Another areshole cyclist

Drfabulous0

Well was there room on the train? If there was then the conductor was the one being the arsehole, that was the attitude of the bus driver who had been driving me home from scool for years but made me walk the 8 miles when I was 10.

Swannie

Always Tyred wrote:

Swannie wrote:

I love these threads.

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

See the first page ;-)

Clever Pun

spen666 wrote:

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?

I was always of the impression/opinion riding two abreast was frowned upon.

it seems a little selfish to be plodding along and take up loads of the road..

daniel_b

IMHO I think it is entirely legal to ride 2 abreast, possibly with a commonsense clause about not holding up traffic if on a narrow road.

Only time I do it is on very quiet country roads, and am always checking in front and over my shoulder, and listening for cars ready to drop back into single file, as and when they appear.

Dan

robmanic1

Riding with a group on Sunday mornings, we often get parped at and sworn at for riding doubles, who's in that kind of a hurry on a Sunday morning? If it's quiet country roads I say fcuk 'em!

hoathy

Robmanic1 wrote:

Riding with a group on Sunday mornings, we often get parped at and sworn at for riding doubles, who's in that kind of a hurry on a Sunday morning? If it's quiet country roads I say fcuk 'em!

totally. i figure, if you hold up someone in a car, its not like they have to put in any effort to speed up again, and they are sitting in a nice comfortable armchair while they wait.
CARS SHOULD BE BAND FROM THE ROADS!

Alibran

Riding 2 abreast - yep, legal, but, as I used to point out to my pupils when I was a driving instructor, "just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe". You have to judge each situation. My partner and I often ride 2 abreast, but we always go back to single file if cars need to overtake, unless it's a wide, straight stretch of road with good visibility.

As for getting to the front of a 2 car queue at the lights - seems a bit pointless to me. You're bound to be going slower than the cars on a clear road, so they're going to have to overtake you. I suppose if you like cars overtaking you, it seems like a good idea ....

NorwegianBlue

The cyclists were not right to protest. If another road user is breaking the law you do not have the right to protest in that way, the only valid line of protest open to you is to report the incident to the police. Yes I know that won't achieve a damn thing, but that's another issue altogether. Two wrongs...

However I think the major issue illustrated by this particular ASL related incident is a simple one. Local authorities don't actually have a damn clue what they're doing when it comes to road markings of this kind. Somebody has probably set a Key Performance Indicator (or whatever they're called this week) that a certain percentage of junctions should be cycle friendly. So all this means is that the council have painted a few ASLs on a few junctions without any thought further than achieving a tick in a box.

Trust me on this, I work for an authority that has recently met a target on road repairs not by repairing more road defects, but by increasing the minimum size of a defect requiring repair.

Mike Healey

dang65 wrote:

cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres to get past them (riding side-by-side).

Agree that there are plenty of foolish cyclists on the road, but, cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres? Why so? did someone put a gun to their heads?

dang65

Mike Healey wrote:

dang65 wrote:

cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres to get past them (riding side-by-side).

Agree that there are plenty of foolish cyclists on the road, but, cars have to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking maneouvres? Why so? did someone put a gun to their heads?

Well, I have gone over this before, but I'll say it again if you want... How is this different to a white van or a taxi overtaking a cyclist and then immediately pulling in and stopping as it gets clogged up in traffic? The cyclist then has to go through unnecessary and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres to get round the white van or taxi.

Alternatively, the cyclist could just wait patiently for the traffic jam to clear. Yeah, right.

The faster vehicle will always want to overtake the slower vehicle. On a fast, clear road with a 40mph limit, a car isn't going to wait patiently behind a 15mph cyclist for very long. They will overtake, and overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. They shouldn't attempt to overtake if it's unsafe to do so, and hopefully they won't, but how stupid to unnecessarily put them in a position where they might. The cyclists in the example could have hung back for a few moments and the lights would have changed and the two cars would have nipped off at 40mph and there would have been no confrontation or interaction with the cyclists at all.

This attitude of seeing ourselves (us cyclists) as having the law behind us in everything we do is frankly suicidal. It may be true about the law, but it only takes a split second for someone to break that law and you'll be on a drip-feed in a hospital bed for the rest of your life. Paid for by their insurance, sure, but really, really not worth proving the point for.

always_tyred

The difference appears to be that there's no traffic. In which case, although getting to the front is unnecessary (supposedly), overtaking is not dangerous. Unless it wasn't all that quiet after all.... in which case I might be inclinded to get to the front becuase who knows how many cars will be there when the lights have changed.

How many cars are required in order for use of the bike box to be "necessary"? Five? Are we supposed to count back and estimate roughly how many cars are going to go through on one cycle of the lights, and stop there?

I really don't agree that there is any necessity to excersise discretion when using bike boxes, just in when and where to get stroppy.

NorwegianBlue

Daniel B wrote:

IMHO I think it is entirely legal to ride 2 abreast, possibly with a commonsense clause about not holding up traffic if on a narrow road.

Be careful with statements like "it is entirely legal". Unless something is actually compulsory in road traffic law there may be situations where is it illegal. Remember an awful lot of things are only permitted "where it is safe to do so" or words to that effect. Doing something that you consider legal could land you in hot water if there is an incident or if you happen to p155 off a police officer in doing so. And yes I know the latter isn't fair, but that's the country we live in.

I always like the signs you see on some roads in Scotland that read something like "Impatience causes accidents. Allow people to overtake."

always_tyred

Yes - those signs work great on all of those safe highland roads, like the A90!
(Which, for those of you who live in London, is in a place called "Scotland" - which you get to by going "up north", staying in a Travelodge, and going even further "up north". Its horrible though, please do not visit.)

NorwegianBlue

Daniel B wrote:

IMHO I think it is entirely legal to ride 2 abreast, possibly with a commonsense clause about not holding up traffic if on a narrow road.

Be careful with statements like "it is entirely legal". Unless something is actually compulsory in road traffic law there may be situations where it is illegal. Remember an awful lot of things are only permitted "where it is safe to do so" or words to that effect. Doing something that you consider legal could land you in hot water if there is an incident or if you happen to p155 off a police officer in doing so. And yes I know the latter isn't fair, but that's the country we live in.

Futhermore I've always like the signs you see on some roads in Scotland that read something like "Impatience causes accidents. Allow people to overtake."

Recently I saw a deeply amusing situation. I was walking down the side of a country road when I saw three cyclists riding towards me. Middleaged chaps in matching club colours ridind three abreast. They were riding close together and fairly close to the left of the road, which is just wide enough for two cars to squeeze past each other. However when a car came up behind them, slowly and considerately the rider on the right of the group suddenly swerved to the right so he was riding in the middle of the remaining road. The car driver to her credit didn't sound her horn but followed patiently about thirty feet behind. The rider was almost constantly looking back over his shoulder at the car driver. At this point they were about fifty yards from me when I heard a tractor coming up behind me. The two other riders dropped into single file, the car pulled onto the verge and finally the tractor driver sounded his horn. The rider's face was a picture as he looked ahead to see a tractor, luckilly moving slowly, bearing down on him. He panicked and swerved onto the grass verge. The tractor passed, the car drove off.

As I drew level with the riders the other two cyclists were laughing at Mr Arrogance who was having a damn good rant about the fact that country lanes were gridlocked with townies these days. I didn't have the heart to point out that the particular towny he was complaining about lived at the farm half a mile up the road. Whereas he was wearing the colours of a cycling club from a nearby large town.

There's no doubt in my mind that he was being deliberately antagonistic, I believe it's called being "passive agressive" in the modern vernacular. And it seems to be an increasing attitude among a minority of cyclists these days. We all have to obey the law when we use the roads, whatever our chosen mode of transport, but more than that we are all expected to be considerate to other road users. Actually the latter is enshrined in the former.

It seems however that modern British society requires that we are all members of our own little cliques and swear hatred of all non members. The sad thing is that most adult cyclists are also car drivers and I've lost count of the number of times I sat beside a a fellow cyclist as a passenger in their car to hear a rant about almost every cyclist we see, usually puncuated with "It's people like that who give all cyclists a bad name."

Accept it: Some cyclists are model road users, some are Copper Nano Tubes. And the same applies to all groups of road users. Except minicab drivers, obviously.


GJ

cee

Always Tyred wrote:

Yes - those signs work great on all of those safe highland roads, like the A90!
(Which, for those of you who live in London, is in a place called "Scotland" - which you get to by going "up north", staying in a Travelodge, and going even further "up north". Its horrible though, please do not visit.)

Yes....its horrible up here.. you wouldn't like it! Do not visit.