ignorance...

[Mark_Robson]

The above cyclists don't need any excuse because they are doing nothing wrong. How hard is it to choose a safe overtaking opportunity?

I think you are being an tad melodramatic with the whole '10 miles of rural roads, blind bends and junctions.'

To be fair though Lee your looking at this from a cyclists point of view. If you have to decelerate from 60 to 15mph because of a group of cyclists riding abreast and taking up one side of the road rather than riding in single file then it is frustrating. It's even more frustrating when they know that you are stuck behind them and can't overtake because you don't have a clear field of view.
There has to be an element of common sense here and mutual courtesy if we want other road users to give us the respect that we deserve.

 

[GrasB]

To be fair though Lee your looking at this from a cyclists point of view. If you have to decelerate from 60 to 15mph...

So you'll just carry on passed a cyclist at 60mph without slowing down then... how about giving consideration to vulnerable road users? Especially in the context of:

because of a group of cyclists riding abreast and taking up one side of the road rather than riding in single file then it is frustrating.

So you don't like the fact you're actually having to overtake in a proper manner giving good space to a road user. Basically you're saying drivers can close pass a cyclist at high speed? If this is your driving attitude please surrender your driving licence!

It's even more frustrating when they know that you are stuck behind them and can't overtake because you don't have a clear field of view.

If you don't have a clear view of the road ahead then don't overtake. It's that simple!

There has to be an element of common sense here and mutual courtesy if we want other road users to give us the respect that we deserve.

Which is why I said " Now if you want to take issue with a group of cyclists not pulling over/filing up when it's safe to do so then be my guest.". However a driver should also show some respect to other road users by not charging passed a cyclist to close, at high speed when they can't see properly.

The effects of a close high speed pass can be mentally devastating to a cyclist already in some kind of distress. I it was in the summer of '07 I came across a solo woman cyclist sitting at the side of the road who had gone out for a training run, completely blown up & subsequently lost as she was off the edge of her map. Knowing the area well I offered to ride with her & guide her to anywhere she wanted (the closest major village on her map). We were riding at about 15mph or so when a car passed us a high speed closely, I probably could have touched the car with my fingers had I stretched out my arm, not a problem for me just make sure I kept the bike on a straight line. Physically she was exhausted, mentally fragile & then put under stress with real personal safety concerns, it was the last straw she screamed something, jammed on the brakes & half got off, half fell off the bike crying. It took me & a kind passer by for what seemed like forever to calm her down & in a state to get to the nearest village from there she could get picked up. But that's the thing, 99% of the time a close pass for the victim is just a threatening annoyance, but if you're already in a fairly demoralised/stressed state it is just to much to deal with.

 

[Mark_Robson]

So you don't like the fact you're actually having to overtake in a proper manner giving good space to a road user. Basically you're saying drivers can close pass a cyclist at high speed? If this is your driving attitude please surrender your driving licence!

When did I mention close overtaking cyclists at 60mph? Please don't put words into my mouth.
My point is that if cyclists are in single file you can safely get past them without putting them or anyone else on the road at risk. If they take up one complete side of the carriageway then to overtake them means that you have to pull further over to pass them safely which means that it takes longer to get back onto the correct side of the road, thus making what should be a simple and safe manouver more hazardous to everyone involved.

 

[marinyork]

To be fair though Lee your looking at this from a cyclists point of view. If you have to decelerate from 60 to 15mph because of a group of cyclists riding abreast and taking up one side of the road rather than riding in single file then it is frustrating. It's even more frustrating when they know that you are stuck behind them and can't overtake because you don't have a clear field of view.
There has to be an element of common sense here and mutual courtesy if we want other road users to give us the respect that we deserve.

It's got nothing particularly to do with cyclists. If it was walkers it would be the same, if it was a mobility scooter it would be similar, if it was a tractor it would be similar, if it were drunks, the same sorts of principles would apply.

Cyclists aren't respected because we're seen as an outgroup, we aren't seen as proper vehicles, we aren't seen as actual people trying to get from A to B and we're seen as movable objects - unlike say a tractor which you can't argue with - that can be bullied off the road.

 

[GrasB]

When did I mention close overtaking cyclists at 60mph? Please don't put words into my mouth.

The difference between 60 &n 40mph is minimal if the pass is close & if you're properly clear of the cyclist on the other side of the road it's also minimal, the fact is you want to charge passed impatiently as quickly as possible.

My point is that if cyclists are in single file you can safely get past them without putting them or anyone else on the road at risk. If they take up one complete side of the carriageway then to overtake them means that you have to pull further over to pass them safely which means that it takes longer to get back onto the correct side of the road, thus making what should be a simple and safe manouver more hazardous to everyone involved.

If you can't see far enough down the road for an extra 0.5s of travel in the opposite lane the overtake was dangerous. The extra 12" that riding 2 abreast takes up is inconsequential unless you were aiming for a close pass to start with. If you have a cyclist in a decent secondary on a narrow road you're not on the other side of the road the pass was to close, no if buts or maybes.

 

[Mark_Robson]

You seem to assume that I don't bother to slow or look past cyclists as I overtake them? I am a cyclist myself and I treat other cyclists as I would like to be treated myself. But consideration is what I am talking about here and consideration works both ways. What I did say is that if you choose to ride two abreast and straddle the road then you are going to annoy other road users as it is inconsiderate to hold up traffic just because you have a legal right to do so.
Also could you explain how riding two abreast only increases the road area that you occupy by 12"? A bike is certainly wider than 12" and so is the riders shoulders and then there is the safe gap between the two bikes. The riders that I see riding two abreast certainly take up more than double the road area that once cyclist would take up. Also you might want to work out how far you would travel in a car in 0.5 seconds whilst accelerating past cyclists at 15mph, I haven't bothered doing the sums but it certainly isn't ging to be far enough to make overtaking safe.

The difference between 60 &n 40mph is minimal if the pass is close & if you're properly clear of the cyclist on the other side of the road it's also minimal, the fact is you want to charge passed impatiently as quickly as possible.



If you can't see far enough down the road for an extra 0.5s of travel in the opposite lane the overtake was dangerous. The extra 12" that riding 2 abreast takes up is inconsequential unless you were aiming for a close pass to start with. If you have a cyclist in a decent secondary on a narrow road you're not on the other side of the road the pass was to close, no if buts or maybes.

 

[GrasB]

The statement of "If you have to decelerate from 60 to 15mph" sounds like you think that drivers shouldn't be slowing down to properly evaluate what's going on, ime on a narrow road you'll almost certainly need to drop to near the cyclists speed regardless of 1, 2 or 20 riders.

Group riding, first off it's not bike footprint, it's road width claimed (unless you're telling me you think a car should try to go up the nearside of a cyclist in secondary). With this in mind compare the position of a solo rider in a decent secondary & the outer rider takes when 2 abreast. If riding in a loseish formation it's about 12", the offside rider takes a very strong secondary rather than a decent secondary. If the group is tight, when I group ride typically there's around 6" between the handle bars, then the offside rider is generally in a decent secondary so the difference is non-existent.

The difference between a close pass with 2/3 car width over the centre line & a wide pass completely in opposite lane exposure on a narrow road is around 0.5s in my estimation. If you can't afford that extra 0.5s exposure then it wasn't safe to pass in the first place.