Because coming to a stop every few meters to let a car passed would mean the journey would take forever.
Road ragers should wear helmets
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Yes. The fact the stream of traffic prevented passing, but it was still caused by a blockage in the road, that was unnecessary.
I was second guessing a hidden message that you insinuated more cyclists = less traffic.
It's not about "law" or "rights" but about consideration. It needs to happen everywhere. There is nothing saying that a cyclist can't take a full lane, but there's nothing saying a car legally has to give a lane to overtake too.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Because that is using the M62, where iirc bicycles aren't allowed, cycling would add an extra 5 miles, taking it to 40 each way, or 80 round trip.
How many, even very enthusiastic cyclists here do 400 miles per week? or nearly 5 hours per day 5 days per week? On top of a 45 hour working week?
I would love to move closer, but it would mean getting rid of all motorised transport, my dog, garden, shed, tools, and move into a 2bed flat for £200 more than my current mortgage.
winjim
Smash the cistern
Ha, yes that's true, but not what I was thinking. Just that it was cyclist plus oncoming traffic causing the obstruction, rather than cyclist alone.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Would you have to cycle both legs of the journey? Could you do one or two days a week? Could you go for a multi-modal option?
I'm not having a go, it's just that from your responses on this thread, you don't seem to have much understanding or empathy with cycling.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
The example I posed wasn't a common occurance, far from. In fact, first time in 12 years of driving that I have been stopped because of a bicycle.
My main point was that it's not an us and them thing, that consideration is needed everywhere. Cyclist do need more space by a lot of car drivers. I'm not even going to say most, as I don't often get a close pass, but then I don't cycle in rush hour, or for commuting. Drivers need more education about why cyclists take a full lane.
I take a full lane at a pinch point, to prevent silly overtakes, then move to secondary after. But if I know there's traffic struggling to get past, and I can inconvenience myself by 20 seconds to let them get past I am not bothered. After all, they have been considerate enough to wait for me, so why not return the consideration when it is safe and convenient for me to do so?
Arjimlad
Tights of Cydonia
- Location
- South Glos
Please may we have more funny "memes" of the driver catapulting himself forwards into improbable and amusing scenarios. I know how good you all are at them.
TIA
TIA
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
I would have to do both legs, as I would also prefer to use public transport than drive in rush hour manchester traffic, the train would even be cheaper! But even the Manchester infrastructure doesn't supply public transport at the times when I regularly finish working.
I do have empathy with cycling, admittedly, I don't commute, and cycle purely for pleasure. I dislike the strong anti-car attitude, and the militant "cyclist does no wrong". I was merely suggesting that there are other ways to go about it. I had a car inches from my bumper this morning, I didn't pull next to him at the lights and tell him how stupid he was. I simply moved over, let him go, no more tailgating, no confrontation. Admittedly, I can and have lost my temper before and confronted drivers. But, I know immediately, that 90% of the time it's not the right choice.
I take primary when I need to dominate the lane for my safety, such as pinchpoints, narrow 1 way roads, blind country road corners, roundabouts, etc.
If a line of traffic have patiently waited for a short while behind me, for a safe passing point, but cannot pass due to oncoming traffic. Why not pull over when safe and convenient to return the consideration that they have shown me?
I just don't see everything as black and white, there's a middle ground in all of this. Not cyclists demanding they have a right to be there, and using those rights because they can. And not cars forcing their way through because they're bigger and faster. There needs to be equal consideration.
If you haven't seen a modern theory test, check this link out
http://www.safedrivingforlife.info/take-official-free-practice-driving-theory-test/
Have a go, and it will show the issues. The tests ask more about first aid, and questions about trams, than anything about cycling. In fact, when I was helping my partner recently pass a test, I don't recall ever seeing a question about cyclists.
It's not entirely anti-cycling, but lack of driver education, that leads to a lot of these issues.
Maybe I'm naive, but I like to have enough faith in humanity, that the majority of people don't want to harm or endanger me when cycling. But, simply don't realise what they are doing is dangerous.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Origamist
Legendary Member
Some of that is reasonable and I don’t think you would have too much disagreement from many (particularly the lunacy of driving in rush-hour Manc). However, with reference to the above concerning the video, the cyclist didn’t delay the motorist, he didn’t have a reasonable opportunity to pull in, and he wasn’t even riding in “primary” (a term I have come to dislike more than even the most anti-cycling motorist, I suspect).
Where you go acutely astray is when you talk about “equal consideration” – even the example you provide is telling. It is the driver behaviour that is dangerous and potentially life threatening – not the cyclist asserting their right to (presumably) ride in the centre of the lane, or as in the OP, on the margins of the door zone. The difference in lethality is massive and the “equal consideration” that you talk of is not equitable in a road danger reduction context as the greatest burden of responsibility lies with those that do the most harm. That does not mean that cyclists should not be amenable to the needs of other road users, but surely you see a difference between the levels of risk posed by different road users? It's not an even playing field.
I have seen the theory test and for many years it has been mooted that there should be a cycling component embedded in the test. We're still waiting...
Finally, I don’t think you’re naïve – who would cycle, walk, drive motorcycle, if the majority of people did want to harm others?
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/lstwhl/status/628338649818603521
Here's a good reason not to be cycling next to parked cars
Here's a good reason not to be cycling next to parked cars
Tin Pot
Guru
I'm not overly surprised - but no detail of the caution has been given .
Other posters on this thread seem to have missed your link though.
LCpl Boiled Egg
Three word soundbite
What a peanut. He held that driver up for a good ten minutes. He needs to keep to the left more when he's losing control of his bike. A bit of consideration for other road users please!
vickster
Legendary Member
It says a public order offence, so presumably because he was a shouty p*llock
Origamist
Legendary Member
To be fair, Dan B stated the same thing on p.11 of this thread!
