will not change your mind, but we do enjoy watching you disappear up your own illogicality.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Ah, here we get to the issue
If someone cycles to a cafe for cake or lunch, then clearly cycling is the main point, because obviously cycling is more pleasant than eating cake.
Whereas if someone drives to a cafe for cake or lunch then clearly the lunch is the main objective, because driving is less pleasant than cake.
Or have I msunderstood your point, since you clearly have no information on the specific details of the ride and are only making assumptions that they did not ‘make a journey’?
Perhaps the problem then is too many people doing something they don’t enjoy (driving) when they could be doing something more enjoyable (cycling)
But
ourmy point is that regardless if cycling or a nice social lunch is the objective, many journeys are discretionary, so there is no reason to prioritise some lesiure road use over others. The roads are paid for by everyone, and there for use by anyone. I will not accept that someone driving 100 miles to the beach is more legitmate or utilitarian than someone doing 40 miles of exercise on the roads.As one of these provides a net benefit to society of improved health and lower NHS burden, while the other provides a net cost to society in pollution and increased wear on the roads.
As to choice of road, it looks like a fairly standard minor road to me, I don’t think you are advocating they should ride on dual carriageways where it might be easier for cars to pass. And the drivers delayed by being unable to pass on this narrow twisty road is the same whether they ride in a group or singularly. The time lost over the week is likely to be far less than the time lost to delays caused by congestion, accidents, inconsiderate parking, and potentially even looking for a parking space for their cars. None of those other time costs would be in any way objectionable, because cars are normal right?
wycombewheeler wrote:
That’s like asking which of my children I love more.
Actually there were 3 stops.
Actually there were 3 stops.
1. Meeting point
2. Cafe at the end of the group ride
3. Home
Does anyone think that now qualifies as a ‘journey in Nigels’ world?
Probably not Sevenfold. Glad
Probably not Sevenfold. Glad you all came away alright.
Thanks, it did shake up one
Thanks, it did shake up one or two of the group. Not unexpectedly under the circumstances.
Well…did you just have cake
Well…did you just have cake at the cafe or a proper sandwich or burger? I think the authorities probably need to assess whether you were revelling in socialisation and treats or actually fulfilling a genuine nutritional need before deciding whether you deserved to be run over or not.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It will depend if a scotch egg is a substantial meal.
Sniffer wrote:
Well…did you just have cake at the cafe or a proper sandwich or burger? I think the authorities probably need to assess whether you were revelling in socialisation and treats or actually fulfilling a genuine nutritional need before deciding whether you deserved to be run over or not.
— Sniffer It will depend if a scotch egg is a substantial meal.— Rendel Harris
Can it be used for improvised road repair? Or by a Viking to knock out a monk?
Some had cake, some bacon
Some had cake, some bacon baps most had a drink. Much socialisation though. Definitely a nutritional need.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Fixed that for you
Let me see if I’ve understood
Let me see if I’ve understood this… someone driving a car to visit a National Trust house (a leisure activity with no practical purpose or utilitarian reason) is ok if they travel from A to B to do so. But someone cycling for leisure (with no practical purpose or utilitarian reason) is not, if they travel from A to A.
What does that mean for (i) leisure drives from A to A; (ii) leisure cycling from A to B? Does it make a difference if a driver engages socially with a passenger on the way to the National Trust house?
Nigel Garage wrote:
So. What?
The roads are a public utility financed and maintained out of the taxes everyone pays.
The roads around Alton Towers are narrow, winding and, in Summer, clogged with coaches full of people going for a day out at the theme park inconviencing lots of other roads users. They are not travelling for any utilitarian purpose, they are going on a fun day out.
Yes, they are contributing to the economy, but so are group rides when they stop off at shops and cafes along their route.
So again. So. What?
There are no rules that say the road network can only be used for utilitarian purposes and not leisure related ones, and asserting that there is something morally wrong (your words) with doing so is about as wrong-headed as it gets.
I don’t know how many more
I don’t know how many more times I can write the same thing on this thread. If I want to go to Alton Towers for a day out, I have to go to Alton Towers. If I want to go and watch a football match, I have to go to the stadium.
If I want to have a chat with my mates, while coincidentally riding a bike, I can do it anywhere. On a road, in a velodrome, on the M25, in my house, at the gym, it doesn’t matter. Where the activity takes place makes no difference to the amount of utility gained from doing it.
These people chose to do their social on a narrow busy road, disregarding the impact this would have on other road users. They were seemingly surprised when loads of traffic got held up behind them, then someone got frustrated and made a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. If I chose to go out in a group and do the same thing, I would probably have the same experience. So would you.
Nigel. It was what I would
Nigel. It was what I would consider a standard width ‘B’ road. I didn’t get off my bike with a tape measure but it seemed to me to be narrower or wider than most of the out-of town roads we ride on & I ride on when solo.
BTW you can’t actually legally ride on the M25 but maybe you should try it in the outside lane sometime.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Patently rubbish. The M25, the gym, etc. clearly do not provide the access to fresh air, changing scenery, mixed terrain, etc., and the various benefits that these confer, that you get from riding on country roads.
If people gained the same utility from doing it somewhere else where they didn’t have to mix with the occasional incompetent or irresponsible driver, they wouldn’t be choosing to ride on the roads in the first place.
To put it in your terms, if I want to enjoy a ride on the roads, I have to ride on the roads.
Nigel Garage wrote:
How about none? None works for me.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Please feel absolutely free to put a lid on it right now, you will have all our support.
No, these people chose to go for a ride, as a club, on a standard width road, in a standard, safe, legal configuration. The fact that they are chatting sociably as they ride is incidental (people do, you know, it’s called “having friends” – you should try it).
Rendel Harris wrote:
No, these people chose to go for a ride, as a club, on a standard width road, in a standard, safe, legal configuration. The fact that they are chatting sociably as they ride is incidental (people do, you know, it’s called “having friends” – you should try it).— Nigel Garage
Now that is unneccessary and a poor form of argument. What none of us has spotted – and we should be thanking him for – is that Nigel has come up with a new principle:
Driving this car hurts me more than it hurts you.
I think this could ensure the superior status of drivers and driving for years to come. Yes, it’s the “white van man’s burden”. Drivers are the suffering saints of society, selflessly taking not only their own responsibilities but those of children, the old, non-drivers etc. They even pay for the roads for everyone else!
To allow the rest of us children of nature to guilelessly indulge in “decadent pleasure” by social cycling, some poor drivers must take the heavy responsibility of collecting our kids from school, transporting our bike parts and cake around the country, running our elderly parents to the corner shop and back. We cyclists never realise how unpleasant driving is – being cooped up in a car instead of being in fresh air, getting cramp from sitting on those uncomfortable seats, watching cyclists filter pass us as if we should thank them or something. No wonder cars are fitted with “entertainment systems” – it’s hell in there!
Little wonder that a few sometimes snap under the pressure – after all when you’re doing all the work and then some dandy cyclists wobbles along and actually has the gall to suggest you’re not just wrong but some kind of bully it’s against all “natural justice”.
Does much chatting happen in
Does much chatting happen in a group ride? Thought it was mostly done at the stops then during the rides. Yes a pair can maybe talk but in most cases, it is still concentrating on the road ahead, behind and signals given then full on social chatting.
But as with TT bikes, boo expresses his opinion on something he has no actual real life knowledge on.
You seem to be trying to draw
You seem to be trying to draw a distinction between those who use the road to travel to a leisure activity (“If I want to go and watch a football match, I have to go to the stadium“), and those who use the road as a leisure activity in itself. They may be technically distinct, but your original complaint was that the cyclists “don’t “need” to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community“. It makes no sense to differentiate and prioritise road use by someone who has chosen to drive to a leisure activity (“I want to go and watch a football match“) – doing so is equally putting “their own decadent pleasure” over others’.
Thankfully it’s all academic as there is no prioritisation of the roads based on purpose (save, of course, for emergency vehicles).
They were all very important
They were all very important journeys like all journeys
Surprised there’s that many
Surprised there’s that many Escorts still on the road. Maybe it’s the other sort.
Seems odd to bundle picking
Seems odd to bundle picking up an escort with education – would’ve thought that would be more appropriately classed as leisure…
mdavidford wrote:
Depends on experience.
quiff wrote:
I’m the worst – I cycle to football matches.
Steve K wrote:
Cycling to the grand prix / speedway?
Nigel Garage wrote:
When I’m driving, I tend to do my best to avoid roads like that. But if I get ‘stuck behind’ a cyclist or farm vehicle or find I need to stop or reverse a long way back – I console myself with the fact that I’ve chosen to use an oversized form of transport on an undersized road.
May I suggest that all
May I suggest that all motorists who are not on the road ‘for a utilitarian purpose’ make a point of pulling over, whenever they encounter another motorist who is more utilitarian than they are – and commuting cyclists, too.
Oh dear; kingleo. Another
Oh dear; kingleo. Another troll, reincarnated I suspect, that I will not be responding to. Please help by doing the same.
Probably posting stupid
Probably posting stupid things to instigate some ageist comments that Nige, Boo, TTDanger and other alter egos can then jump on.
Watching this footage makes
Watching this footage makes me extremely nervous (y u do dis, Road.cc?). I’ve not long come back from a large-ish group ride in Lancashire and Yorkshire and our experience was excellent. At our largest (this was mainly towards the end) we were a group of c. 12-16 – larger than an average group ride, one might say. Yet, we were treated with no less than patience and courtesy for the 170+ miles of the ride, apart from perhaps the one instance of a driver ‘having a go’ at an overtake and cutting in to a small gap in the group. Proactivity comes into it a bit – we were very good at signalling and communicating between ourselves and the drivers – but I can’t help but think I wouldn’t have been treated with half the care and respect had we not represented such a large group of riders. All but the most careful and considered overtakes on clear roads were rendered impossible.
Thoughts? Was it riding in the group that saved us, was it good driver culture, or both?
You can’t appeal to reason
You can’t appeal to reason with nutters. Yesterday I was on a narrow road from Spark Bridge towards the east side of Coniston Water. I had a heavy trailer behind and heard a car coming up behind. It inched past me on an uphill section where the slow speed renders a cyclist unstable. As it passed the passenger window wound down to an imperious demand for me to move further left , which was impossible. I only had time to say ‘bugger off’ before he sped off. Sadly, I have to report that it wasn’t a BMW, but one of these Audi type mega-Jag tanks. Even more sadly, I didn’t come across him a few yards later completely immobilised by a vehicle coming the other way, a subject for ribald mockery. He was lucky.
wtjs wrote:
On a recent jaunt up the spine of the country to nail a few more munroes, a ridiculowagen of that sort pressed hard on our tail, expressing his displeasure that we had dealt a salutory gesture towards the speed limit as we passed vehicles in adjacent lanes.
Onwards, he sped, clearly yelling something incoherent at the peasants as he went by. It took us a few minutes to pass him as he sat on the hard shoulder, kicking something that had broken.
I wasn’t on a bike at the time.
GMBasix wrote:
A bit OT, but that’s something that always concerns me. If my bike breaks, I can probably fix it with the contents of my bag and if I can’t then I can probably walk it home.
If a car breaks down (my car never has, touch wood!) then you are utterly dependent on the AA (other car repair services are available) – you’re unlikely to be able to fix it yourself at the roadside (even my car!) and you certainly can’t push it home…
There is no pushing the car
There is no pushing the car to the nearest train station for taking it back home to fixing, or if in really desperate straights, making that emergency call and putting it the back of someone’s car (or even a taxi, and even once for me, a black cab)