To all of the drivers on the A6 today
Comments
-
It could be worse - a driver in Canada is suing the boy she hit and killed (not sure how that works)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92104.html0 -
In all honesty I have seen more dangerous, idiotic and impatient behaviour on country lanes as well as A Roads.
So I wouldn't say the back lanes are any safer. You have narrow lanes, blind bends and in a lot of cases National Speed Limits ! :shock:0 -
max1234 wrote:It could be worse - a driver in Canada is suing the boy she hit and killed (not sure how that works)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92104.html
Apparently they think they can get compensation because the boys were cycling along the road at night, 3-abrest with no lights and no high vis clothing after having a drink.
She was over the speed limit but didnt see them.
Its a sick sad thing to do however. I hope she doesn't win out.0 -
Chris Bass wrote:I think some people genuinely don't know bikes are allowed on the bigger a roads. If it's an a road with single or double digits I generally try to avoid, there are usually much nicer, safer and more scenic routes running along side
Not always that clear cut - I rode a TT yesterday morning that went down a double digit A road - no problem and wouldn't worry me if I rode that road again even when not TTing.
A 3 digit A road I sometimes ride can be worse - it's quite fast then gets narrow and twisty, but the drivers don't want to slow down.
Marshalled for a TT on a single digit A road ... most of the cars were fine, but there were a few tits about - I had reservations about competing on that one anyway, I think I'll stick with my original thoughts and not bother - it may be a fast course but it just doesn't seem safe to me.0 -
rickeverett wrote:max1234 wrote:It could be worse - a driver in Canada is suing the boy she hit and killed (not sure how that works)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92104.html
Apparently they think they can get compensation because the boys were cycling along the road at night, 3-abrest with no lights and no high vis clothing after having a drink.
She was over the speed limit but didnt see them.
Its a sick sad thing to do however. I hope she doesn't win out.
Without opening that link the story gets more interesting when you find out her husband is a police officer, was in the car behind and let her leave the scene. Wild conjecture but she was drunk. They are also counter suing, pretty standard in the US(?)
On topic, it sucks but plan your routes better. I've realised of late I'd be much happier spending Sunday morning on a velodrome! Shame there are none near here.0 -
markhewitt1978 wrote:You do wonder if some have read the Highway Code
FTFY
I think we all know the answer to that one...0 -
Slowbike wrote:Chris Bass wrote:I think some people genuinely don't know bikes are allowed on the bigger a roads. If it's an a road with single or double digits I generally try to avoid, there are usually much nicer, safer and more scenic routes running along side
Not always that clear cut - I rode a TT yesterday morning that went down a double digit A road - no problem and wouldn't worry me if I rode that road again even when not TTing.
A 3 digit A road I sometimes ride can be worse - it's quite fast then gets narrow and twisty, but the drivers don't want to slow down.
yep agreed totally,I rode out on a 3 digit A road the other week that seemed when I planned it would be a nice reasonably quiet scenic country route that actually turned out to be one of the, if not THE, most utterly terrifying experiences I think Ive ever had out on my bike.0 -
Indeed, there is no blanket rule to any of them. It mostly comes down to local knowledge. I have roads, or sections of road around me that I simply WILL NOT ride down.
There is one ride leader at my local club who seems to go out of his way to use them. So, I dont attend his suicide missions, sorry, 'rides'.0 -
adr82 wrote:It's their (driver's) problem they are willing to risk head-on collisions and potential death (for themselves and others!) by overtaking on blind corners or right on the crest of a blind summit, purely because they'd otherwise have to wait a few seconds and overtake safely. It's their problem the red mist descends instantly when they think they're getting held up, however briefly, on what is very likely a journey that is not time-critical in any way whatsoever.
But, it's not their problem. It very quickly becomes your problem too. If it's a choice between hitting a big hard mass moving at speed in the opposite direction or a small, soft one - it's an easy survival choice. That's why you cannot simply divorce yourself from responsibility. It's not an ideal world.0 -
Peat wrote:But, it's not their problem. It very quickly becomes your problem too. If it's a choice between hitting a big hard mass moving at speed in the opposite direction or a small, soft one - it's an easy survival choice. That's why who cannot simply divorce yourself from responsibility. It's not an ideal world.
These days I don't think we can be passive road users - we need to be active in our riding, looking for what the other road users are doing, what they want to do and indicating to them if we feel it's appropriate or not.
We had a short cafe ride at the weekend and returned down a B road where there were a few cars too. It was quite a narrow B road with not a lot of visibility so I waved past cars where I felt it appropriate (easing up at the same time) and had to hold back one car (Range Rover) when I heard the engine rev and I could see an on-coming vehicle. I made a point of thanking him when he did overtake 1/2 minute later and no recriminations so I assume he accepted my guidance.0 -
There are alternatives to the A6 from Derby but it's a great road for getting you up into the Peak District quickly.0
-
What the hell are you talking about? Responsibility? It is THEIR responsibility. 100%. This is not open to debate. They're not being forced into overtaking immediately at all costs by my presence, they're simply being very impatient and very very stupid. I agree that if a driver pulls out to overtake and suddenly realises they have a choice between swerving back into their lane or hitting another car head-on, they'll swerve back into lane regardless of whether or not a cyclist is currently occupying that space. I know this is a "problem". That's exactly why I get so annoyed at these idiots, because they're risking their own life, my life, and the lives of anyone in the oncoming vehicles! None of that means I have any responsibility. I can't control what other people choose to do when confronted with the awful prospect of having to take their f*cking foot off the accelerator for a few seconds. Nobody is going to prosecute a cyclist because someone screwed up when trying to overtake them. The responsibility is on the driver to behave as if they had a working brain.Peat wrote:adr82 wrote:It's their (driver's) problem they are willing to risk head-on collisions and potential death (for themselves and others!) by overtaking on blind corners or right on the crest of a blind summit, purely because they'd otherwise have to wait a few seconds and overtake safely. It's their problem the red mist descends instantly when they think they're getting held up, however briefly, on what is very likely a journey that is not time-critical in any way whatsoever.
But, it's not their problem. It very quickly becomes your problem too. If it's a choice between hitting a big hard mass moving at speed in the opposite direction or a small, soft one - it's an easy survival choice. That's why you cannot simply divorce yourself from responsibility. It's not an ideal world.0 -
mallorcajeff wrote:Dont come to mallorca as the serious ammount of bad cyclists here at the moment is worse than the a6 by the sound of it.
Has the death/ accident toll risen this month? I saw some shocking stuff when I was there recently.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
Responsibility? Right? Wrong? It doesn't matter whose responsible if you end up dead. You can't say "told you so" when your six foot under!0
-
It is their responsibility - but your problem if they don't get it right.adr82 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? Responsibility? It is THEIR responsibility. 100%. This is not open to debate.Peat wrote:adr82 wrote:It's their (driver's) problem they are willing to risk head-on collisions and potential death (for themselves and others!) by overtaking on blind corners or right on the crest of a blind summit, purely because they'd otherwise have to wait a few seconds and overtake safely. It's their problem the red mist descends instantly when they think they're getting held up, however briefly, on what is very likely a journey that is not time-critical in any way whatsoever.
But, it's not their problem. It very quickly becomes your problem too. If it's a choice between hitting a big hard mass moving at speed in the opposite direction or a small, soft one - it's an easy survival choice. That's why you cannot simply divorce yourself from responsibility. It's not an ideal world.0 -
adr82 wrote:Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I know! You are, technically, 100% correct.
However, the responsibility therefore lies in that you KNOW these f**ktards exist, in significant numbers, so you take reasonable action to mitigate the risk. I'm not talking about the law, its about common sense and self preservation.
No-one's going to stand at your funeral and say "He was an honorable man, standing up for his right to be riding along that dual carriageway at rush hour".0 -
Please point out to me the part of my posts where I seemed unaware of the existence of these people...? I can take responsibility for my own actions, but that only goes so far. As I said, there is no real way to mitigate these particular risks (short of simply not cycling) because I cannot control the actions of other people.Peat wrote:adr82 wrote:Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I know! You are, technically, 100% correct.
However, the responsibility therefore lies in that you KNOW these f**ktards exist, in significant numbers, so you take reasonable action to mitigate the risk. I'm not talking about the law, its about common sense and self preservation.
No-one's going to stand at your funeral and say "He was an honorable man, standing up for his right to be riding along that dual carriageway at rush hour".
I'm not saying I go around deliberately putting myself in danger just to prove some sort of point, that'd be a bit silly. I don't ride on dual carriageways unless I don't have any other choice. Avoiding A roads altogether is much more difficult though. If I want to ride north out of Glasgow towards Aberfoyle and the Duke's Pass, my choices quickly narrow to either the A809 or the A81 for a significant distance. If I want to go towards Helensburgh and the lochs it's the A814 (direct) or the A82/A818 (slightly less so). Up the Crow Road? A891. Tak ma Doon? A803. You can't get away from them entirely even if you use all the wee countryside lanes, which are often hazardous to ride on a road bike because of the crappy surfacing and number of potholes.
The onus is firmly on drivers to make allowances for cyclists, not the other way around.0 -
I disagree with this ...adr82 wrote:The onus is firmly on drivers to make allowances for cyclists, not the other way around.
If I'm holding up traffic then I believe it is right for me to aid them passing me - through various actions of waving through, slowing down, pulling off or stopping altogether.
Some vehicles struggle to overtake - tractors, lorries & busses can all have a hard time, in turn they hold up the faster vehicles. By assisting these vehicles to get past I'm assisting the traffic flow. I don't feel pressured by scores of vehicles waiting behind, the vehicles get past and their drivers get to see a considerate cyclist.0 -
I'm not the sort of cyclist who makes a point of riding in the middle of a lane just because I'm technically allowed to do so. I don't disagree when you say you should aid traffic to pass you. Nobody wants to deliberately create a queue of impatient drivers behind them because that's just asking for trouble. But what can you do when ANY delay you cause, no matter how small (literally 1-2 seconds!) causes impatience and triggers dangerous overtaking? You can't avoid it. Are you supposed to dive into the nearest hedge any time you hear a car approaching from behind because you don't dare inconvenience the superior beings driving them? Drivers have to be responsible and sensible enough to wait until it's safe to overtake. At that point I will happily do what I can to make it easy for them. If they want to pull some stupid sh*t instead, then they are unquestionably responsible for the consequences. The number of times I've seen a potential head-on collision avoided by a matter of a few seconds is just plain crazy. I can't do anything more than I already am to make things better, so again, the burden of responsibility is all on the drivers.Slowbike wrote:
I disagree with this ...adr82 wrote:The onus is firmly on drivers to make allowances for cyclists, not the other way around.
If I'm holding up traffic then I believe it is right for me to aid them passing me - through various actions of waving through, slowing down, pulling off or stopping altogether.
Some vehicles struggle to overtake - tractors, lorries & busses can all have a hard time, in turn they hold up the faster vehicles. By assisting these vehicles to get past I'm assisting the traffic flow. I don't feel pressured by scores of vehicles waiting behind, the vehicles get past and their drivers get to see a considerate cyclist.0 -
-
You'll always get impatient drivers and there's no surefire way of preventing them from being arseholes. No, you don't want to dive into the hedge everytime a vehicle approaches and yes the onus is on the driver to pass you responsibly. I'm just suggesting that there is a balance to be had - one where drivers can see a cyclist being reasonable and aiding the traffic flow rather than just blocking it. The more drivers see that the fewer will think we're a nuisance and the more pleasurable it will be for all on the road.0
-
homers double wrote:adr82 wrote:
0 -
Slowbike wrote:
I disagree with this ...adr82 wrote:The onus is firmly on drivers to make allowances for cyclists, not the other way around.
If I'm holding up traffic then I believe it is right for me to aid them passing me - through various actions of waving through, slowing down, pulling off or stopping altogether.
Some vehicles struggle to overtake - tractors, lorries & busses can all have a hard time, in turn they hold up the faster vehicles. By assisting these vehicles to get past I'm assisting the traffic flow. I don't feel pressured by scores of vehicles waiting behind, the vehicles get past and their drivers get to see a considerate cyclist.
Good post. If all cyclists rode more like this then a lot of drivers wouldn't get so angry, (certainly if you're riding on non-busy roads where most real cyclists like to be... of course, not everyone is lucky enough to be able to ride on quiet roads).
Plenty of common sense and common courtesy by cyclists would help, and more cyclists would be 'doing their bit'.0 -
If you go on a ride expect pot holes, gravel, tighter than expected hairpins, ramblers walking out into the road without looking, cats, parked cars opening doors, cars pulling out at junctions without seeing you, cars passing close, irritable and intolerant drivers and the odd dodgy cyclist weaving around in the road (actually that's sometimes me :oops: ). You also get a huge number of patient, careful drivers just going about their lives.
Bad stuff happens. Angry beeps and shouts are annoying but don't let it spoil your ride. Just put an arm up and acknowledge a "misunderstanding" and get on with enjoying your ride...unless you aren't enjoying your ride, then give em shlt :roll:0 -
"If you go on a ride expect pot holes, gravel, tighter than expected hairpins, ramblers walking out into the road without looking, cats, parked cars opening doors, cars pulling out at junctions without seeing you, cars passing close, irritable and intolerant drivers and the odd dodgy cyclist weaving around in the road (actually that's sometimes me :oops: ). You also get a huge number of patient, careful drivers just going about their lives"
"Bad stuff happens. Angry beeps and shouts are annoying but don't let it spoil your ride. Just put an arm up and acknowledge a "misunderstanding" and get on with enjoying your ride...unless you aren't enjoying your ride, then give em shlt :roll:
Great post martinB2444, This is so true ! Defensive and alert riding ,It soon becomes second nature !0 -
OK, I'm obviously not doing very well at getting my point across in this thread
I understand the whole idea of "defensive and alert riding", honestly. I understand that it's a good idea to do what you can to make it easy for traffic to overtake you, I understand that it's good to avoid major roads if you possibly can. All that stuff I agree with.
However, and this is the important point, in my book there is simply never any excuse for drivers doing the kind of crap I routinely see them do! You could be the most defensive, driver-pleasing cyclist in the world, but you'd still inevitably annoy them at times, and at those times they would simply revert to behaving like idiots. Being defensive isn't going to prevent people trying to overtake you in dangerous places. This is why I keep saying the responsibility belongs to drivers. Nothing a cyclist can do can prevent a driver doing dangerous things, and thinking it can is not going to help things get better.0
