Another areshole cyclist

jezwold

As you probably know if you travel with your bike on cross country trains they can only carry 4 bikes and you need to book to reserve a place, So this morning I was on the train going from Brum down to Southampton when 8 cyclists tried to get on the train at Oxford, so we had 10 minutes delay due to one particularly stupid cyclist arguing trying to get the train manager to let the extra bikes on, with all the usual arguments about why whey hadn't booked and so on. It ended up with the cyclist getting abusive to the poor girl who was only doing her job.
Sometimes i really do hate the obnoxious arsehole cyclists who expect to be treated differently because they ride a bike.

gjp112n

not an arsehole cyclist, just an arsehole - there are plenty of them

dang65

We get swarms of Sunday cyclists round where I live and some of them are an embarassment.

There's a junction up the road where they've painted an advanced stop line for cyclists, but it's so quiet that there's really no need for it - rarely more than a couple of cars stopped at the lights and never any traffic backed up on the other side.

Anyway, a few months back I was driving to the supermarket ( :oops: ) on a Sunday and stopped at this junction with one car in front of me. Up ride two of these Sunday cyclists and they make a huge scene out of getting into the advanced stop box which the car in front had edged into. Lights change, bikes pull off slowly, cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres to get past them (riding side-by-side).

Made me cringe.

TheFoolio888

gjp112n wrote:

not an arsehole cyclist, just an arsehole - there are plenty of them

Well said...

ChrisLS

...blimey, have I just wandered into a motoring forum...

A - W

ChrisLS wrote:

...blimey, have I just wandered into motoring forum...

:?: Oh so us cyclists are elitist over motoring?

People wonder why we get bad press.

always_tyred

I'm trying really hard to figure out what is wrong with getting to the front of a queue, no matter how short, when you are on a bike.

Do I understand correctly that a fellow cyclist believes that it is in order that, before progressing to the front of the queue, we first assess if it is fair and reasonable to do so?

I give up. There is just no point in cycling until all of the petrol runs out.

ChrisLS

...A-W, ofcourse we are elitist over cars... ...in fact we are all road users together, and drivers and cyclists shoud treat each other with respect and us cyclists are allowed to be on the road...

dang65

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm trying really hard to figure out what is wrong with getting to the front of a queue, no matter how short, when you are on a bike.

Do I understand correctly that a fellow cyclist believes that it is in order that, before progressing to the front of the queue, we first assess if it is fair and reasonable to do so?

Maybe I didn't describe the incident very clearly.

Straight road. Quiet Sunday morning. Practically no traffic.

Cyclists ride past the two cars waiting at traffic lights and make a big deal out of the fact that the front car was in the advanced box. They position themselves in front of this car.

The lights change. Everyone is badly positioned. The cyclists have put themselves right in front of two cars, and the cars have to manoeuvre to get past them, putting everyone in absolutely pointless danger. Not only that, but the cyclists made a fuss about it all.

Advanced stop boxes make loads of sense at busy junctions, where traffic filters left, or where traffic is backed up on the far side of the junction. This isn't one of those kind of junctions though.

Riding like that was simply idiotic, and embarassing for another cyclist to watch (even if I admit I was in a car at the time!) It's not so much a question of being "fair and reasonable". More about considering how ridiculous it is to put yourself in a stupid and dangerous position, apparently just to make some misguided point.

hamboman

I'm sorry but I'm obviously missing something here.

It's illegal for a car to edge into an advanced stop thingy, ergo the cyclist was right to protest. It's even more silly for the car to have gone there if the road was quiet, as you say, because there can be no excuse of ' i was crossing the box when the traffic stopped'.

I also don't understand why the car thought it was necessary to overtake if you though it 'dangerous'. Cars shouldn't be overtaking if it's dangerous.

A - W

If the car entered the box in a queue say to turn right and then the lights changed he is perfectly legally entitled to stop within that box.

robmanic1

I think I see Dang's point though, why risk pi$$ing motorists off unnecessarily, if the road's quiet just coast up behind them (you don't even need to stop if you time it right). Pointless causing a "fuss" because that's my bit of road, we have enough real reason's to get angry at motorists without creating more.

dang65

Robmanic1 wrote:

I think I see Dang's point though, why risk pi$$ing motorists off unnecessarily, if the road's quiet just coast up behind them (you don't even need to stop if you time it right). Pointless causing a "fuss" because that's my bit of road, we have enough real reason's to get angry at motorists without creating more.

Yeah, that was my point. I think you made it a bit clearer, thanks!

Swannie

The point is:

The cyclists could have waited behind the 2-3 cars that were at the lights. As far as I remember, this is advocated in Cyclecraft. There is no advantage to slowing down those 1-3 cars, adding to your own risk (two more cars overtaking).

There is often an advantage with a long row of cars, it does make you more visible. Especially at night.

However, it does p*** me off when I am waiting at lights 2 back, for another cyclist to squeeze through to the ASL, (usually walking with feet on the road). When the lights change they make a wobbly, slow start away from the lights, and proceed along the road at 8mph. They just caused themselves to be overtaken by more cars, added to the chance that the lights changed whilst they were squeezing through a gap might not be there if the vehicles move, put themselves in front of, quite often, red+amber massive revs drivers... all for 10seconds of time?

andrewc3142

cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres to get past them

Or, alternatively, the cars can just slow down, take life easier, be patient. It was on a Sunday, they weren't driving in a race ...

I really don't understand the perpetual need for drivers to feel they have to overtake, have to press forward, have to be in front of cyclists, have to be first to the next lights, the next line of stationary cars. Maybe indicative of deeper rooted problems.

Do them good to slow down.

Plus, this isn't wvm.com .... Although reading comments on here about cyclists who hold up cars for a few seconds, may go through red, don't wear a helmet, take folding bikes on trains, I do wonder at times.

Plus, of course, they were at least on cycles ....

dang65

andrewc3142 wrote:

cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres to get past them

Or, alternatively, the cars can just slow down, take life easier, be patient. It was on a Sunday, they weren't driving in a race...

Uh, yeah. I think that statement applies more to the cyclists in this case. The car was just sitting there waiting for the lights to change. The cyclists went past to get to the front of the "queue" (two cars), got stressed about the ASL and were impatient.

It's funny reading people's comments about this seeming like a WVM forum all of a sudden. I do drive a car to do the shopping or take the kids out to the countryside or whatever, but I've been commuting by bike for more than 20 years now so I can assure you I'm pro-cycling. My main reason for telling this story was because I found it so embarassing to see other cyclists acting like that and, frankly, looking really stupid for doing so. A bit like a pushy WVM one might say.

andrewc3142

OK, wvm.com was a bit much.

But I honestly didn't realise that (on a number of threads) that cyclists were quite so uptight and critical or even angry with other cyclists. A bit worrying, really.

Stay cool

Andy

Swannie

I guess most people don't weigh up situations as they happen. They'll do "what they know".

I don't think I am alone on here, in doing some level of "benefit/inconvenience to me vs others" analysis when I get to traffic lights, junctions, finding a seat on a train, picking a queue in a supermarket etc.

The world doesn't revolve around me ALL of the time :twisted:

Clever Pun

hmm both sides have their valid points but...

Cars shouldn't creep into the ASL it happens loads and the cyclists were right to point this out as if people do it when there's no other traffic on the road they'll damn well do it when under pressure on their commute for example. Cars, no scratch that... everyone is creeping further and further forward loads of people break the stop lines just to get that little bit further these days

The only thing the cyclists did wrong imo was to ride two abreast

hoathy

andrewc3142 wrote:

But I honestly didn't realise that (on a number of threads) that cyclists were quite so uptight and critical or even angry with other cyclists. A bit worrying, really.

Yeah, it is worrying. I like seeing other cyclists around even if they are going slow infront of cars... As for those cyclists earlier causing dangerous overtaking, surely the dangerous overtaking is due the driver, not the cyclist (after all, they aren't doing the overtaking). Also the advance box is there to keep cyclists safe away from the traffic queue, so...
And as for the trains issue, I blame the train companys, they should have room for more bikes! surely if a train can take 300 people at least 10% of them should be able to carry bikes!?!?! (thats 30!) I hate the trains, so I like to make outrageous comments like this at any available opputunity.... stupid trains ruining my life....

always_tyred

dang65 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm trying really hard to figure out what is wrong with getting to the front of a queue, no matter how short, when you are on a bike.

Do I understand correctly that a fellow cyclist believes that it is in order that, before progressing to the front of the queue, we first assess if it is fair and reasonable to do so?

Maybe I didn't describe the incident very clearly.

Straight road. Quiet Sunday morning. Practically no traffic.

Cyclists ride past the two cars waiting at traffic lights and make a big deal out of the fact that the front car was in the advanced box. They position themselves in front of this car.

The lights change. Everyone is badly positioned. The cyclists have put themselves right in front of two cars, and the cars have to manoeuvre to get past them, putting everyone in absolutely pointless danger. Not only that, but the cyclists made a fuss about it all.

Advanced stop boxes make loads of sense at busy junctions, where traffic filters left, or where traffic is backed up on the far side of the junction. This isn't one of those kind of junctions though.

Riding like that was simply idiotic, and embarassing for another cyclist to watch (even if I admit I was in a car at the time!) It's not so much a question of being "fair and reasonable". More about considering how ridiculous it is to put yourself in a stupid and dangerous position, apparently just to make some misguided point.

Okay, so they did a bit of ASL Panto?

So to confirm - if they'd have simply gone to the front, sat at the ASL and not engaged in semaphore, it would have been okay?

I've got to be honest - if when I'm commuting I find an asl occupied by a car, I do tend to draw myself an advanced asl (i.e. get a bit in front of them) in order to gain the benefit that someone somewhere thought was required at that junction. I find it more comfortable to make myself visible and/or a minor obstruction just to be sure I have to be the one to move off first - from a safety perspective. This basically entails getting in the way, however I would try to ensure that I'm quick off the line, becuase that's the whole point in the first place. I mean, what's the sense in an asl if you dawdle across the junction?

Recently, I was overtaken and cut up by the motorist (i.e. the ubiquitous "must overtake cyclist" manoever in heavy traffic when there's no where to go) and he immediately thereafter parked at the front of an asl.

I confess, I got in front of him and took a requisite age to clip in. He "honked" so I stopped and shouted "Hey, that picture you are parked on is of a bike, not a fat ignorant arsehole"

I felt better.

Basically, not stopping in an asl is almost as easy as not parking in a disabled space. On a quiet Sunday with no other cars around, I wouldn't do either. (Not including motorists caught out by an amber light, looking a bit sheepish - it happens to everyone at some point).

I wouldn't get aggitated about it, but I might not feel inclined to get out of the way absolutely as fast as possible. So, whereas your sunday cyclists might have been a bit "Zippy and Bungle" I sympathise with them even if they do need to chill out.

dang65

Hoathy wrote:

As for those cyclists earlier causing dangerous overtaking, surely the dangerous overtaking is due the driver, not the cyclist (after all, they aren't doing the overtaking). Also the advance box is there to keep cyclists safe away from the traffic queue, so...

I seem to be getting drawn into a polite but heated debate here. Well, it's all good fun isn't it, so...

How is this "due to the driver" any more than, say, if a white van or a taxi pulls in front of you in heavy traffic when you're cycling and you have to then pull out around them to overtake? Or do you wait patiently behind them and chill out?

I don't see this as any different.

On quiet roads, motor vehicles are faster than bicycles. On gridlocked roads, bicycles are faster than motor vehicles. We all like to moan about gridlocked traffic deliberately or ignorantly blocking our way, but when two cyclists do the exact same thing to a car on a quiet, straight road... it's due to the car driver?

Obviously it's up to the car driver to overtake carefully, but that doesn't mean it wasn't pointless and childish for the cyclist to put everyone in that difficult position in the first place.

As for the ASL keeping cyclists safe and away from the traffic queue, well this one appears to have done the complete opposite doesn't it. It placed the cyclists directly in front of their main predator.

I do know what ASLs are for, and how sensible they are in slow moving traffic jams. I also know how wonderful cycle lanes can be in certain situations, but there are plenty of times when I'd avoid using them. There's no need to assert your place at an ASL when all you're doing is making a pointless gesture and creating a hazardous situation - however careful the car driver may be.

And who the hell relies on a car driver to be careful anyway??

always_tyred

Using an asl isn't commensurate with a pointless assertion of rights at any time.

If its a quiet road, overtaking the cyclist should be no problem, and if it requires a femtosecond's patience, tough. Share the road. Sharing. Wasn't there a Sesame Street episode all about that?

That's not to say that having a strop at a motorist who has encroached a little is worth it.

By the by, asl's are generally ill conceived and poorly immplemented. To the less experienced cyclist, the 5 feet of cycle lane suggests that you should be aiming to sqeeze up the inside. Sometimes, but not usually, this is the best way to go. Other times, its best to come around the outside of traffic, or not at all. They should be painted flat.

And there seems to be no pattern to where they are used and where they are not. Again, it would be wrong, but tempting, to believe that an asl was thoughtfully provided where needed. Instead, where needed, just as with cycle lanes, it is usually the case that cars are far too important to inconvenience. So you get an impression that some junctions are more tricky than they are, whereas others aren't highlighted in any way as being tricky. I wonder if this isn't worse than having no asl's at all.

I would far prefer that the general expectation was that cyclists should, where possible, get to the front and set off just ahead of traffic at all junctions. That's certainly how I cycle. I'm confident, predictable and I get on with it and so I do not need any special dispensation from motorists. If I wasn't wasn't as experienced/confident, I would need drivers to wait a split second while I got under way.

I don't think they would. Even fellow cyclists appear to be split over whether or not they should.

This is quite disappointing.

hoathy

Spot on. It seems to me that this thread comes down to elitism. Not everyone is a great cyclist, but they are all better than drivers (now theres some elitism i can get behind!)

BentMikey

It does seem pointlessly aggravating and inconsiderate to go to the head of the queue in that situation. I'll often wait behind a couple of other vehicles at the lights when getting in front of them is not going to help my progress much and might impede theirs.

OTOH I'm also with those that blame any dangerous overtakes on the person overtaking, in this example the drivers.

mailmannz

jezwold wrote:

As you probably know if you travel with your bike on cross country trains they can only carry 4 bikes and you need to book to reserve a place, So this morning I was on the train going from Brum down to Southampton when 8 cyclists tried to get on the train at Oxford, so we had 10 minutes delay due to one particularly stupid cyclist arguing trying to get the train manager to let the extra bikes on, with all the usual arguments about why whey hadn't booked and so on. It ended up with the cyclist getting abusive to the poor girl who was only doing her job.
Sometimes i really do hate the obnoxious arsehole cyclists who expect to be treated differently because they ride a bike.

Surely the problem here isnt that 8 cyclists turned up BUT that the trains are so poorly managed that they couldnt take 8 bikes in the first place?

Id be whinging my lycra clab behind if I was one of those 8 as well!

Mailman

spen666

Clever Pun wrote:

...

The only thing the cyclists did wrong imo was to ride two abreast

You mean riding in accordance with what the law allows is wrong?

Swannie

I love these threads.

Seriously.

I'm not kidding.

I learn so much about other peoples rationalisation processes.

Cyclist education is the answer. I got a copy of Cyclecraft, read it, put it into practice, and try to use "common" sense most of the time. (Okay, you may have caught me riding 1 handed on the mobile at the weekend asking for directions... I'm not perfect).

I left it in the presence of my Dad for two days. I hope he read some of the more useful parts. However, I can't help but thinking that people assume that riding a bike on roads is easy. Well, it is. Riding _well_ on the roads, is not.

It is my feeling that bike shops & employer cycle schemes should improve their promotion of adult cycling education. You get a simple bike fit and usually a free service with your bike. Maybe you should get a free 30mins "lesson". If there was someone who could coach me to the level where I could give these lessons, I'd be offering them for free at work...

andrewc3142

Isn't Cyclecraft published by the Government? Isn't that the same outfit that advised the safest way to ride round a roundabout was to either dismount or take the most dangerous line? Although I concede it may have some useful advice (probably tells you to wear a helmet and hi-viz jacket, trousers and shoes ...).

BentMikey

IIRC it's by John Franklin, and published by the govt. stationery office. He's quite ambivalent about both helmets and hiviz, and candidly points out their disadvantages.

always_tyred

Swannie wrote:

I love these threads.

Seriously.

I'm not kidding.

I learn so much about other peoples rationalisation processes.

Cyclist education is the answer. I got a copy of Cyclecraft, read it, put it into practice, and try to use "common" sense most of the time. (Okay, you may have caught me riding 1 handed on the mobile at the weekend asking for directions... I'm not perfect).

I left it in the presence of my Dad for two days. I hope he read some of the more useful parts. However, I can't help but thinking that people assume that riding a bike on roads is easy. Well, it is. Riding _well_ on the roads, is not.

It is my feeling that bike shops & employer cycle schemes should improve their promotion of adult cycling education. You get a simple bike fit and usually a free service with your bike. Maybe you should get a free 30mins "lesson". If there was someone who could coach me to the level where I could give these lessons, I'd be offering them for free at work...

Ahh, but you don't get away that easily! What's your opinion?