7 cyclist....3 wide no wonder we are hated.

[Dave7]

I wasn't trying/intending to be nasty. I was replying in kind to your comment.

The number one most important factor in driving is, IMO, to avoid hitting/damaging/injuring other road users (in whatever form of transport they may be using).

There have been a spate of serious/fatal collisions recently in professional cycling where motorbikes and cars have not given any/enough regard to the safety of the cyclists. Everyday on British roads (and all around the world) the same applies: drivers (mostly) and motorbikers giving too little room or thought for the safety for the most vulnerable of road users.

My comment (tongue in cheek, hence the 'winking' smiley) was poking fun at you for not giving enough clearance to cyclists in your 52 years of driving. No malice was intended, and apologies if you felt slighted, but surely, as a cyclist and a motorist, I'd have thought this was glaringly obvious.

OK......its difficult to get thoughts/feelings across in text. We all have opinions but so long as we disagree "pleasantly" thats fine.
Enjoy your evening

 

[KneesUp]

That car is disproportionately wide so that misleads. Standard lane width is 3.65m and typical car width is about 2m, or about 1.5 cyclists abreast. If the lanes are wide enough for 3 cyclists abreast, the other lane is wide enough to overtake with plenty of room unless one drives like a dick.

I did it quickly as my laptop battery was dying, and because I assumed you would be able to see the point without it being correctly scaled. Apparently not though.

 

[mjr]

I did it quickly as my laptop battery was dying, and because I assumed you would be able to see the point without it being correctly scaled. Apparently not though.

The point is mistaken. Even if the cyclist outermost is over the white line edge, pulling into the other lane and giving a metre and a half clearance leaves the righthand side of an typical car almost a foot from the other lane edge. Why is this hard to understand?

I swear, sometimes the worst problem for cyclists are the "I'm a cyclist myself" motoring advocates.

 

[jefmcg]

U


That was meant as a joke to bring some humour into this

I can't actually find the joke in there.

 

[adscrim]

I swear, sometimes the worst problem for cyclists are the "I'm a cyclist myself" motoring advocates.

This. I had a nobber skim past my elbow and when I asked for more room was told than he was hard up to the white line and had nowhere else to go. He rides a bike too you know.

 

[snorri]

My point was (as stated) to think of other people.

Your apparent willingness to overtake a cyclist in the face of oncoming motor traffic (post 35)suggests you think little for the safety of cyclists.

 

[jefmcg]

I can't actually find the joke in there.

yeah, this got edited.

Why use the word hate...thats a strong word thats never been used

How come this bit of newspeak was left intact?

 

[coco69]

I raised an opinion which has raised quite a hefty discussion.
I will not be called just because my opinion is different than yours.
I am old school and i really do wish this discussion was made in person without the power of internet and computer screens....oh i wish

 

[Ajax Bay]

single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.

I'm not on about what is legal....I am thinking about what is best for other people.

@Dave7 , if they singled out, it would be harder for cars behind to get past as they'd, driving prudently, need more clear road. What regularly happens, with a singled out group, to cries of "Car Up!", is that the overtaking driver gets part way, sees an oncoming vehicle, and then 'cuts in' with explicit increased danger to the cyclists 'in the way'. So actually the cycling group IS possibly thinking what's best for the cars behind (a point previously made). I think for the reasons others have offered (overtaking car doesn't have to go in the other gutter), two abreast would be a bit more sensible/sensitive and achieved the objective (primary position qv), but again, the OP was behind and it may have just looked as if they were 3 abreast. Whatever, any car passing them safely would need to go well or even completely over the centre line (marked or otherwise) of the road.

It isn't a piss take. It is a cyclists way of saying "I'll determine how to manage the danger you represent to me thanks, because you will always make the wrong call. And my risk is HUGE."

As a lone rider, this danger/threat management is best achieved, in circumstances like these, by assuming the primary position whenever there is increased risk to the rider, of a car coming past without sufficient visibility to see 'round the corner'. On a single carriageway road approaching a bend I often but not always adopt the primary position (tends to depend how narrow the road is). This ensures that any driver behind desiring to overtake me, needs to make a conscious decision to pull into the lane designed for traffic coming the other way, risking - for the driver - a head on collision if he/she gets it wrong, as opposed to the cyclist in the gutter and squeezed when the overtaking driver suddenly sees a vehicle coming the other way. As soon as I can see round the bend and it's clear I'll pull back to the normal distance from the gutter/kerb.

As an experienced club rider we only ever went two abreast and singled it out for cars that were struggling to get past.

@Dave7 I'll make a guess that your cycling in a group (ie on a highway, often two abreast) has been limited. If not, on your club rides (or whatever), did everyone cycle along in single file?
What about your group riding experience @coco69 ? Has your club ride not held up traffic behind a bit? If the group was only two abreast, would you not have been so aggrevated?

 

[coco69]

Hi
Sorry i know its my post but im bailing out and its going nowhere apart from a few cowardly members throwing personal comments.
Enjoy the ride...1..2..3..4..5..wide

 

[growingvegetables]

.... I will not be called just because my opinion is different than yours.....

Trust me - you are not "being called" because you have a different opinion.

You ARE being called
- for what I (and others) consider an ill-considered, intemperate rant;
- for your failure to consider any possible interpretation, except that those 7 cyclists were deliberately hindering your august and speedy progress;
- and for your abject and total failure to engage with any argument that doesn't precisely tally with your ill-evidenced rant .... apart from puerile insults about village idiots.

And you get antsy when your insults are turned back on you.

Forget previous aplicants.....you have won hands down.
Congratulations

 

[400bhp]

Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....70 cars ...why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.

That's the answer.

 

[growingvegetables]

...... and its going nowhere apart from a few cowardly members throwing personal comments.

Have a look at your own posting history, mate.

 

[Ajax Bay]

[QUOTE 4244024, member: 9609"]when most people overtake another car, wing mirror to wing mirror, they are very likely only giving 6" to a foot.[/QUOTE]
I think that is a massive underestimate and certainly I hope I don't ever overtake that close to another moving vehicle. All they have to do is change their line a touch and . . .

 

[slowmotion]

Yesterday I was travelling through Surrey, and there was a tractor.... far wider than three cyclist

Should I hate Tractors

?

A tractor is unable to modify its shape or size on the road. A group of cyclists are able to do this if it is safe and not inconvenient for them to do so to accommodate other road users. Some choose not to do so and annoy motorists who then hold a minor grudge against all cyclists, either justifiably or not.

Why pretend that this doesn't happen? We all suffer the consequences.