# Bad Name



## twobiker (3 Oct 2011)

I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.


----------



## LosingFocus (3 Oct 2011)

Maybe he was just checking the route on this GPS app on his phone, I do this all the time.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Agreed.
If the guy was in primary then i would hope the traffic behind would start tooting horns or yelling abuse out of there windows.


----------



## gaz (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed.
> If the guy was in primary then i would hope the traffic behind would start tooting horns or yelling abuse out of there windows.



Why? Maybe it wasn't safe to overtake and he was well in his right to take a strong position on the road.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> Why? Maybe it wasn't safe to overtake and he was well in his right to take a strong position on the road.



Or maybe it was and thats why twobiker posted in the first place and maybe you should pull over if you want to use your phone rather cycling down the road unnecessarily annoying other traffic.


----------



## gaz (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Or maybe it was and thats why twobiker posted in the first place and maybe you should pull over if you want to use your phone rather cycling down the road unnecessarily annoying other traffic.



Lets not jump to conclusions about the circumstances, you have little knowledge of the situation.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets not jump to conclusions about the circumstances, you have little knowledge of the situation.



But the whole premise is that there was something unnacceptable otherwise twobiker would not have posted.
Presumably if the cyclist was cycling to acceptable standards twobiker would not have felt compelled to post - maybe twobiker could clarify if he isnt to busy eating pasties.


----------



## Bman (3 Oct 2011)

Regardless of if he was just checking his route on his mobile, thats not what it looks like to others. 

We can hardly moan at other road users for texting and driving if we (cyclists) are seen doing it too. Even if we are just checking a route, other people who see it happen dont know that.


----------



## mickle (3 Oct 2011)

Bad name my arse. It's not illegal to ride a bike slowly, nor is it illegal to make a phone call when riding a bike. And he wasn't endangering anyone.

If it wasn't possible to overtake him @ slow miles per hour then it was also impossible to overtake him safely at 'normal' cycling speed. So we're talking about a delay of a few seconds (the difference between the speed he was going and the speed you think he should have been going).

Don't you think it would be more productive to turn your attention to the sort of actual dangerous things which happen everyday. By drivers. Because, lets not forget, cyclists kill fewer than 1 persons every year whilst motorists kill 3000+

FFS.


----------



## gb155 (3 Oct 2011)

I had a driving lesson at 7pm last night

It was dark and pissing it down - yet there were 2 different cyclists out without any lights or illumination - damn cyclists  ...... We as cyclists do need to be a bit more aware at times tbh


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

Is it the fact he was going slow or the fact he was using a phone that is the problem?

Or the fact that the drivers are impatient feckers who think they have a right to dictate the behaviour of other road users?


----------



## numbnuts (3 Oct 2011)

I can across to stuck up sods riding two a breast yesterday and would not yield even when hooted _(I was not driving)._ Cyclist want recognition on the roads the way they are going about it is just pissing in the face of other roads users – and don't go on about the way they treat us – two wrongs......ect


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Bad name my arse. It's not illegal to ride a bike slowly, nor is it illegal to make a phone call when riding a bike. And he wasn't endangering anyone.
> 
> If it wasn't possible to overtake him @ slow miles per hour then it was also impossible to overtake him safely at 'normal' cycling speed. So we're talking about a delay of a few seconds (the difference between the speed he was going and the speed you think he should have been going).
> 
> ...



Yes bad name your arse.
You might like to oipen your mind to the fact that cyclists can be at fault - in that way lies correcting erroneous behaviours.


----------



## gb155 (3 Oct 2011)

numbnuts said:


> I can across to stuck up sods riding two a breast yesterday and would not yield even when hooted (I was not driving). Cyclist want recognition on the roads the way they are going about it is just pissing in the face of other roads users – and don't go on about the way they treat us – two wrongs......ect




Riding 2-a-breast isn't a "wrong" tho


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

My god riding two abreast and not yielding when hooted! Whatever next, votes for women?


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

gb155 said:


> Riding 2-a-breast isn't a "wrong" tho


Riding 2 abreats isnt wrong perse - its fine so long as its done respoinsibly but there seem to be endless examples of gangs of selfish cyclists riding x abreast with the attitude f anyone else. Not good.
But (like anything legal) done responsibly and in the appropriate circumstances its fine .


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

So who decides when it becomes irresponsible and inappropriate to ride 2 abreast? 

And where are these endless examples of riding x abreast? I am imagining that x is greater than 2.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So who decides when it becomes irresponsible and inappropriate to ride 2 abreast?
> 
> And where are these endless examples of riding x abreast? I am imagining that x is greater than 2.



The individual decides - were rely in this regard on the individuals intelligence and his/her inclination to cycling with courtesy and consideration to other traffic.
Obviously i cant be bothered to compile a list of examples for you but heres a recent topic illustrating how the practice became such a problem that the police had to take action.
https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

What if my considerate and appropriate is the motorists inconsiderate and inappropriate? That leads to hooting. Who is right?


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> What if my considerate and appropriate is the motorists inconsiderate and inappropriate? That leads to hooting. Who is right?



Who is right will depend on the specific facts / circumstances of the case in question.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

So in the circumstances desrcibed in the OP who is right?


----------



## HLaB (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So who decides when it becomes irresponsible and inappropriate to ride 2 abreast?



Usually the w'ker behind you or on Thursday night the W'ker beside us. I popped out for a bit of late training with club we came to a multi lane rbt, we were in the left lane and we had to give to few cars. A few moments later biatch drove up next to us in the outside lane turning right but still slowed down to beep and mouth of to us


----------



## Hip Priest (3 Oct 2011)

Personally, I don't advise using a phone whilst cycling, but it's difficult to see how someone could hold traffic up by using a phone.


----------



## twobiker (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> But the whole premise is that there was something unnacceptable otherwise twobiker would not have posted.
> Presumably if the cyclist was cycling to acceptable standards twobiker would not have felt compelled to post - maybe twobiker could clarify if he isnt to busy eating pasties.


Very fast section of A road cyclist rode straight past pull in and carried on.... pasty shop closed.


----------



## twobiker (3 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Personally, I don't advise using a phone whilst cycling, but it's difficult to see how someone could hold traffic up by using a phone.


the guy was riding slowly so that he could use his phone, its about consideration for other road users, not the legality of phone use, unless he was going at 60mph he would hold up traffic on that stretch of road, unlikely.and if anyone wants to ride primary with a car coming up your ass at 60mph then carry on .


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Riding 2 abreats isnt wrong perse - its fine so long as its done respoinsibly but *there seem to be endless examples of gangs of selfish cyclists riding x abreast with the attitude f anyone else. *Not good.
> But (like anything legal) done responsibly and in the appropriate circumstances its fine .



Complete utter tosh.
I ride a shed load of miles every year and hardly ever see this.


----------



## twobiker (3 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Complete utter tosh.
> I ride a shed load of miles every year and hardly ever see this.



Most of them go single file as you drive up to them, self preservation?.


----------



## gb155 (3 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Complete utter tosh.
> I ride a shed load of miles every year and hardly ever see this.



I've never seen it tbh


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2011)

gb155 said:


> I've never seen it tbh




That's because the majority of group/club riders are very aware of how they ride on the public highways and ride and act accordingly. I can't remember the last time I saw Cyclists riding side by side in a selfish manner as to wind up motorists.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So in the circumstances desrcibed in the OP who is right?



In what respect. In the op the cyclist was alone so the riding 2 abreast is a non issue.


----------



## mickle (3 Oct 2011)

So indoctrinated have we become by the 'normalisation' of mass ownership motorised personal transport that we have turned into a nation of cyclist haters. Unfortunately this includes many people who think of themselves as cyclists.

We've covered this ground before but lets consider for a moment how cyclists can 'give themselves a bad name' by running red lights or riding on the pavement but the same thing is never said about drivers. 

It's because - even in the eyes of people who ride bikes - cars are normal and bikes are, somehow, 'other'. 

To the point where ^ even when a cyclist is doing nothing wrong (but merely, possibly, slightly holding up another road user) they are vilified. _By other cyclists!_

What a crock. Get your heads on straight. If you want to change the conditions on the road for cyclists for the better lets educate and prosecute the people who pose the threat of injury and death. Cars which run red lights, pass too close etc etc. 

The guy riding along on the phone poses zero danger to anyone. I on the other hand was passed too closely several times on my commute this morning and cut up twice. Get your priorities right. Jeez.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Complete utter tosh.
> I ride a shed load of miles every year and hardly ever see this.



I rarely see it but plenty of anecdotal evidence iexists on this forum and it is one of the main gripes that motorists have about cyclists when i discuss the issue with them.
You only have to read some of the opinions expressed in the box hill topic to see that the mentality for this kind of irresponsible behaviour exists , even on a respectable forum like this.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> That's because the majority of group/club riders are very aware of how they ride on the public highways and ride and act accordingly. I can't remember the last time I saw Cyclists riding side by side in a selfish manner as to wind up motorists.



Good i hope you are right.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> In what respect. In the op the cyclist was alone so the riding 2 abreast is a non issue.



In the respect of who do you think was right in the circumstances?


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

But the reality of it Apollo is that when two cyclists are riding two abreast - they take up less space then a car..what's the issue? Motorists seem to have this attitude sometimes that cyclists need to get out the way...it's about learning to share space whatever mode of transport you are using


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good i hope you are right.



What do you mean by that?

I am right or I wouldn't have posted what I did.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> So indoctrinated have we become by the 'normalisation' of mass ownership motorised personal transport that we have turned into a nation of cyclist haters. Unfortunately this includes many people who think of themselves as cyclists.
> 
> We've covered this ground before but lets consider for a moment how cyclists can 'give themselves a bad name' by running red lights or riding on the pavement but the same thing is never said about drivers.
> 
> ...



The point being that cyclists are vulnerable and therefore having a pro rather than an anticyclist motoring population is critical to the wellfare of cyclists themselves.
Better have a pro cycling car fraternity who drive with consideration to cyclists rather than having an anti motorist fraternity but an effective system of prosecution when a motorist does kill or injure a cyclist.
Best - work towards a pro cycling motorist population and enforce effective prosecution of those motorists who do endanger others.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> In the respect of who do you think was right in the circumstances?



The cyclist was alone so the riding 2 abreast is a non -issue , the question of right and wrong does not apply.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> But the reality of it Apollo is that when two cyclists are riding two abreast - they take up less space then a car..what's the issue? Motorists seem to have this attitude sometimes that cyclists need to get out the way...it's about learning to share space whatever mode of transport you are using



The issue is - obviously - that 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast will (in most circumstances) be moving slower than a car , thereby they will be holding following traffic up.
This is the issue - sometimes it is ok , sometimes it is not.


----------



## Alien8 (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> ... gangs of selfish cyclists ...



I think you'll find the correct terminology is _*peloton*_, so that will be "... _*pelotons *_of selfish cyclists ...".

Tsk, tsk.


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The issue is - obviously - that 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast will (in most circumstances) be moving slower than a car , thereby they will be holding following traffic up.
> This is the issue - sometimes it is ok , sometimes it is not.



but don't cars hold each other up every day? those are called traffic jams right?

One of the first things about improving cyclist/motorist relations is to get to the bottom of this 'in a rush' attitude that some car drivers seem to feel.


----------



## mickle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The point being that cyclists are vulnerable and therefore having a pro rather than an anticyclist motoring population is critical to the wellfare of cyclists themselves.
> Better have a pro cycling car fraternity who drive with consideration to cyclists rather than having an anti motorist fraternity but an effective system of prosecution when a motorist does kill or injure a cyclist.
> Best - work towards a pro cycling motorist population and enforce effective prosecution of those motorists who do endanger others.



Your implication is that we're all supposed to be 'on our best behaviour' and jump out of the way in case we upset or mildly inconvenience the people in their cars? Causing them to drive into us in a fit of pique. You've just proved my point about cyclist hating cyclists.

We are right to expect to go about our daily busines without the threat of danger. Not cower in the gutter doffing our metaphorical caps as the motorists all speed by.


----------



## mickle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The issue is - obviously - that 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast will (in most circumstances) be moving slower than a car , thereby they will be holding following traffic up.
> This is the issue - sometimes it is ok , sometimes it is not.



The amount of space a motorist should give to a cyclist when overtaking is tha same as should be accorded any other vehicle. That is: a whole lane. Overtaking a pair of cyclists riding two abreast should therefore be no different to overtaking a solo rider.

Cyclksts can't _hold up_ traffic. They _are_ traffic.


----------



## youngoldbloke (3 Oct 2011)

Back to the OP - I don't see how we can criticise drivers for using phones (illegal) and yet sanction their use by cyclists while riding - legal or otherwise. You cannot give your full attention to riding if fiddling with a phone (and IMO this applies to computers too).


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> but don't cars hold each other up every day? those are called traffic jams right?
> 
> One of the first things about improving cyclist/motorist relations is to get to the bottom of this 'in a rush' attitude that some car drivers seem to feel.



The whole basis of transport thinking is that quicker is better.
If you want to go down a slower is better route then you might like living in jamaica or barbados.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> The amount of space a motorist should give to a cyclist when overtaking is tha same as should be accorded any other vehicle. That is: a whole lane. Overtaking a pair of cyclists riding two abreast should therefore be no different to overtaking a solo rider.
> 
> Cyclksts can't _hold up_ traffic. They _are_ traffic.



Yes but are we talking real world or fantasy island terms.
A car can hold up traffic , a sheep can hold up traffic , a cyclist can hold up traffic.


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The whole basis of transport thinking is that quicker is better.
> If you want to go down a slower is better route then you might like living in jamaica or barbados.



Your assumption isn't necessarily true. Speed is an issue and causes all sorts of problems in terms of maintenance and environmentally.

There are so many stories of unsafe overtakes - I'm talking about waiting and having the wherewithall to plan ahead and see ahead and realise that overtaking unsafely, a car or cyclist to then stop at a traffic light a metre up the road is inane, stupid and impatient. A couple of seconds does no one any harm.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Back to the OP - I don't see how we can criticise drivers for using phones (illegal) and yet sanction their use by cyclists while riding - legal or otherwise. You cannot give your full attention to riding if fiddling with a phone (and IMO this applies to computers too).



Correct


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The cyclist was alone so the riding 2 abreast is a non -issue , the question of right and wrong does not apply.




Right or wrong? In the OP who is right? The cyclist or the drivers...? 

The issue of how many cyclists is not an issue...the issue is who is right and who is wrong?

You seem to have realised too late my little trap...


----------



## 4F (3 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Back to the OP - I don't see how we can criticise drivers for using phones (illegal) and yet sanction their use by cyclists while riding - legal or otherwise. You cannot give your full attention to riding if fiddling with a phone (and IMO this applies to computers too).



But one is breaking the law and one is not.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> Your assumption isn't necessarily true. Speed is an issue and causes all sorts of problems in terms of maintenance and environmentally.
> 
> There are so many stories of unsafe overtakes - I'm talking about waiting and having the wherewithall to plan ahead and see ahead and realise that overtaking unsafely, a car or cyclist to then stop at a traffic light a metre up the road is inane, stupid and impatient. A couple of seconds does no one any harm.



For sure - if you want to argue that in reality it isnt going to make one jot of difference wether the following traffic gets past the cyclist now or 30 seconds down the road then you could very well be right. However the reality on the ground is that people are impatient etc etc. But i agree you could say to everyone "hey man why dont you just chill the f out"


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> For sure - if you want to argue that in reality it isnt going to make one jot of difference wether the following traffic gets past the cyclist now or 30 seconds down the road then you could very well be right. However the reality on the ground is that people are impatient etc etc. But i agree you could say to everyone "hey man why dont you just chill the f out"



Yes but the more sinister side of reality on the ground is that a close pass or rage at being held up can and does have very nasty potential outcomes for a vulnerable road user whether they be ped or cyclist.

It does need to change and just allowing the status quo is not going to do that.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Right or wrong? In the OP who is right? The cyclist or the drivers...?
> 
> The issue of how many cyclists is not an issue...the issue is who is right and who is wrong?
> 
> You seem to have realised too late my little trap...



I have allready indicated that i am guided by twobiker and that the cyclist is in the wrong.
What trap ?


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> Yes but the more sinister side of reality on the ground is that a close pass or rage at being held up can and does have very nasty potential outcomes for a vulnerable road user whether they be ped or cyclist.
> 
> It does need to change and just allowing the status quo is not going to do that.



And thats precisely why i espouse the idea that cyclists should go beyong the expected to be courteous and considerate to other road users - precisely cos every antagonised motorist is just one more potential close passer or danger to cyclists.
How do you advocate that the status quo could be changed to improve things ?


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

You have to be an assertive cyclist and ride with confidence- I'm not saying being rude or discourteous but there are certain places ie narrowing of roads where you have to put yourself in the centre of the lane to prevent close passes, it isn't about antagonising people but staying safe. Riding submissively does not always mean keeping yourself safe.

That and getting more people onto bikes as more people on bikes is statistically what improves cyclist conditions.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> You have to be an assertive cyclist and ride with confidence- I'm not saying being rude or discourteous but there are certain places ie narrowing of roads where you have to put yourself in the centre of the lane to prevent close passes, it isn't about antagonising people but staying safe. Riding submissively does not always mean keeping yourself safe.
> 
> That and getting more people onto bikes as more people on bikes is statistically what improves cyclist conditions.



Yes i agree wholeheartedly.
Theres a world of difference between a self absobed cyclist pottering along in primary playing with his phone while traffic backs up behind him and a road aware cyclist commanding primary for good reason and proceeding at a reasonable pace and aware of the traffic behind him.
The op sounded more towards the former than the second.


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes i agree wholeheartedly.
> Theres a world of difference between a self absobed cyclist pottering along in primary playing with his phone while traffic backs up behind him and a road aware cyclist commanding primary for good reason and proceeding at a reasonable pace and aware of the traffic behind him.
> The op sounded more towards the former than the second.



Not useful to assume, it's hard to know what was going on there.

Route checking etc who knows?

I still feel a few mins here or there is not a problem


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Oct 2011)

I think the highway code is quite specific on riding two a breast... it says adopt single file on narrow roads and tight bends, or words to that effect.

As for somebody pootling along playing with their phone holding a load of traffic up... it's hard to say as the situation may have been the same if no phone was involved. They may have been a slow cyclist and the car behind decided that an overtake is not safe, and therefore all other cars behind that have to bow to their will (the driver of car 1, that is)


----------



## youngoldbloke (3 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> But one is breaking the law and one is not.



That may be so - although if the cyclist is involved in an accident and is known to have been using a phone could it not be regarded as a contribrutory factor? (and rightly so IMO)!


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

1565781 said:


> Inspector Terri Poulton of the Surrey Police has backtracked on that one and apologized on the Cycling Weekly website for the blunt and inappropriate wording of the threatening leaflet.
> 
> Perhaps she took into account motorists unthinking but persistent driving two abreast in inappropriate circumstances.



Interesting. Do they still insist that there is a problem that needs adressing and have just acknowledged that there method (leaflets) was at fault. Or do they now say that there was never an x abreast cyclist problem to begin with ?


----------



## youngoldbloke (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> Not useful to assume, it's hard to know what was going on there.
> 
> Route checking etc who knows?
> 
> I still feel a few mins here or there is not a problem



Whether using a device to check a route, send a text or make a call is irrelevant, It is dangerous to do any of these things whilst on the move because one's attention is distracted from the road. It is instructive that Gaz links to Don't Phone and Drive at the bottom of his posts - brief quote - _The main problems are distraction, be it from a conversation or by looking away from the road. It’s clear that looking down at your phone to read a text or push some buttons takes your eyes off the road and that is dangerous. But what is often overlooked as how having a conversation with someone on the phone affects you. _
Exactly the same applies to using such a device on a bike - perhaps more so given the inherent instability of two wheels only. It wasn't illegal to use a hand held mobile phone in a car until relatively recently - perhaps it *should* be illegal to use one on a bike too.


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Whether using a device to check a route, send a text or make a call is irrelevant, It is dangerous to do any of these things whilst on the move because one's attention is distracted from the road. It is instructive that Gaz links to Don't Phone and Drive at the bottom of his posts - brief quote - _The main problems are distraction, be it from a conversation or by looking away from the road. It’s clear that looking down at your phone to read a text or push some buttons takes your eyes off the road and that is dangerous. But what is often overlooked as how having a conversation with someone on the phone affects you.
> _It wasn't be illegal to use a mobile in a car until relatively recently - perhaps it *should* be illegal to use one on a bike too.



It's not me that quoted it as legal/illegal.

I personally wouldn't do it as I'd pull to the side to check stuff or leave it to ring if it was a call. However, I wasn't there, wasn't that cyclist and therefore am not inclined to finger wag on a forum without knowing what was going on at that point.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> Not useful to assume, it's hard to know what was going on there.
> 
> Route checking etc who knows?
> 
> I still feel a few mins here or there is not a problem



No not usefull to assume but i was accepting twobikers overview as i still do.
I would suggest that you are in a minority. A phsycology of speadfreakery exists on our roads and although very creditable for you or anyone to say "a few mins here or there is not a problem" it is imho not the mainstream view.
So whereas you would be happy to be stuck behind some cyclists nattering on his mobile phone the majority of motorist would be heartedly annoyed and it might negatively affect there generally feelings towards cyclists in general , not good.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> But one is breaking the law and one is not.



Is it legal for a cyclist to use his mobile while cycling on the road then ?


----------



## ttcycle (3 Oct 2011)

What I'm asking though is if you exchange the word 'cyclist' in the sentence to motorist or driver - it changes the meaning.

What I am saying is why are motorists less threatened by cars holding them up and even motorists using mobiles holding them up but when it's a cyclist it keys into the negative, anti cyclist feeling.

Yes, I don't doubt there are irresponsible people in all walks of life.
Those feelings to me are there beforehand regardless of whether someone is on a phone or not - you don't need to be using a phone and you still get the dangerously close passes.

That is the issue. Attitude in generalised terms.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

ttcycle said:


> What I'm asking though is if you exchange the word 'cyclist' in the sentence to motorist or driver - it changes the meaning.
> 
> What I am saying is why are motorists less threatened by cars holding them up and even motorists using mobiles holding them up but when it's a cyclist it keys into the negative, anti cyclist feeling.
> 
> ...



Obviously naturally motorists affiliations and sympathies gravitate towards there own. Beyond that the main factor is that where hold up occurs cyclists are just slower so the inconvenmience will be worse felt than say where a slow car holds up a fast car. Drivers are similarly scathing about tractors and caravans.
Personally i can understand why a driver would be antagonised by being gratuitously held up by a much slower moving object and within bounds of safety i try and not impede the flow of traffic as much as i can. By the same token i am not impressed where slow moving lines of cars hold me up by being alternately too left or right . Let everyone just get to where they want to get to asap and asafelyap.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

1565791 said:


> It is not specifically illegal as for a car driver. It could be covered by something non-specific though.
> 
> Incidentally, drivers on mobiles. I see so many instances of drivers doing this giving ordinary decent drivers a bad name that I find myself ashamed to own up to having a licence.



All you can do is prosecute offenders i guess, but so long as it is spareingly enforced it will not regarded as a serious offence - like with rljing, and people will continue to do it with gay abandone.


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I have allready indicated that i am guided by twobiker and that the cyclist is in the wrong.
> What trap ?



The trap I expertly set, in a Scooby-Doo stylee, where I knew you would make an assumption...


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> The trap I expertly set, in a Scooby-Doo stylee, where I knew you would make an assumption...



Well i for one am exteremely impressed , mostly with the fact that you are that committed to the debate that you are thinking strategically about traps and whatnot. Most commendable.
You caught me bang to rights , guilty of assumption.


----------



## twobiker (3 Oct 2011)

My concern is that a driver held up by a cyclist , in this case using a phone, would be tempted to overtake at the next opportunity , possibly not the safest opportunity, and so would the other drivers, and then the next time they come upon a cyclist we would all be tarred with the same brush. Hence giving us all a bad name.


----------



## danger mouse (3 Oct 2011)

This seems to be about cyclist behaving as good road users. 
Much like they want other users to act towards them.

I knocked a cyclist off his bike this morning.
He was crossing a pedestrian crossing while on red and cycled into my path.
It was in rush hour with a lot of traffic around.
It could have been very different if I had been going quicker.

He picked himself up, glared at me and quickly cycled off.
By the time I got over the shock he had gone.

Only later did I find the dent in my wing. Many thanks
I suppose some people will think I was in the wrong. Due care and attention?

The guy appeared to be riding a decent bike and was geared up for commuting.

It really made me think differently about some of the threads on here.
I definitely have an alternate view on RLJ.

No one is perfect and some folk need to check their perfection in the mirror.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1565798"]
yep
[/quote]

People are allways droning on about how cyclists are just as equally traffic as other road users and should get no special treatment (re - rlj topic) so how can using a mobile phone be illegal for car drivers but legal for cyclists.
maybe the cycling intelligentsia should lobby for equality - cyclists are traffic - it should be just as illegal for a cyclist to use a mobile phone as it is for anyone else.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

1565797 said:


> Are you talking about cyclists using phones? If so I didn't make myself clear. There has to be an offence to prosecute such as cycling carelessly. Using the mobile would not of itself necessarily be enough to demonstrate that offence.



No i was talking about motorists. Motorists being distracted is a life threatening issue and imho deserves higher priority in law enforcement than a silly cyclist using his mobile . It should surely still be illegal for cyclists.


----------



## gaz (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> People are allways droning on about how cyclists are just as equally traffic as other road users and should get no special treatment (re - rlj topic) so how can using a mobile phone be illegal for car drivers but legal for cyclists.
> maybe the cycling intelligentsia should lobby for equality - cyclists are traffic - it should be just as illegal for a cyclist to use a mobile phone as it is for anyone else.



You know it's not against the law for a cyclist to go faster than the speed limit on a public road !


----------



## danger mouse (3 Oct 2011)

Pedestrian crossing light was on red (shared route) my light was green. 
Dual carriagewayand he was chancing his arm trying to make quick crossing.

I guess with all road users nobodies perfect but it seems that some people want greater perfection from vehicle drivers.
Understandable as they cause a lot more damage than cyclists.

But sometimes we need a balance of opinion.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> You know it's not against the law for a cyclist to go faster than the speed limit on a public road !



Why didnt you tell me that during the rlj topic ?
That seems contrary to the principle that all traffic is equal.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Oct 2011)

1565807 said:


> You best sit down, there's bad news about the tooth fairy and Santa as well.



Santa ? La La La im not listening La La La


----------



## Noodley (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That seems contrary to the principle that all traffic is equal.



All traffic is not equal...that is why some laws apply to some traffic and not others...and some road users have priority over others.


----------



## youngoldbloke (3 Oct 2011)

Legality of phone use on a bike is irrelevant. It is stupid to use a phone while riding. Full stop. *I am *prepared to judge the rider referred to in the OP - he is an idiot. He was putting his own safety at risk. It is not illegal to ride into potholes either, or on wet draincovers, but both are best avoided ......


----------



## Norm (3 Oct 2011)

Sorry, Mickle, but I'm seeing some cyclist blinkers there. Specifically...



mickle said:


> So indoctrinated have we become by the 'normalisation' of mass ownership motorised personal transport that we have turned into a nation of cyclist haters. Unfortunately this includes many people who think of themselves as cyclists.


This wasn't the point.

A person using x form of transport (this could be a car, tractor, lorry, 4x4, bus or bicycle) appeared to be acting selfishly by travelling slowly because their attention isn't on the road. Those who are unnecessarily held up, not by the person's presence in a slow moving vehicle but by their apparently selfish actions, will generalise and tar other users of the same form of transport with the same brush.

If the chosen vehicle of the apparently selfish person was a tractor, bus etc, then that wouldn't be too relevant, other than as an excuse for a rant. But the chosen vehicle was a bike, so it's us getting tarred here.



mickle said:


> We've covered this ground before but lets consider for a moment how cyclists can 'give themselves a bad name' by running red lights or riding on the pavement but the same thing is never said about drivers.
> 
> It's because - even in the eyes of people who ride bikes - cars are normal and bikes are, somehow, 'other'.


I can think of at least one other CCer who frequently takes issue with people driving and parking on the pavement, and I can't imagine that _anyone_ wouldn't say that a driver jumping a red is being anything less than dangerous.



mickle said:


> To the point where ^ even when a cyclist is doing nothing wrong (but merely, possibly, slightly holding up another road user) they are vilified. _By other cyclists!_


 Not vilified. The OP's point was, as I understand it, one of frustration rather than vilification.



mickle said:


> What a crock. Get your heads on straight. If you want to change the conditions on the road for cyclists for the better lets educate and prosecute the people who pose the threat of injury and death. Cars which run red lights, pass too close etc etc.
> 
> The guy riding along on the phone poses zero danger to anyone. I on the other hand was passed too closely several times on my commute this morning and cut up twice. Get your priorities right. Jeez.


 Comparing the incomparable? Murder is worse than robbing banks, so let's let all the bank robbers free as someone else has done something much worse.

Looking at the OP...


twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.


 No vilification, just a comment that this sort of behaviour pees people off (which I think no-one has denied) and a question.


----------



## gaz (3 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Why didnt you tell me that during the rlj topic ?
> That seems contrary to the principle that all traffic is equal.



Why would i say that in a RLJing topic?
The law states that all road users must stop at the first stop line when the light is red.
The law states that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


----------



## boydj (3 Oct 2011)

Must have been a very narrow road with a constant stream of traffic going in the other direction for twenty cars to be stuck behind a cyclist. Maybe it's because I ride in the thinly populated area known as Glasgow that I've never had more than a couple of cars stuck behind me for more than a few seconds. 

Good posts from Mickle


----------



## mickle (3 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Legality of phone use on a bike is irrelevant. It is stupid to use a phone while riding. Full stop. *I am *prepared to judge the rider referred to in the OP - he is an idiot. He was putting his own safety at risk. It is not illegal to ride into potholes either, or on wet draincovers, but both are best avoided ......



Legality of phone use on a bike is irrelevant because it's not illegal!


----------



## roadrash (3 Oct 2011)

illegal ...no dangerous YES


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> All traffic is not equal...that is why some laws apply to some traffic and not others...and some road users have priority over others.



What road users have priority over others ?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> Why would i say that in a RLJing topic?
> The law states that all road users must stop at the first stop line when the light is red.
> The law states that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.



Not wishing to revisit the rlj debate but just for the record it would have been relevant in the context of wether all traffic are equal and your query "In what way do you think they are different? And in what way do those differences make you believe that bicycles should follow different road rules to everyone else?"
https://www.cyclechat.net/
Point being that clearly the law does differentiate between motorised and non-motorised traffic .


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Sorry, Mickle, but I'm seeing some cyclist blinkers there. Specifically...
> 
> This wasn't the point.
> 
> ...


+1
Get those cyclists blinkers off for a moment mickle.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Legality of phone use on a bike is irrelevant because it's not illegal!


Its not illegal, but to use a phone you have to look at it , if you do so whilst riding on any road , never mind an A class road with a 60mph speed limit, then you are irresponsible, just because we are cyclists we do not have the right to behave as we like, we cannot complain about close passing and being cut up by drivers if we ride with no consideration to others, you only get back what you put in, I ride 200mls a week just for leisure and would rather it was as stress free as possible and not a war zone.


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Its not illegal, but to use a phone you have to look at it , if you do so whilst riding on any road , never mind an A class road with a 60mph speed limit, then you are irresponsible,



+1

Here is a relevant article from the Guardian phone cycling law


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> What road users have priority over others ?




The answer depends on the circumstances, it is easy to find these things out if you are interested rather than remaining ignorant and making assumptions that you know stuff.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> +1
> 
> Here is a relevant article from the Guardian phone cycling law



In the event of causing an accident whilst cycling/phoning , the plea of "but its not illegal officer " may not help then.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> In the event of causing an accident whilst cycling/phoning , the plea of "but its not illegal officer " may not help then.




In the OP the "problem" was he was cycling slowly, not "causing and accident"...the real problem was the interpretation that he was "causing" the drivers to get annoyed - poor them.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> In the OP the "problem" was he was cycling slowly, not "causing and accident"...the real problem was the interpretation that he was "causing" the drivers to get annoyed - poor them.


Wishing to annoy someone driving a ton or so of metal is not my idea of fun


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Wishing to annoy someone driving a ton or so of metal is not my idea of fun




Why should they be annoyed tho?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> In the OP the "problem" was he was cycling slowly, not "causing and accident"...the real problem was the interpretation that he was "causing" the drivers to get annoyed - poor them.



In the op the problem was he was cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.
Now im tempted to assume you are just talking noinsense.


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Oct 2011)

Whether the cyclist in the OP was checking his GPS, making a call or admiring his screensaver he was a self-gratification artist.

Get over it.


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Why should they be annoyed tho?


 I'm not certain, but maybe some people could find it annoying that they are forced to travel unnecessarily slowly by someone who is being selfish as well as being dangerous by tarting around with their phone in the middle of the road.


----------



## freecyclist (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> In the OP the "problem" was he was cycling slowly, not "causing and accident"...the real problem was the interpretation that he was "causing" the drivers to get annoyed - poor them.



Poor you when you get side swiped by a motorist whos been peed off by one of these selfish mobile phone users.


----------



## Origamist (4 Oct 2011)

What road was this?

I v rarely use my phone when on the bike, but I regularly slow to drink from my water bottle, eat energy bars, bananas etc whilst on the move - all of which are distractions.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Poor you when you get side swiped by a motorist whos been peed off by one of these selfish mobile phone users.



Here we get to the crux - the ever present threat of violence because a poor motorist was held up for a second by _someone else_. Listen to yourselves!


----------



## LosingFocus (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> I'm not certain, but maybe some people could find it annoying that they are forced to travel unnecessarily slowly by someone who is being selfish as well as being dangerous by tarting around with their phone in the middle of the road.



Playing devil's advocate Norm, how is "tarting about" with ones phone any different from checking the route/speed/distance on a GPS unit? Checking how long you have been out on your watch? Arsing about trying to get a bottle back in its bottle cage? Going none-handed to put on/off a jacket (something that has been "bigged up" on here before)?

TBH, the guy in the OP could have been me, as I regularly get my phone out of my top and check the GPS/App data when out and about.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.



One handed on the drops? Well that takes some skill. 

You know what? So. Bloody. What. I get held up by motorists all the time - on my bike and in my car. In town, on the motorway and on the open road. I don't think that all motorists are idiots on the basis of the actions of a few. It wouldn't have crossed your mind to write about a truck which had done the same thing - ie travel slowly holding up a line of traffic, and you wouldn't have even remembered the incident. Your post proves my theory that even cyclists have become so familiar with the normalisation of car culture that we consider it so noteworthy that someone holds up 'traffic' for a few moments that they start a thread in a forum about it.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Here we get to the crux - the ever present threat of violence because a poor motorist was held up for a second by _someone else_. Listen to yourselves!



Got it in one, why should a driver of a motorvehicle who maybe was inconvenienced by a matter of a few seconds then use his vehicle as a weapon against someone else


----------



## gaz (4 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> What road was this?
> 
> I v rarely use my phone when on the bike, but I regularly slow to drink from my water bottle, eat energy bars, bananas etc whilst on the move - all of which are distractions.



Opening energey bars and bananas can be tricky at times as well. espcially if you have just wiped your brow with your fingers (made that mistake once). You may have to go very slow and wiggle all over the road to get the levage on the energry bar wrapper.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Poor you when you get side swiped by a motorist whos been peed off by one of these selfish mobile phone users.



He is just as likely to side swipe me cos he has a small dick, or cos his wife refused to have his tea on the table, or cos he was thinking about how crap his football team played - none of these circumstances are within my control.


And in what way was the cyclist selfish? Was it because he was going slow? Or because he was doing something he is permitted to do, and there is no evidence it was in anyway dangerous - unless going slow is dangerous.


----------



## totallyfixed (4 Oct 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> Playing devil's advocate Norm, how is "tarting about" with ones phone any different from checking the route/speed/distance on a GPS unit? Checking how long you have been out on your watch? Arsing about trying to get a bottle back in its bottle cage? Going none-handed to put on/off a jacket (something that has been "bigged up" on here before)?
> 
> TBH, the guy in the OP could have been me, as I regularly get my phone out of my top and check the GPS/App data when out and about.



C'mon let's bring common sense back to the discussion, it's no wonder some posters drop out early in the thread. Non of the stuff you mention requires you to take your eyes from the road, apart from the GPS and that should only take a couple of secs max. If you look at a mobile when on a bike to read a txt message while on the move you are a liability, there can be no argument. I have tried it and the only time I have managed it with any degree of safety was on a deserted cycle path. Every other time I stop.
Is it dangerous to other road users, potentially, yes of course it is. If you hit an object in the road and fall off or it causes you to swerve into the path of another vehicle. The other day I was passed by a motorbike going so fast I didn't hear it until a split second before it was passing me, imagine if I had wobbled out because my attention was elsewhere. Yes the bike was going too fast and cars pass too close and having your attention diverted at 60mph is a lot different to 15mph. Some drivers shouldn't hold a licence but that doesn't give me the right to behave like them or give the neutrals ammunition to use against us. There are enough numpties out there on the road already, let's not add to that number.



One of the replies to the Guardian article, hope he isn't a car driver:


*"I've cycled drunk, on the phone, and smoking a cigarette, all at the same time. If anything, it's invigorating.*

*Anyway, cycling is much safer than driving because not only are you not going as fast, but you can easily steer round people, and you can break much faster."*


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Here we get to the crux - the ever present threat of violence because a poor motorist was held up for a second by _someone else_. Listen to yourselves!



The crux seems to be that what some cyclists regard as cycling with consideration to motorists other cyclists regard as being unnecessary and over considerate.
Motorists probably think in the same way about cyclists , but cyclists are the vulnerable ones.
Show courtesy and consideration to others and your more likely to receive it in return - piss motorists of unnecessarily and unfortunately it makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Got it in one, why should a driver of a motorvehicle who maybe was inconvenienced by a matter of a few seconds then use his vehicle as a weapon against someone else



He shoudnt but unfortunately there are some axxxxole drivers out there who would.


----------



## Origamist (4 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> C'mon let's bring common sense back to the discussion, it's no wonder some posters drop out early in the thread. Non of the stuff you mention requires you to take your eyes from the road, apart from the GPS and that should only take a couple of secs max. If you look at a mobile when on a bike to read a txt message while on the move you are a liability, there can be no argument. I have tried it and the only time I have managed it with any degree of safety was on a deserted cycle path. Every other time I stop.



It's not so much the issue of taking your eyes off the road, it is the cognitive workload involved that is the cause for concern. It may surprise some, but more motoring accidents are caused by people being distracted by eating and drinking, then by using mobile phones. I have also seen a few club riders over the years veer into hedges or catch a wheel when distracted by a tight water bottle nozzle!

When I'm on my bike I eat and drink, but don't generally use my phone - however, in terms of distraction, I fully appreciate this makes me a something of a hypocrite.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Show courtesy and consideration to others and your more likely to receive it in return - piss motorists of unnecessarily and unfortunately it makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.



It seems fairly easy to piss motorists off, just by going slowly seems to be enough!

I think I'll continue to be courteous and considerate, but still anticipate that some motorists will behave like dicks cos they feel they have a right conferred upon them to act as they wish.


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> It's not so much the issue of taking your eyes off the road, it is the cognitive workload involved that is the cause for concern. It may surprise some, but more motoring accidents are caused by people being distracted by eating and drinking, then by using mobile phones. I have also seen a few club riders over the years veer into hedges or catch a wheel when distracted by a tight water bottle nozzle!
> 
> When I'm on my bike I eat and drink, but don't generally use my phone - however, in terms of distraction, I fully appreciate this makes me a something of a hypocrite.



- and there have been examples of motorists being prosecuted for eating and drinking - locally a women for drinking whilst waiting at a red light - only one hand on the wheel, therefore not in full control of the vehicle. 
BTW Mickle - we don't report being held up in our cars by slow moving trucks, tractors etc because this is a cycling forum, and to do so here would be rather silly.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> we don't report being held up in our cars by slow moving trucks, tractors etc because this is a cycling forum, and to do so here would be rather silly.



By that reasoning we should not get motorists complaining about cyclists...


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> By that reasoning we should not get motorists complaining about cyclists...




How do you work that out ?


----------



## Origamist (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> By that reasoning we should not get motorists complaining about cyclists...



Indeed, who has ever come across a denigratory post about cyclists on Pistonheads...


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> -
> BTW Mickle - we don't report being held up* in our cars *by slow moving trucks, tractors etc because this is a cycling forum, and to do so here would be rather silly.



NB 'in our cars'


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> How do you work that out ?



Well, this is a cyclists forum, so why would we expect motorists to complain about cyclists?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> It seems fairly easy to piss motorists off, just by going slowly seems to be enough!
> 
> I think I'll continue to be courteous and considerate, but still anticipate that some motorists will behave like dicks cos they feel they have a right conferred upon them to act as they wish.



If you think cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is courteous and considerate then i predict lots of motorists complaining about cyclists behaving like dicks cos they feel they have a right conferred upon them to act as they wish.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you think cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is courteous and considerate then i predict lots of motorists complaining about cyclists behaving like dicks cos they feel they have a right conferred upon them to act as they wish.



Using a mobile phone whilst riding a pedal cycle is not illegal and is therefore irrelevant.

If riding slowly was all that was required to upset motorists I would be in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you think cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is courteous and considerate then i predict lots of motorists complaining about cyclists behaving like dicks cos they feel they have a right conferred upon them to act as they wish.



You're not getting this are you?

Can you explain what it is about the cyclists behaviour you are upset about?

That he was slow, or on the phone, or 'caused a tailback'?

If I had been one of the motorists in the tailback I would not have been peed off at being slowed down, any more than I would have been peed off if some driver had behaved in a manner resulting in me being slowed. There is nothing in the OP to say he was cycling in a manner which was likely to cause danger. The only 'sin' is going slow, the part about him being on a phone or being in 'all the gear' and 'on the drops' is dressing it up to make it sound like something else is at play.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Using a mobile phone whilst riding a pedal cycle is not illegal and is therefore irrelevant.
> 
> If riding slowly was all that was required to upset motorists I would be in a lot of trouble.



Incorrect.
Try and understand that legality and courtesy/consideration are two different things.
It may be legal to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists but it is not courteous nor considerate.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You're not getting this are you?
> 
> Can you explain what it is about the cyclists behaviour you are upset about?
> 
> ...



Now you are guilty of assuming.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Now you are guilty of assuming.




Not at all, if there was anything to it then I am sure the OP would have said "waving dangerously over the road" or similar - that the OP laid out the circumstances as "going slowly" clearly indicates that this alone was the "problem" for the drivers. There is also the assumption that all the drivers were gonna be pissed off - as I said had I been in the line of cars I would not have been pissed off. So perhaps the OP would have been better saying "I was pissed off" rather than transferring his thoughts onto each driver in the line.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Not at all, if there was anything to it then I am sure the OP would have said "waving dangerously over the road" or similar - that the OP laid out the circumstances as "going slowly" clearly indicates that this alone was the "problem" for the drivers. There is also the assumption that all the drivers were gonna be pissed off - as I said had I been in the line of cars I would not have been pissed off. So perhaps the OP would have been better saying "I was pissed off" rather than transferring his thoughts onto each driver in the line.



You are second guessing the op. We can only rely on the ops interpretation , which is that he was cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists. 
You might profess to not getting pixxed off but not all motorists are as patient as you clearly are.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> The answer depends on the circumstances, it is easy to find these things out if you are interested rather than remaining ignorant and making assumptions that you know stuff.



Hello Noodley, I think you have forgotten that you're on the internets. Best, JtM.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You are second guessing the op. We can only rely on the ops interpretation , which is that he was cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.
> You might profess to not getting pixxed off but not all motorists are as patient as you clearly are.



Yes, cycling slowly. And that's what resulted in a tailback. It's part of being a courteous road user to accept others' right to use the road, at whatever speed that may be at.

The bit about being on drops, and phoning is trying to dress it up as something it was not. All it was is a cyclist travelling slowly, the fact that he was on his phone does not matter - what if he had been travelling quickly and on his phone?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Yes, cycling slowly. And that's what resulted in a tailback. It's part of being a courteous road user to accept others' right to use the road, at whatever speed that may be at.
> 
> The bit about being on drops, and phoning is trying to dress it up as something it was not. All it was is a cyclist travelling slowly, the fact that he was on his phone does not matter - what if he had been travelling quickly and on his phone?



We are dependant on the ops relating of events.
If you want to second guess and reinterpret things for your own ends then thats up to you.
Its like if someone reports a gang of youths attacking an old granny and then asking "are you sure they wernt just playing with her". No for bejeezuses sake the on the ground report we have is that they were attacking her . So until we hear otherwise we should proceed on that basis. Imho.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Incorrect.
> Try and understand that legality and courtesy/consideration are two different things.
> It may be legal to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists but it is not courteous nor considerate.



Hang on, where in the OP did it state he was dialing on the phone ? (Which is still not illegal even if he was)
He could of course have been casually checking his phone for the time which would have taken a mere second.


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Yes, cycling slowly. And that's what resulted in a tailback. It's part of being a courteous road user to accept others' right to use the road, at whatever speed that may be at.
> 
> The bit about being on drops, and phoning is trying to dress it up as something it was not. All it was is a cyclist travelling slowly, the fact that he was on his phone does not matter - what if he had been travelling quickly and on his phone?


 Not only does the fact that he was on his phone matter, it is the central point.

If someone is riding slowly because they ride slowly, they are just one of any number of people who rides slowly.

This person was not riding slowly because they ride slowly. That they were riding in all the gear and on a bike with drops suggests that they can ride fast.

This person was riding slowly because they were being visibly and obviously selfish, being ignorant of other road users and lacking in even the most basic of courtesies.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Hang on, where in the OP did it state he was dialing on the phone ? (Which is still not illegal even if he was)
> He could of course have been casually checking his phone for the time which would have taken a mere second.



Try where it says "he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone".


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Not only does the fact that he was on his phone matter, it is the central point.
> 
> If someone is riding slowly because they ride slowly, they are just one of any number of people who rides slowly.
> 
> ...



So its ok for a slow person to ride slowly but all fast riders must ride fast even if they want to ride slow ?


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

LosingFocus said:


> Playing devil's advocate Norm, how is "tarting about" with ones phone any different from checking the route/speed/distance on a GPS unit? Checking how long you have been out on your watch? Arsing about trying to get a bottle back in its bottle cage? Going none-handed to put on/off a jacket (something that has been "bigged up" on here before)?
> 
> TBH, the guy in the OP could have been me, as I regularly get my phone out of my top and check the GPS/App data when out and about.


As totallyfixed said, aside from the GPS (which I wouldn't advocate using whilst moving) the other examples do not require me to slow down or to take my eyes from the road for even a second.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Try where it says "he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone".



So they OP was able to determine that the cyclist in question was dialing (still not against the law) rather than using the phone for any other use ?

Do they work for MI5 or been watching too many episodes of Spooks ?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Not only does the fact that he was on his phone matter, it is the central point.
> 
> If someone is riding slowly because they ride slowly, they are just one of any number of people who rides slowly.
> 
> ...



+1
Precisely


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> This person was riding slowly because they were being visibly and obviously selfish, being ignorant of other road users and lacking in even the most basic of courtesies.



In your opinion.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

Where in the HC does it say you not allowed to ride slowly ? Mine does not have this page in it.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> In your opinion.



No - based on the op.


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> So its ok for a slow person to ride slowly but all fast riders must ride fast even if they want to ride slow ?


 That depends on the reasons. If someone was in recovery stage of interval training, then that wouldn't be an issue for me, similarly if someone was riding with kids or on a poor road surface.

However, if someone is slowing down to do something which has been proven for motorised road users to be more dangerous than drink driving, or travelling slowly because they were exercising their dog or carrying an unsafe load then that would be frustrating (as I said earlier) whatever their chosen mode of transport.

The fact that this was a cyclist is not the issue for me and maybe others could consider how they'd feel if the person wasn't on a bike. What if it was a tractor driving slowly as their load wasn't safe? What if it was a pick up truck doing 5mph because the driver's family were having a picnic in the flatbed?

Ride up behind a steam engine doing 5mph and all is well with the world. Ride up behind a car doing 5mph because the driver doesn't give a toss about other road users and you'll get frustrated.

IMO.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> However, if someone is slowing down to do something which has been proven for motorised road users to be more dangerous than drink driving,



Yes, for motorised transport - that is why it is illegal to do it in motorised transport. 

And as for the last bit, you have included things in your examples about not being safe - where in the OP is that mentioned? The issue is the cyclist was going slow. End of.
Not unsafe loads or picnicing families. Speed. That is all.

And where do you get these powers to tell the reason a cyclist is travelling slowly? Can't remember ever being able to say for sure that a cyclist was going slowly as they had been doing intervals or were just going slow.


----------



## david k (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Yes, cycling slowly. And that's what resulted in a tailback. It's part of being a courteous road user to accept others' right to use the road, at whatever speed that may be at.
> 
> The bit about being on drops, and phoning is trying to dress it up as something it was not. All it was is a cyclist travelling slowly, the fact that he was on his phone does not matter - what if he had been travelling quickly and on his phone?



i think people seeing him on his phone would look arrogant to others


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Yes, cycling slowly. And that's what resulted in a tailback. It's part of being a courteous road user to accept others' right to use the road, at whatever speed that may be at.
> 
> The bit about being on drops, and phoning is trying to dress it up as something it was not. All it was is a cyclist travelling slowly, the fact that he was on his phone does not matter - what if he had been travelling quickly and on his phone?


I do not need to dress it up, he had one hand on the drops, his left hand ,in his right hand he had a phone, if he had been travelling quickly he would not have had a queue of cars behind him,and as the road is flat he would have had two hands on the drops, unless you can pedal fast with one hand ,if he was just riding slowly and had any sense the first chance he got he would have pulled over and let the cars go, he did neither. I have just been for a ride, I stopped to let some cars go past, so what, no big deal, no loss of face, but a nod and a toot of thanks from the motorist, better than a close pass and verbal abuse , not every situation requires confrontation.plenty of stories on the forums about that.


----------



## david k (4 Oct 2011)

his attitude appears arrogant to other drivers, maybe riders have more sympathy?


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

The important point is that he was using his phone - and therefore probably not paying FULL attention to the road. We don't know whether he was weaving around or whatever, but it is possible that the fact that he was using a phone and cycling one handed MAY have lent a certain unpredicability to his progress, reflected in an unwillingness to overtake by those following.


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> And as for the last bit, you have included things in your examples about not being safe - where in the OP is that mentioned? The issue is the cyclist was going slow. End of.
> Not unsafe loads or picnicing families. Speed. That is all.


 Sorry, I was just trying to make it easier for you to imagine a similar scenario without your cyclist blinkers, Noods. 

Your posts (for instance suggesting there is no safety issue cycling when on the phone) suggest a level of intransigence which is beyond reason.

I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

I still fail to see why his action reflects on ALL cyclists and not just him.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I still fail to see why his action reflects on ALL cyclists and not just him.



No its only slow cyclists, if he had been going fast it would have been OK


----------



## Norm (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> No its only slow cyclists, if he had been going fast it would have been OK


 Repeating yourself now, 4F?


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I still fail to see why his action reflects on ALL cyclists and not just him.



When we know the answer we can all live happily together for ever and ever .......... it is called irrational prejudice isn't it?


----------



## freecyclist (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Yes, for motorised transport - that is why it is illegal to do it in motorised transport.
> 
> And as for the last bit, you have included things in your examples about not being safe - where in the OP is that mentioned? The issue is the cyclist was going slow. End of.
> Not unsafe loads or picnicing families. Speed. *That is all.*
> ...


That is not all.
Do you really not get the concept of basic courtesy.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> The important point is that he was using his phone - and therefore probably not paying FULL attention to the road. We don't know whether he was weaving around or whatever, but it is possible that the fact that he was using a phone and cycling one handed MAY have lent a certain unpredicability to his progress, reflected in an unwillingness to overtake by those following.



Mobile phone use whilst riding a pedal cycle is not illegal. So this fact can be discounted as irrelevant.


----------



## david k (4 Oct 2011)

illegal or not, its arrogant when there a line of motorists at least it will appear that way


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

Using a mobile phone in 'motorised transport' used to be legal. That did not make it safe. The law was changed. Using a mobile phone on a bicycle may not be illegal but that does not make it safe. Trying to remove a fly from your eye while moving is not illegal, but that does not make it safe either. etc, etc, etc, etc ..........


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> That is not all.
> Do you really not get the concept of basic courtesy.



Explain your basic courtesy to the great majority of drivers who do not give me enough space when they overtake me on my bike. To the many drivers who run the red light every day at the cross roads up the road. To the large minority drivers who exceed the posted 30 mph limit past the playground when the safe maximum speed is less than 20. To the people who park all over the local pavement so that mums have to push their prams in the street. To the drivers who think that the moment they catch sight of a 40 mph sign in the distance is the end of the 30 mph zone. 

Before asking me if I give a toss about a cyclist pissing motorists off - not by breaking the law or endangering anyone - but by riding a bit slowly.


----------



## freecyclist (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Mobile phone use whilst riding a pedal cycle is not illegal. So this fact can be discounted as irrelevant.



Yes it can be discounted if considerations of politeness and courtesy are completely meaningless to you.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

It would appear that the idea of giving way to some one to allow them to pass is seen as unpopular ,the next time a car driver cuts in front and then slams on his brakes, or drives so close to the kerb that you cannot get past, or passes and then turns left, then I can think " well I will get my own back by cycling really slowly on that A road".


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Repeating yourself now, 4F?



Well its a fair point would you not say Norm. Actually I would presume that all cyclists are deemed to be "slow" by motorised vehicles so what difference would there be if the alleged cyclist was travelling at 10 mph or 18 mph ?

I find it amusing that so many on here are defending impatient motorists.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> It would appear that the idea of giving way to some one to allow them to pass is seen as unpopular ,the next time a car driver cuts in front and then slams on his brakes, or drives so close to the kerb that you cannot get past, or passes and then turns left, then I can think " well I will get my own back by cycling really slowly on that A road".



I doubt the cyclist in question thought that way as he was too busy on the phone


----------



## totallyfixed (4 Oct 2011)

I would have thought that it just boils down to this, whether you are riding a bike, driving a vehicle or riding a horse your attention ought to be on the road and those that share the road with you, doesn't matter if it's illegal or not to use a mobile whilst riding a bike, we can all think of instances where the law is an ass. I don't care about the speed of the bike, it's not a factor, I defy anyone to hold a straight line whilst dialling / texting on a mobile, quite apart from the impression it gives as others have said. Strikes me to be tiny bit hypocritical to constantly vilify drivers on mobiles and we are seen to be doing the same


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Using a mobile phone in 'motorised transport' used to be legal. That did not make it safe. The law was changed. Using a mobile phone on a bicycle may not be illegal but that does not make it safe. Trying to remove a fly from your eye while moving is not illegal, but that does not make it safe either. etc, etc, etc, etc ..........



Fair point. So you'll be able to provide a link to evidence that using a mobile phone whilst riding a pedal cycle is dangerous then? A few facts and figures, how many deaths and serious injuries are caused by mobile phone using cyclists. How many cyclist pedal over cliffs to their doom because they were distracted by their mobile. How many orphans are permanently disfigured. How a mobile phone using cyclist plowed into a bus full of kittens which exploded in a ball of flames.

Not a single one I would predict. Because cycling whilst using a mobile phone is very unlikely to cause a serious accident. It's a non issue.

Mobile phone use whilst riding a bike is not illegal, nor I would suggest is it even a minor threat to the mortality of the general population, so the mobile phone in the story is irrelevant.

Lets get back to talking about slow cyclists.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> I would have thought that it just boils down to this, whether you are riding a bike, driving a vehicle or riding a horse your attention ought to be on the road and those that share the road with you, doesn't matter if it's illegal or not to use a mobile whilst riding a bike, we can all think of instances where the law is an ass. I don't care about the speed of the bike, it's not a factor, I defy anyone to hold a straight line whilst dialling / texting on a mobile, quite apart from the impression it gives as others have said. Strikes me to be tiny bit hypocritical to constantly vilify drivers on mobiles and we are seen to be doing the same


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Lets get back to talking about slow cyclists.



Agreed, have we determined yet what speed is too slow for a fast cyclist thats wants to ride slowly ?


----------



## freecyclist (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Explain your basic courtesy to the great majority of drivers who do not give me enough space when they overtake me on my bike. To the many drivers who run the red light every day at the cross roads up the road. To the large minority drivers who exceed the posted 30 mph limit past the playground when the safe maximum speed is less than 20. To the people who park all over the local pavement so that mums have to push their prams in the street. To the drivers who think that the moment they catch sight of a 40 mph sign in the distance is the end of the 30 mph zone.
> 
> Before asking me if I give a toss about a cyclist pissing motorists off - not by breaking the law or endangering anyone - but by riding a bit slowly.



So you are saying that the fact that there are inevitably some bad drivers justifies you cycling selfishly and with no consideration ?
That line of thought leads to a downward degeneration in behaviour.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> ....the impression it gives...



The old 'tarred with the same brush'/'giving all of us a bad name' myth eh? Surely an aspect of human behaviour we should be keen to eliminate. 

Haven't we all stopped using such terminology when we refer to the discrimination issues facing people of colour, Romanies and homos. 

I don't break the rules of the road any more than the next person but I'm starting to get a bit peeved by the notion that we should all ride around with impeccable road manners - because of _the impression it gives_. There are lots of good reasons for obeying the rules of the road. That we might give motorists a 'bad impression' is not one of them.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> So you are saying that the fact that there are inevitably some bad drivers justifies you cycling selfishly and with no consideration ?
> That line of thought leads to a downward degeneration in behaviour.



Please re-read my post, I'm not sure that you got it.


----------



## twobiker (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Agreed, have we determined yet what speed is too slow for a fast cyclist thats wants to ride slowly ?



There was a TV program called "All the gear no idea" on a while back ,loads of kit but not a clue how to use it, cycling is more than just getting a bike and riding off into the sunset.


----------



## mickle (4 Oct 2011)

This is a great thread.


----------



## totallyfixed (4 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1565896"]
So if the bloke didn't have his phone in his hand it would have been ok?
[/quote]
So long as he is not using it, no problem. As for giving the wrong impression, like it or not that's life and it's how we judge people without having a conversation.


----------



## freecyclist (4 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Please re-read my post, I'm not sure that you got it.



Ok re-read it.
Your saying that so long as the great majority of drivers dont show you basic courtesy you wont give a toss about pissing motorists off.
That line of thought leads to a downward degeneration in behaviour.


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> I would have thought that it just boils down to this, whether you are riding a bike, driving a vehicle or riding a horse your attention ought to be on the road and those that share the road with you, doesn't matter if it's illegal or not to use a mobile whilst riding a bike, we can all think of instances where the law is an ass. I don't care about the speed of the bike, it's not a factor, I defy anyone to hold a straight line whilst dialling / texting on a mobile, quite apart from the impression it gives as others have said. Strikes me to be tiny bit hypocritical to constantly vilify drivers on mobiles and we are seen to be doing the same



+1 Sums it up very wel!


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> I defy anyone to hold a straight line whilst dialling / texting on a mobile, quite apart from the impression it gives as others have said. Strikes me to be tiny bit hypocritical to constantly vilify drivers on mobiles and we are seen to be doing the same



You are obviously not as good at bike handling as I am. It is piss easy to ride a bike in a straight line when using a phone. 

And you are still missing the point that it is illegal for drivers to use a mobile, so I can criticise them for breaking the law.


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Oct 2011)

Interestingly, the two most popular threads on this forum at present are:

1) A thread in which cyclists defend their rights to ride slowly in the face of impatient motorists
2) A thread in which cyclists chastise walkers and dog owners for holding them up


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Interestingly, the two most popular threads on this forum at present are:
> 
> 1) A thread in which cyclists defend their rights to ride slowly in the face of impatient motorists
> 2) A thread in which cyclists chastise walkers and dog owners for holding them up



er, 1) is a thread in which an impatient driver gets pissed off at a slow cyclist. And then worries the entire world will try to kill all cyclists because of it. Clearly insane.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You are obviously not as good at bike handling as I am. It is piss easy to ride a bike in a straight line when using a phone.
> 
> And you are still missing the point that it is illegal for drivers to use a mobile, so I can criticise them for breaking the law.



And If you cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists they can critiscise you for lacking courtesy and consideration.


----------



## david k (4 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Interestingly, the two most popular threads on this forum at present are:
> 
> 1) A thread in which cyclists defend their rights to ride slowly in the face of impatient motorists
> 2) A thread in which cyclists chastise walkers and dog owners for holding them up



oh the irony, it seems to have passed many by, unlike the motorists..........


----------



## apollo179 (4 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1565910"]
Er No.

As has been pointed out, if motorists can't overtake a cyclist riding slowly on the phone then they cannot overtake a cyclist at full speed with their eyes on the road.
[/quote]

The judgement of the behaviour in questioin goes beyond merely considering overtaking possibilities.
It has been established that the behaviour in question is indisputably visibly and obviously selfish, being ignorant of other road users and lacking in even the most basic of courtesies.
So er yes.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Oct 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Whether the cyclist in the OP was checking his GPS, making a call or admiring his screensaver he was a self-gratification artist.
> 
> Get over it.



+1


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Oct 2011)

Where do we draw the line?

Is any level of effort short of maintaining an eyeball bursting maximum speed an affront to the poor dears on their way to the next tailback? What about using the crap that passes for cycle infrastructure in this country, should we be picking our way through the glass, fearful that our car borne betters will mete out punishment for any perceived delay we cause otherwise?

The biggest problem with handheld mobile use, regardless of mode of transport is that it distracts you from what you should be doing (paying attention to the road). Luckily, in the case outlined by the op, the user was utilising a mode of transport that a) kills vanishingly few people in the UK compared to the car despite the supposedly massive levels of irresponsibility displayed by it's users and b) doesn't allow high speeds to be attained/maintained whilst the user is engaged in this sort of activity. 

F*ck me, if (as the op seems to suggest the hapless motorist is driven (ha!) to do) I tried to kill every motorist I saw jump a red light, drive on the pavement to get around a queue, use a mobile (texting in motion is a particular favourite these days, it seems) block a pedestrian crossing[1] I WOULD NEVER GET HOME. Motorists evidently aren't worrying about giving each other a bad name - and some of the common behaviours I've listed there ARE ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.

This hand wringing over whether irresponsible cyclists will get you a punishment pass, or similar is bizarre. Obey the law, ride sensibly, and you could still get one anyway, *because you ride in the UK*. Even if you don't experience malice, my experience of Manchester suggests that inattention, impatience and indifference can be every bit as dangerous, and are far more prevalent.

[1] Most recently, near me, blocking a wheelchair user from crossing for 3 changes of the lights. Drivers stared fixedly ahead when we (the wheel chair user, a passing pedestrian, and I) suggested that they were, perhaps, being rather selfish.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

well said John.


----------



## doog (4 Oct 2011)

In June I cycled from Spain back to the UK. As an experienced cyclist, before I made that trip I made an unusual purchase - unusual for me that is.

I purchased a mirror that fits in the drops.

I got it for one reason and that was to monitor the traffic situation behind me. As a **normal*** cyclist I dont want to impede the traffic flow. I guess thats where I differ from many people on here. 

The mirror was great. I found I could use advanced observations both ahead and behind to keep the traffic flowing freely around me. 

Why wouldnt any sane person want this? (keep the traffic flowing)

There was an occasion when I was spinning up a Col in the Pyrenees. There were crash barriers to my right and I was on a long up hill. I looked in my my mirror and an HGV was matching my 5.6 mph uphill slog. He couldnt pass and even if I stopped he still couldnt pass. I gave him a thumbs up and pulled in at the next pull in about 3 mins later. (that was a long 3 minutes)He tooted and passed, so did 20 cars, most of the waved, nodded and thanked me. As a matter of fact this scenario was repeated numerous times.

Its threads like that remind me I belong to an idiot clan.


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> to keep the traffic flowing freely around me.
> 
> Why wouldnt any sane person want this? (keep the traffic flowing)



But the traffic was still flowing here albeit it not as fast as the motorised traffic would have liked. The road was obviously not wide enough for traffic to pass and I would suggest it wouldn't have made any difference if the cyclist was riding at 10 mph or 18 mph.


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And If you cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists they can critiscise you for lacking courtesy and consideration.




Have we established how we 'know' these motorists were peed off yet? Or it another assumption, cos you think they would/should have been.


----------



## doog (4 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> But the traffic was still flowing here albeit it not as fast as the motorised traffic would have liked. The road was obviously not wide enough for traffic to pass and I would suggest it wouldn't have made any difference if the cyclist was riding at 10 mph or 18 mph.




sorry , I wasnt responding to your posts...nothing at all aimed at you. (teach me not to read 13 pages before sticking my oar in)


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Oct 2011)

We don't really 'know' anything about the situation reported in the original post. It is perfectly possible that the motorists were being delayed by the lead driver who having noted the slow, and possibly erratic, progress of the cyclist using their phone, was concerned for the safety of the cyclist in being overtaken, and was thus driving ultra cautiously - who knows?


----------



## Noodley (4 Oct 2011)

Maybe the cyclist was phoning the Police to complain about the piss poor driving of one of the cars behind him?


----------



## 4F (4 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Maybe the cyclist was phoning the Police to complain about the piss poor driving of one of the cars behind him?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Have we established how we 'know' these motorists were peed off yet? Or it another assumption, cos you think they would/should have been.


You have had this repeatedly explained to you ;
"We are dependant on the ops relating of events.
If you want to second guess and reinterpret things for your own ends then thats up to you."
"Your posts (for instance suggesting there is no safety issue cycling when on the phone) suggest a level of intransigence which is beyond reason."


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> In June I cycled from Spain back to the UK. As an experienced cyclist, before I made that trip I made an unusual purchase - unusual for me that is.
> 
> I purchased a mirror that fits in the drops.
> 
> ...


Yes quite - some of our clan do make one cringe with some of the stuff they come out with.
Anyway - console yourself with the thought that they are a small (but vocal) minority and that most cyclists , like most motorists are decent polite and courteous members of society.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

doog said:


> I got it for one reason and that was to monitor the traffic situation behind me. As a **normal*** cyclist I dont want to impede the traffic flow. I guess thats where I differ from many people on here.


Oh ffs. We think it's unreasonable that a "delayed" motorist should feel irritated to the point that it becomes justifiable to use their car as a weapon. 

Further, that the idea that we should cringe in the face of these bullies, and worry that we're being given a bad name by those who do not, is a silly, meretricious argument. 

That is VASTLY different from "wanting" to impede traffic flow.



> Why wouldnt any sane person want this? (keep the traffic flowing)


TAKE THAT, STRAWMAN!



> Its threads like that remind me I belong to an idiot clan.



If you insist on misinterpreting them, I'd suggest you not rely too heavily on the conclusions you draw.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

(fade in Bon Jovi, the chorus sings

Traffic's slow!
And you're to blame!
You give bikes, a bad name!

On your phone,
But Not at 40 mph,
You give bikes, a bad name!

(fades out)


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Oh ffs. We think it's unreasonable that a "delayed" motorist should feel irritated to the point that it becomes justifiable to use their car as a weapon.
> 
> Further, that the idea that we should cringe in the face of these bullies, and worry that we're being given a bad name by those who do not, is a silly, meretricious argument.
> 
> ...



Everyone agrees that it is totally "unreasonable that a "delayed" motorist should feel irritated to the point that it becomes justifiable to use their car as a weapon. "
Its is never justified for any motorist "to use their car as a weapon".
However cyclists should cycle with courtesy and consideration to other road users - its dissapointing that some of the clan just dont seem to get this.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Maybe the cyclist was phoning the Police to complain about the piss poor driving of one of the cars behind him?



I think he'd received a call saying that little Timmy was stuck down the well. He was trying to text "OMG! I M on my way" and maintain his place on the road so that he could zoom to the rescue without having to filter past all the cars at the lights. On the way to the well. And that.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> However cyclists should cycle with courtesy and consideration to other road users - its dissapointing that some of the clan just dont seem to get this.



Only cyclists need be courteous though, eh?

"If the guy was in primary then *i would hope* the traffic behind would start tooting horns or yelling abuse out of there windows."

STAY CLASSY.


----------



## Norm (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Oh ffs. We think it's unreasonable that a "delayed" motorist should feel irritated to the point that it becomes justifiable to use their car as a weapon.


 Given that no-one has attempted to justify such actions, can I suggest...



John the Monkey said:


> TAKE THAT, STRAWMAN!



For the blinkered cycling apologists, one simple question and please try to consider the question itself rather than setting up such figures as JtM created above.

If a journey was needlessly delayed by someone who was travelling unnecessarily slowly because they were concentrating on something completely unrelated to their journey, would they get frustrated?

Note that there is no mention of the respective forms of transport, what else they were concentrating on, what speed they were actually doing and no suggestion of anything beyond frustration.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

How do you think that white van man got a bad reputation?, by the actions of a few ignorant drivers that's how, we have people on this forum who drive white vans and do not wind up everyone with their behaviour, yet the term white van men denotes a certain kind of driver, people see a caravan and think "bloody caravans"and the same goes for cyclists, it only takes a few inconsiderate ones to tarnish the reputation of the majority, and some cyclists seem to relish their reputation.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Given that no-one has attempted to justify such actions, can I suggest...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said.
I like blinkered cycling apologists (bcas) (i dont mean i like bcas themselves , i like the description)


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> If a journey was needlessly delayed by someone who was travelling unnecessarily slowly because they were concentrating on something completely unrelated to their journey, would they get frustrated?



I think we are still waiting for it to be established on how slow is to slow ? After all apparently this cyclist "had all the gear" and of course should have been riding much quicker.

It is quite clear that if traffic was unable to pass then it meant the road was not wide enough and it would not matter what speed the cyclist was doing irrespective of whether he was on his phone, i pad etc etc.

I am suprised that so many are missing this simple fact.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> If a journey was needlessly delayed by someone who was travelling unnecessarily slowly because they were concentrating on something completely unrelated to their journey, would they get frustrated?



I wouldn't give a shoot, things happen which slow our journeys, it is part of life. Whether it was a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car, a tractor, a bus or any other form of transport I appreciate I will not always get to travel at a speed of my choosing at all times. But I would not point fingers and make up stories to blame an entire 'clan' (and since when the **** have cyclists been a clan!??)


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> I think we are still waiting for it to be established on how slow is to slow ? After all apparently this cyclist "had all the gear" and of course should have been riding much quicker.
> 
> It is quite clear that if traffic was unable to pass then it meant the road was not wide enough and it would not matter what speed the cyclist was doing irrespective of whether he was on his phone, i pad etc etc.
> 
> I am suprised that so many are missing this simple fact.


The simple fact you are missing/avoiding is that by pulling over all the traffic could have gone past, in your way of thinking a child on stabilizers is quite entitled to sit in front of a queue of cars as some kind of right, we shall have to disagree on courtesy towards other road users I think.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Given that no-one has attempted to justify such actions, can I suggest...



Yeronner, may I suggest that you consider the exchanges in posts #42, #54.

Further, I submit that I'm not arguing that posters here have justified it, but that they offer impedence of (motor) traffic as a reason that an irritated motorist may use in justification.



> If a journey was needlessly delayed by someone who was travelling unnecessarily slowly because they were concentrating on something completely unrelated to their journey, would they get frustrated?
> 
> Note that there is no mention of the respective forms of transport, what else they were concentrating on, what speed they were actually doing and no suggestion of anything beyond frustration.



Someone who sets off, in a car, on a journey to pretty much any urban centre in the UK these days is kidding themselves if they expect not to be delayed (travelling in the wee small hours of the morning excepted).

I have to agree that at first blush, the answer is "yes". But look at it again - "unnecessarily slowly" is a bit of a moveable feast, isn't it? On a laden tourer, I'd possibly be doing 10-12mph. The lady I see on her shopper in Wilmslow won't manage much more than that. I daresay the roadie on his mobile wouldn't have been doing less than either of us. As another poster pointed out, somehow an unfit/non racing/laden cyclist doing that speed is ok, but the chap on his mobile not[1].

My objection to the original post is twofold;

1) The cyclist in question (taking the op's post at face value) poses far less of a risk to others than any number of disturbingly prevalent behaviours exhibited daily by drivers. The idea that the former should be thought to give "us" a bad name is one that should be resisted.

2) That the impedence of (motor) traffic is irresponsible and discourteous, as though the cyclist has no right to make progress on the road.

[1]I do find the use of a mobile phone by any road user whilst they drive/ride problematic, although I'm less concerned by a cyclist (has to slow down, is relatively easy to avoid) who does it than a motorist (using the mobile has little effect on speed, travels faster, is heavier and harder to avoid), personally.


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> The simple fact you are missing/avoiding is that by pulling over all the traffic could have gone past, in your way of thinking a child on stabilizers is quite entitled to sit in front of a queue of cars as some kind of right, we shall have to disagree on courtesy towards other road users I think.



OK then picture this. If it had been some one of elderly years cycling at their normal pace should they also pull over not to inconvenience the traffic behind ?


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> The simple fact you are missing/avoiding is that by pulling over all the traffic could have gone past, in your way of thinking a child on stabilizers is quite entitled to sit in front of a queue of cars as some kind of right, we shall have to disagree on courtesy towards other road users I think.



How frequently are you willing to stop and doff your cap to your betters, then? Five times a mile? Less? More? What's the courteous amount of stops?

Gah, rarely has my signature here seemed so appropriate.


----------



## freecyclist (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I wouldn't give a shoot, things happen which slow our journeys, it is part of life. Whether it was a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car, a tractor, a bus or any other form of transport I appreciate I will not always get to travel at a speed of my choosing at all times. But I would not point fingers and make up stories to blame an entire 'clan' (and since when the **** have cyclists been a clan!??)



Anyone who says "I wouldn't give a shoot" clearly does give a shoot. haha.
Dont you feel any sense of cameraderie with other cyclists then Noodley.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Anyone who says "I wouldn't give a shoot" clearly does give a shoot.



EH? How does that work? I expect to be 'held up', simple. But I do not view it as being 'held up' as I do not feel I have a right to travel at a particualr speed of my choosing.


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I have to agree that at first blush, the answer is "yes". But look at it again - "unnecessarily slowly" is a bit of a moveable feast, isn't it? On a laden tourer, I'd possibly be doing 10-12mph. The lady I see on her shopper in Wilmslow won't manage much more than that. I daresay the roadie on his mobile wouldn't have been doing less than either of us. As another poster pointed out, somehow an unfit/non racing/laden cyclist doing that speed is ok,* but the chap on his mobile not[1].*
> 
> Because the _chap on his mobile_ is not paying full attention and is not in full control of his bike. As a motorist I would take even greater care in passing that cyclist than the lady on the shopper, or the fully laden tourist. The speed is not the problem, the use of a mobile, and the probable effect on their awareness of traffic conditions and their safety, is.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Because the _chap on his mobile_ is not paying full attention and is not in full control of his bike. As a motorist I would take even greater care in passing that cyclist than the lady on the shopper, or the fully laden tourist. The speed is not the problem, the use of a mobile, and the probable effect on their awareness of traffic conditions and their safety, is.



The speed is the issue, as if he had been on his phone and cycling fast there would not be a 'problem' in the circumstances descibed in the OP as he would not have been 'holding up' the cars.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> [Because the _chap on his mobile_ is not paying full attention and is not in full control of his bike. *As a motorist I would take even greater care in passing that cyclist than the lady on the shopper, or the fully laden tourist. *The speed is not the problem, the use of a mobile, and the probable effect on their awareness of traffic conditions and their safety, is.



Which perhaps mitigates the danger the phone dabbling cyclist was posing to himself?


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Which perhaps mitigates the danger the phone dabbling cyclist was posing to himself?



I was thinking that that was where that line of reasoning led to.

This is all a bit odd - those of you who've cycled in France, or in Belgium, will have seen all manner of folk out and about on bikes, I daresay. I saw cycle riding in Brugge that made me wince, and yet there isn't carnage on the streets, or motorists expiring from apoplexy all over the place. 

(I've driven there too, and I could live without the motorists apparently seeing other motorists as their sworn enemies - but at least I'm protected by a metal box then). 

Maybe there are fora there where people anxiously debate whether they're "holding up traffic" by riding a bike at less than 30mph, or whether riding with your friend on the rear rack whilst you chat away on a mobile gives cyclists a bad name, but I doubt it.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Oct 2011)

Bon Jovi said:


> Stuck in their cars, and you're to blame darlin' you give cyclists, a bad name (bad name)



Fin.


----------



## Norm (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> I think we are still waiting for it to be established on how slow is to slow ? After all apparently this cyclist "had all the gear" and of course should have been riding much quicker.


 My question was not about cyclists nor about how slow is too slow. The frustration was not a result of the absolute speed, as I've already acknowledged further up. 

The issue is that there appeared to be a person needlessly delaying other people by performing a selfish act.



4F said:


> It is quite clear that if traffic was unable to pass then it meant the road was not wide enough and it would not matter what speed the cyclist was doing irrespective of whether he was on his phone, i pad etc etc.
> 
> I am suprised that so many are missing this simple fact.


I'm not missing the simple fact because I'm not so sure that anything like that is quite clear. However, I'm trying to remove the reference to cyclists, because it clouds the judgemental, and also not looking at actual speeds, traffic densities, road widths etc as, for me, the frustration evident in the OP arose from one person who appeared to be ignoring courtesy and needlessly impeding other people because he was doing something visible and apparently selfish. 



John the Monkey said:


> I have to agree that at first blush, the answer is "yes". But look at it again - "unnecessarily slowly" is a bit of a moveable feast, isn't it? On a laden tourer, I'd possibly be doing 10-12mph. The lady I see on her shopper in Wilmslow won't manage much more than that. I daresay the roadie on his mobile wouldn't have been doing less than either of us.


 That "unnecessarily slowly" is a moveable feast is precisely the point and precisely why I'm trying to get a perspective which removes the fact that the person was riding a bike. We cannot know what speed they usually ride, what they were actually doing on their phone / GPS, whether the road was wide enough, what the traffic was like. 

Regardless of their usual speed, they were doing something obvious and apparently unrelated to the journey which gave the appearance of distracting them and making them travel "unnecessarily slowly" which the OP said was frustrating.


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Which perhaps mitigates the danger the phone dabbling cyclist was posing to himself?



Indeed! The problem arises when he encounters bloody minded impatient drivers......


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Indeed! The problem arises when he encounters bloody minded impatient drivers......



But in these cases it would matter little if the cyclist was on the phone, fiddling with his jersey zip, swigging from a bottle, riding inches from the kerb/hedge, or taking the lane, etc when you are dealing with a bloody minded, impatient driver.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> The simple fact you are missing/avoiding is that by pulling over all the traffic could have gone past, in your way of thinking a child on stabilizers is quite entitled to sit in front of a queue of cars as some kind of right, we shall have to disagree on courtesy towards other road users I think.



On which road and at what location did this happen. I grew up cycling in the South Hams.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> Regardless of their usual speed, they were doing something obvious and apparently unrelated to the journey which gave the appearance of distracting them and making them travel "unnecessarily slowly" which the OP said was frustrating.



I'm wary of giving this argument credence - to many it's unnecessary for a cyclist to be on the road when there's a cycle path nearby, to ride in primary past pinch points, and so forth. If there's one thing my dealings with angry drivers have demonstrated consistently, it's that they work to a version of the Highway code that I've never seen, that's fairly skewed against cyclists.


----------



## Norm (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I'm wary of giving this argument credence - to many it's unnecessary for a cyclist to be on the road when there's a cycle path nearby, to ride in primary past pinch points, and so forth. If there's one thing my dealings with angry drivers have demonstrated consistently, it's that they work to a version of the Highway code that I've never seen, that's fairly skewed against cyclists.


 So, you don't want to give credence to the fundamental issue of a 16-page thread and set up your own straw men (which only appear strong to you because it is held up by a skeleton of irony).

Allow me to point out a few of the more fundamental flaws in your post.

The argument which you don't wish to give credence is the very purpose of this thread.
Rather than any argument, I am merely trying to strip the emotions and blinkers by completely removing any reference to any modes of transport from the discussion.
This thread was started by someone who said nothing about the cyclist being in the wrong place, avoiding a cycle path, riding in primary or so forth, these are entirely of your creation.
You are saying that a group of people consistently do something, whilst others are saying that there should be no tarring all with the same brush
There was no mention of the highway code or the legalities, just courtesy to other people.


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

numbnuts said:


> I can across to stuck up sods riding two a breast yesterday and would not yield even when hooted _(I was not driving)._ Cyclist want recognition on the roads the way they are going about it is just pissing in the face of other roads users – and don't go on about the way they treat us – two wrongs......ect



Sitting two abreast when you did that were you?

Edit: Sorry, just realised I've come in at the beginning of a very long thread!


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Oct 2011)

Anyone who uses a mobile phone while driving, motorcycling, cycling or walking across the road should have the said phone rammed up their arse.

Pay attention to what you're doing and don't be an accident waiting to happen.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Anyone who uses a mobile phone while driving, motorcycling, cycling or walking across the road should have the said phone rammed up their arse.
> 
> Pay attention to what you're doing and don't be an accident waiting to happen.



Thanks for that Jimmy Saville...


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Thanks for that Jimmy Saville...


No problem, Jeremy Clarkson...


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Thanks for that Jimmy Saville...



Now then, now then!


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> The speed is the issue, as if he had been on his phone and cycling fast there would not be a 'problem' in the circumstances descibed in the OP as he would not have been 'holding up' the cars.



Wrong.
Are you disputing whether cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is lacking courtesy and consideration ?


----------



## mickle (5 Oct 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Anyone who uses a mobile phone while ..... cycling or walking across the road should have the said phone rammed up their arse.



Are there any other legal activities for which you'd recommend anal rape as a punishment? Just askin.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> On which road and at what location did this happen. I grew up cycling in the South Hams.


Top of the Kingsbridge hill coming out of Totnes, through the trees just before the turn off for Blackemore levels, cyclist was opposite Camps farm, was riding towards Totnes.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> So, you don't want to give credence to the fundamental issue of a 16-page thread and set up your own straw men (which only appear strong to you because it is held up by a skeleton of irony).



Ouch. I thought I'd addressed that earlier?



> Allow me to point out a few of the more fundamental flaws in your post.
> 
> The argument which you don't wish to give credence is the very purpose of this thread.
> Rather than any argument, I am merely trying to strip the emotions and blinkers by completely removing any reference to any modes of transport from the discussion.
> ...



1) I'm addressing this specific point; _"they were doing something obvious and apparently unrelated to the journey which gave the appearance of distracting them and making them travel "unnecessarily slowly""_

2) Understood.

3) Again, I think this is a logical argument to offer, if the problem is understood to be the prevention of (motor) traffic from reaching a faster speed. The points are offered in response to your "unnecessarily slowly" statement.

4) Related to my points on angry motorists? My personal experienceis that when they mention the law, or the Highway Code, their recollection of it was incorrect. Flashing lights are illegal, use of cycle lanes is compulsory, bikes must always give way to cars, the usual.

5) Understood. Once again, I think the other points follow logically from the ideas presented by the op, specifically the idea that a legal (if unwise) behaviour gives all members of a group "a bad name" .

Taking the op's post at face value, it appears that the drivers here did the right thing when faced with someone who should have been paying more attention to the road. So good on them.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Are there any other legal activities for which you'd recommend anal rape as a punishment? Just askin.


I bet the reception would be rubbish.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> Are you disputing whether cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is lacking courtesy and consideration ?




It is not something which I would do, however the issue in the OP was the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger because of the assumption all drivers in the line would be pissed off. 

The cyclist could have just as easily been cycling courteously and considerately, and there could still have been a tailback...it is the speed which is the issue not the cause of the speed. As we have already established he was doing nothing illegal, nothing indicates he was cycling dangerously..he was merely cycling slowly and using a mobile phone. There is part of me which thinks the OP is a driver who is pissed off he cannot use his mobile whilst driving and is mightly pissed off at this.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

My own experience is similar to JtM's that when motorists are asked to highlight which part of the law and/or HC they are referring to they make up bollocks.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Changing topic slightly, does anyone else now have Bon Jovi going round their head?


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Changing topic slightly, does anyone else now have Bon Jovi going round their head?



Nope, but they were in my shower room this morning and took bloody ages...and there was no hot water left - bloody bouffant hair!


----------



## mickle (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Changing topic slightly, does anyone else now have Bon Jovi going round their head?



+1 I'm not very happy about it actually.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> It is not something which I would do, however the issue in the OP was the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger because of the assumption all drivers in the line would be pissed off.
> 
> The cyclist could have just as easily been cycling courteously and considerately, and there could still have been a tailback...it is the speed which is the issue not the cause of the speed. As we have already established he was doing nothing illegal, nothing indicates he was cycling dangerously..he was merely cycling slowly and using a mobile phone. There is part of me which thinks the OP is a driver who is pissed off he cannot use his mobile whilst driving and is mightly pissed off at this.


As the OP , I should say that I cycle 200mls a week just for the exercise, I use a car to get to work as it is a 66mile round trip and if I need to phone I just pull over and use it, if I want to drive slowly I let other vehicles go past and if I want to cycle slowly I do the same , maybe we just have different ideas on what constitutes courteous behaviour with other road users.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Nope, but they were in my shower room this morning and took bloody ages...and there was no hot water left - bloody bouffant hair!



Oh dear, just spat tea on my work computer...


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> My own experience is similar to JtM's that when motorists are asked to highlight which part of the law and/or HC they are referring to they make up bollocks.



I don't know whether it's made up, or just not remembered properly. But given that some use that incorrect knowledge to justify close passes, shouting obscenities out of their windows &c, it's worrying.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> OK then picture this. If it had been some one of elderly years cycling at their normal pace should they also pull over not to inconvenience the traffic behind ?



Yes, of course, and probably being from a different generation they would.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Changing topic slightly, does anyone else now have Bon Jovi going round their head?


Living on a Prayer, great driving song for an empty road.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I don't know whether it's made up, or just not remembered properly. But given that some use that incorrect knowledge to justify close passes, shouting obscenities out of their windows &c, it's worrying.



The last idiots I encountered who shouted at me whilst buzzing past turned out to be community wardens...they didn't like me shouting back so stopped. And then tried to tell me the law...which they had made up. So they then tried "a local byelaw"...again made up. So I tried the "perhaps you would like to explain your actions to your boss" route and one of them is no longer in employment as a result of their behaviour.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Living on a Prayer, great driving song for an empty road.




travelling at a speed you think you should be allowed to without being impeded by other road users....


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Top of the Kingsbridge hill coming out of Totnes, through the trees just before the turn off for Blackemore levels, cyclist was opposite Camps farm, was riding towards Totnes.



I know it well, but to clarify you mean the cyclist was going down the steepish Kingbridge Hill towards Totnes? If so, that road is narrow (no central lane markings), it's a 30mph limit from memory and I can understand why a cyclist, regardless of whether he was using a phone would not want to be passed when descending there (there are quite a few tight bends and you need to cautious). That said, I would not be comfortable descending with one hand on the drops and the other fiddling with a phone.

I used to commute from Plympton to Totnes, many years ago.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> It is not something which I would do, however the issue in the OP was the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger because of the assumption all drivers in the line would be pissed off.
> 
> The cyclist could have just as easily been cycling courteously and considerately, and there could still have been a tailback...it is the speed which is the issue not the cause of the speed. As we have already established he was doing nothing illegal, nothing indicates he was cycling dangerously..he was merely cycling slowly and using a mobile phone. There is part of me which thinks the OP is a driver who is pissed off he cannot use his mobile whilst driving and is mightly pissed off at this.



Ok.
So you dont dispute that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
You dont dispute that this sort of behaviour just pees people off.
Your only objection is the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger.
Can you clarify what "right for others to be open to abuse and danger" you are referring to.


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Yes, of course, and probably being from a different generation they would.



Sorry I thought this was an A road rather than a country lane with no passing places ?


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok.
> So you dont dispute that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
> You dont dispute that this sort of behaviour just pees people off.
> Your only objection is the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger.
> Can you clarify what "right for others to be open to abuse and danger" you are referring to.



What speed would the cyclist in question have to be going to be deemed to be riding in a considerate manner and should it matter whether they were in lycra or not ?


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> I know it well, but to clarify you mean the cyclist was going down the steepish Kingbridge Hill towards Totnes? If so, that road is narrow (no central lane markings), it's a 40mph limit from memory and I can understand why a cyclist, regardless of whether he was using a phone would not want to be passed when descending there (there are quite a few tight bends and you need to cautious). That said, I would not be comfortable descending with one hand on the drops and the other fiddling with a phone.
> 
> I used to commute from Plymton to Totnes, many years ago.


No he was at the top at the part the cows cross from the farm to the field opposite , it would not be pleasant going down that hill with a line of cars behind you, its not pleasant going down with nothing behind you. if you fall you will go into the opposite up lane, which is used for passing.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok.
> So you dont dispute that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
> You dont dispute that this sort of behaviour just pees people off.
> Your only objection is the assumption that the behaviour of one cyclist then opens up the right for others to be open to abuse and danger.
> Can you clarify what "right for others to be open to abuse and danger" you are referring to.



If I were using a phone I would not need to slow down as I can continue to cycle at the speed I was travelling when using a phone without need to slow down. Whether this would piss drivers off I have no idea. 

I dispute that the behaviour of the cyclist causes the drivers to be pissed off...they choose to be pissed off as they see it as their right to travel without being impeded.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.




And just as a reminder this was the OP.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Sorry I thought this was an A road rather than a country lane with no passing places ?


You do not need passing places to let people go past,you can just stop, country lanes have passing places , its where the lane is wider at certain points for err " passing" and A roads have what appears to be a dotted white line in the middle sometimes.


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> Are you disputing whether cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists is lacking courtesy and consideration ?



I supposed I could have got peed off at the motorist yesterday who was dithering whether to park, turn off, pull over or whatever but I just waited till they had sorted themselves out and then carried on. If the time is that important perhaps you should have set off a bit earlier.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Oct 2011)

Yup. I had to stop for a short while on my commute this morning, as a lorry was turning in the road. No problem at all. You're either the sort of person who gets apopleptic with rage at being delayed in any minor way, or you're not.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

My only concern in this is that whether it's legal or not, is it really the wisest idea to take phone call whilst in charge of any vehicle?

No phone call is that important and if it was, you'd probably fall off in shock.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> What speed would the cyclist in question have to be going to be deemed to be riding in a considerate manner and should it matter whether they were in lycra or not ?


Difficult to say with Lycra,fashion is such a personal thing," find a style and stick with it" that's my motto, and speed depends on the conditions.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> No he was at the top at the part the cows cross from the farm to the field opposite , it would not be pleasant going down that hill with a line of cars behind you, its not pleasant going down with nothing behind you. if you fall you will go into the opposite up lane, which is used for passing.



You mean the top of Kinsbridge Hill near where it joins the Western Bypass? Can you show me precisely where on google maps as I'm struggling to see where/how the indicident you described took place (I don't know where the cows cross!) 

Kingsbridge Hill does not have central lane markings, unless its changed.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> My only concern in this is that whether it's legal or not, is it really the wisest idea to take phone call whilst in charge of any vehicle?
> 
> No phone call is that important and if it was, you'd probably fall off in shock.



I'd definitely fall off I tried to use the phone whilst cycling, but that's because I'm a novice bike-handler! I personally wouldn't recommened doing it, but as others have said, it's legal.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> If I were using a phone I would not need to slow down as I can continue to cycle at the speed I was travelling when using a phone without need to slow down. Whether this would piss drivers off I have no idea.
> 
> I dispute that the behaviour of the cyclist causes the drivers to be pissed off...they choose to be pissed off as they see it as their right to travel without being impeded.



OK.
Dont we all have a reasonable right to travel without being impeded by other road users lack of courtesy and consideration (that you dont dispute occured in this instance) ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I'd definitely fall off I tried to use the phone whilst cycling, but that's because I'm a novice bike-handler! I personally wouldn't recommened doing it, but as others have said, it's legal.



So is cheating on your wife.


----------



## Alien8 (5 Oct 2011)

Look, not only did the guy have "a nice road bike", "all the gear on", "riding one handed" he was also "on the drops".

Just shoot him and move on - there's nothing to see here.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> My only concern in this is that whether it's legal or not, is it really the wisest idea to take phone call whilst in charge of any vehicle?



Legal for the cyclist. Good idea? I'd argue not - most studies show reduced reaction times and hazard perception *even when using hands free* while conducting a mobile phone conversation. 

As stated earlier, given the choice between encountering a mobile using cyclist, or a mobile using driver, I'd sooner deal with the former, (but ideally neither). Talking/texting while riding isn't something I'd do, personally.


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Oct 2011)

Is reading a book while cycling legal, using a laptop? Why not make the most of your boring commute and catch up with work on the way? It's perfectly legal!


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> You do not need passing places to let people go past,you can just stop, country lanes have passing places , its where the lane is wider at certain points for err " passing" and A roads have what appears to be a dotted white line in the middle sometimes.



Thanks for the clarification of the national road network. However getting back to the point, if the traffic was unable to pass it would have made no difference if this fast cyclist with all the gear and who was in your opinion riding "slowly", was riding at the speed you feel he should have been given his attire.

Are you sure it was not you you was in the first car and it was you who was so "selfishly" held up by this very rude cyclist ?


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> So is cheating on your wife.



Or husband. But lots of people do it apparently, especially in Devon.


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> My only concern in this is that whether it's legal or not, is it really the wisest idea to take phone call whilst in charge of any vehicle?
> 
> No phone call is that important and if it was, you'd probably fall off in shock.



What about consulting the SatNav which many cars now have and which I have on my phone for cycling? Or checking a txt message to see if its something urgent that needs stopping now to deal with or can wait till the next stop?


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Or husband. But lots of people do it apparently, especially in Devon.



Cornish propaganda!


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> You mean the top of Kinsbridge Hill near where it joins the Western Bypass? Can you show me precisely where on google maps as I'm struggling to see where/how the indicident you described took place (I don't know where the cows cross!)
> 
> Kingsbridge Hill does not have central lane markings, unless its changed.


go up the hill past the Plymouth/Follaton road on the A381 , then you get into a section of two lane road and a 40mph limit go past the turning for Cornworthy and under the trees, this section is now 60mph, at the top there is a junction on either side the one on the right leads towards Avonwick keep on going about thirty yards and you are there, there are lane markings all the way up the hill now.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> Is reading a book while cycling legal, using a laptop? Why not make the most of your boring commute and catch up with work on the way? It's perfectly legal!



I've yet to see a cyclist doing either of those[1]. Believe it or not, I've seen motorists doing both[2] on more than one occasion.

[1] Although on the Whitworth Park path, anything is possible, I'll keep an eye out.
[2] The books are usually maps, checklists &c Delivery drivers are particularly bad for the latter. I have seen two people reading what appeared to be "proper" books though, both of those were driving through the village centre of Cheadle (on separate occasions), at around 5pm.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> So is cheating on your wife.



Not if you're in the middle of the road, holding up traffic.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Thanks for the clarification of the national road network. However getting back to the point, if the traffic was unable to pass it would have made no difference if this fast cyclist with all the gear and who was in your opinion riding "slowly", was riding at the speed you feel he should have been given his attire.
> 
> Are you sure it was not you you was in the first car and it was you who was so "selfishly" held up by this very rude cyclist ?


The need to clarify the road network to you is obviously the point, if you are unaware of the types of roads how are you safe to be on them," it wasn't you by any chance was it"? and the traffic could have got passed if he had just ,"shock", "horror" stopped.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> go up the hill past the Plymouth/Follaton road on the A381 , then you get into a section of two lane road and a 40mph limit go past the turning for Cornworthy and under the trees, this section is now 60mph, at the top there is a junction on either side the one on the right leads towards Avonwick keep on going about thirty yards and you are there, there are lane markings all the way up the hill now.



Wait there, so it did not happen on Kingsbridge Hill but actually along the A381 (aka the Western Bypass if it's nr Totnes)! You might want to give more helpful info...

What's the name/road no of the junction? Is it the A381, Green Lane junction - that has a farm at the top.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> What about consulting the SatNav which many cars now have and which I have on my phone for cycling? Or checking a txt message to see if its something urgent that needs stopping now to deal with or can wait till the next stop?



This is where the law is so funny , some one got done for eating a mars bar and yet you can look at a screen for directions and its normally in your eye line, and yet what about smoking?.


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> The need to clarify the road network to you is obviously the point, if you are unaware of the types of roads how are you safe to be on them," it wasn't you by any chance was it"? and the traffic could have got passed if he had just ,"shock", "horror" stopped.



I would suggest that you main gripe in all of this is that the cyclist was "using his phone" rather than anything else.

The A road is clearly not a single track road so the only reason that these vehicles were unable to pass was because it was not safe to do so and would have made little difference whether the cyclist was riding slowly whilst holding his phone in his hand or if he was going fast without it.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> I would suggest that you main gripe in all of this is that the cyclist was "using his phone" rather than anything else.
> 
> The A road is clearly not a single track road so the only reason that these vehicles was unable to pass was because it was not safe to do so and would have made little difference whether the cyclist was riding slowly whilst holding his phone in his hand or if he was going fast without it.




Given the shifting nature of the locations posted by Twobiker, I am starting (perhaps belatedly) to question the veracity of this tale.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> This is where the law is so funny , some one got done for eating a mars bar and yet you can look at a screen for directions and its normally in your eye line, and yet what about smoking?.


Nothing in law, but;

*148*
Safe driving and riding needs concentration.

Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as


loud music (this may mask other sounds)
trying to read maps
inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
arguing with your passengers or other road users
eating and drinking
smoking
(Highway Code).

didn't the old codes have a clause specifically advising people not to try and light pipes?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> I supposed I could have got peed off at the motorist yesterday who was dithering whether to park, turn off, pull over or whatever but I just waited till they had sorted themselves out and then carried on. If the time is that important perhaps *you* should have set off a bit earlier.



What do you mean by this ?
What are you accusing me of ?
This kind of out of the blue statement has me confused.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Or husband. But lots of people do it apparently, especially in Devon.



Apparently, the Welsh are saints! ( I always knew it!)

But that doesn't make it right, does it? Or was my mum wrong when she used to go on about "Would I put my hand in the fire if such-and-such a body did it?"


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Not if you're in the middle of the road, holding up traffic.



Hey, I gotta get my kicks somehow...


----------



## totallyfixed (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You are obviously not as good at bike handling as I am.* It is piss easy to ride a bike in a straight line when using a phone. *
> 
> And you are still missing the point that it is illegal for drivers to use a mobile, so I can criticise them for breaking the law.






Noodley said:


> *If I were using a phone I would not need to slow down as I can continue to cycle at the speed I was travelling when using a phone* without need to slow down. Whether this would piss drivers off I have no idea.
> 
> I dispute that the behaviour of the cyclist causes the drivers to be pissed off...they choose to be pissed off as they see it as their right to travel without being impeded.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> What about consulting the SatNav which many cars now have and which I have on my phone for cycling? Or checking a txt message to see if its something urgent that needs stopping now to deal with or can wait till the next stop?



You don't need to take your hands of the handlebars or press anything against your ear when checking the satnav.

I also don't think it's sensible to check texts/have a sandwich/write a dissertation on the pataphysicalists of post-war France when cycling but I don't make the law.

I think that there is a very real possibility that this guy could have been cycling slowly because he was climbing a hill and if it was a narrow road, then there isn't really the chance for overtaking and in that case it's very much a case of tough titty for the drivers behind.

However, if I ever do have the chance to pull over on a narrow road to let faster vehicles past, then I will. Not just out of courtesy, but because it also makes my journey more pleasant if I don't have a car stuck behind me.


----------



## YahudaMoon (5 Oct 2011)

This is my fave thread at the moment


----------



## totallyfixed (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> You don't need to take your hands of the handlebars or press anything against your ear when checking the satnav.
> 
> I also don't think it's sensible to check texts/have a sandwich/write a dissertation on the pataphysicalists of post-war France when cycling but I don't make the law.
> 
> ...



Agree, and it's what good club riders do, I would rather have a car where I can see it. We often get VERY polite drivers behind us and dithery older folk who are just afraid to come past and in these cases we slow down and wave them past at the earliest opportunity. It's all just courtesy and common sense really.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Oct 2011)

YahudaMoon said:


>



What's with Gollum in the middle?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Agree, and it's what good club riders do, I would rather have a car where I can see it. We often get VERY polite drivers behind us and dithery older folk who are just afraid to come past and in these cases we slow down and wave them past at the earliest opportunity. It's all just courtesy and common sense really.



Well said.
Its about being courteous to the largely polite and patient drivers just as much as nipping the impatient motorists in the bud.


----------



## Hip Priest (5 Oct 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> What's with Gollum in the middle?



Jim has fixed it for Mark Cavendish to wear one of Boyzone's shirts from the 90s.


----------



## YahudaMoon (5 Oct 2011)

Jimmy rides Brooks. Thats it, Im burning my saddle


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Agree, and it's what good club riders do, I would rather have a car where I can see it. We often get VERY polite drivers behind us and dithery older folk who are just afraid to come past and in these cases we slow down and wave them past at the earliest opportunity. *It's all just courtesy and common sense really.*



+1 The last sentence sums it up very well! What is the point of riding for miles along a narrow lane with a milk tanker (in my case, yesterday) up my bottom just because 'I know my rights'. I pulled over, waved him through, he waved his appreciation and all was well in our little corner of the world.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Oct 2011)

To be fair to him (Jimmy Saville - howzabout, howzabout), the silly old goat was a pretty good cyclist.


----------



## YahudaMoon (5 Oct 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> To be fair to him (Jimmy Saville - howzabout, howzabout), the silly old goat was a pretty good cyclist.




Yep. Proof


[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WSsyfjytJA[/media]


----------



## 4F (5 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> +1 The last sentence sums it up very well! What is the point of riding for miles along a narrow lane with a milk tanker (in my case, yesterday) up my bottom just because 'I know my rights'. I pulled over, waved him through, he waved his appreciation and all was well in our little corner of the world.



Bit of a difference to a narrow lane compared to an A road however. I am sure most would pull over in the situation that you describe above, I know I certainly would.


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Apparently, the Welsh are saints! ( I always knew it!)
> 
> But that doesn't make it right, does it?



Apparently God said it was right according to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints but he later changed his mind


----------



## Red Light (5 Oct 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I've yet to see a cyclist doing either of those[1]. Believe it or not, I've seen motorists doing both[2] on more than one occasion.
> 
> [1] Although on the Whitworth Park path, anything is possible, I'll keep an eye out.
> [2] The books are usually maps, checklists &c Delivery drivers are particularly bad for the latter. I have seen two people reading what appeared to be "proper" books though, both of those were driving through the village centre of Cheadle (on separate occasions), at around 5pm.



[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlZuv_dTxD8[/media]


----------



## MissTillyFlop (5 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Apparently God said it was right according to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints but he later changed his mind




Ah God; that fickle-minded Flibberty-gibbett!


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Are there any other legal activities for which you'd recommend anal rape as a punishment? Just askin.


Yeah, 

For people who sell frames that need to be covered in Gaffa Tape to prevent chunks of paint wearing off because they can't be bothered to fit cable guides on the head tube.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Given the shifting nature of the locations posted by Twobiker, I am starting (perhaps belatedly) to question the veracity of this tale.


I have not shifted the location, it is you who cannot follow simple directions, I have lived here for 20years and am damn sure where it happened, I did not say it happened on the Kingsbridge Hill I said go up the Kingsbridge Hill, towards Kingsbridge and under the trees at the top and then past the turnoff to Avonwick on your right,you seem to be somewhere at the traffic lights at Follaton road, your worse than my mother-in-law, how did you ever find Plympton ?.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Location, 50d25'19.93"N/3d41'51.12"W elevation127m then head towards Totnes.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I have not shifted the location, it is you who cannot follow simple directions, I have lived here for 20years and am damn sure where it happened, I did not say it happened on the Kingsbridge Hill I said go up the Kingsbridge Hill, towards Kingsbridge and under the trees at the top and then past the turnoff to Avonwick on your right,you seem to be somewhere at the traffic lights at Follaton road, your worse than my mother-in-law, how did you ever find Plympton ?.



First, you said: 



> Top of the Kingsbridge hill coming out of Totnes, through the trees just before the turn off for Blackemore levels, cyclist was opposite Camps farm, was riding towards Totnes



You did not mention the A381! Remind me never to ask you directions as you don't know the names or numbers of roads you claim to cycle 200 miles a week on. 

As you've only lived in the South Hams for 20 years, you're an Emmet, I am afraid.


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


>



I don't understand this smiley, what is it?


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I don't understand this smiley, what is it?



Huh?


----------



## Noodley (5 Oct 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Huh?




Oh right, still makes no sense then.


----------



## twobiker (5 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> First, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The road to Kingsbridge from Totnes is the A381 if you lived here you should not need telling it, and I have lived in South Hams for 53years but only near Totnes for 20, I don't need to make up a claim about cycling 200 miles I just get on the bike and do it, 75/100 on my day off Monday and then 25/35 per day through the rest of the week, best ride Totnes/Princetown/Tavistock/Okehampton/A30 to Exeter/Longdown/teign valley/ Chudleigh/Newton Abbot/ Totnes. may see you on the road sometime, if your not lost.


----------



## YahudaMoon (5 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I don't understand this smiley, what is it?




 Huh ? As in it means 'Huh ' lol 

No idea what these are lol          

What 'guns


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> The road to Kingsbridge from Totnes is the A381 if you lived here you should not need telling it, and I have lived in South Hams for 53years but only near Totnes for 20, I don't need to make up a claim about cycling 200 miles I just get on the bike and do it, 75/100 on my day off Monday and then 25/35 per day through the rest of the week, best ride Totnes/Princetown/Tavistock/Okehampton/A30 to Exeter/Longdown/teign valley/ Chudleigh/Newton Abbot/ Totnes. may see you on the road sometime, if your not lost.



I know the A381 goes from Totnes to Kingsbridge. So why mention Kingsbridge Hill (it only confuses the issue) as the incident did not take place there!

Please pass on my sympathies to your mother-in-law: I can see how she would struggle with your cryptic directions.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Oct 2011)

YahudaMoon said:


> This is my fave thread at the moment



It is good to hear that this is your fave thread but you should remember the underlying serious nature of the thread and that is of course the redemption of the delinquent and misguided cyclists the dwell amongst us.


----------



## mickle (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> .... the redemption of the delinquent and misguided cyclists the dwell amongst us.



Good luck with that.


----------



## snailracer (5 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It is good to hear that this is your fave thread but you should remember the underlying serious nature of the thread and that is of course the redemption of the delinquent and misguided cyclists the dwell amongst us.


If you compare motorists to cyclists in terms of road safety, nuisance noise, air pollution, foreign oil dependency, carbon emissions, spilling diesel, blocking pavements, obstructive parking, traffic congestion, policing costs, etc., then you should realise cyclists are in rather less need of "redemption" than those motorists who somehow think themselves worthy to judge them.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566040 said:


> And this is from someone who believes in the concept of responsible RLJing.



The important word being responsible.
If anyone rljed "cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone" i would judge that not responsible rljing.
In the same way, the bahaviour as described in the op, i would judge that not responsible.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566042 said:


> Strange that you would regard RLJing slowly as an indicator of irresponsiblity. Still the main point is that, as a result of your pick and chose attitude to road law, I don't think you have a moral position from which to judge here.


What makes you say i have a pick and choose attitude to road law.
Someone who makes such irresponsible accusations is quite clearly of not fit to judge anyone else.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The important word being responsible.
> If anyone rljed "cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone" i would judge that not responsible rljing.
> In the same way, the bahaviour as described in the op, i would judge that not responsible.




Oh dear, any credibility you may have had has just disappeared.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Oh dear, any credibility you may have had has just disappeared.



You have allready made it quite clear that anyone who dosnt agree with your opinion that it is ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists has no credibility in your eyes .
When it comes to having no credibility in the eyes of the delinquent i regard that as a good sign tyvm.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566047 said:


> The fact that you do?



Ok whatever. You are obviously just being deliberately silly.
Angelfishsolo, on 16 August 2011 - 19:40:02, said: 'tis not possible to debate with morons.


----------



## Norm (6 Oct 2011)

1566042 said:


> Strange that you would regard RLJing slowly as an indicator of irresponsiblity. Still the main point is that, as a result of your pick and chose attitude to road law, I don't think you have a moral position from which to judge here.


 He didn't say that RLJing slowly was an indicator of irresponsibility, he said that "cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone" was an indicator or irresponsibility.

Although it is very funny that you accuse apollo of having a pick and choose attitude when you have yourself picked and chosen one word from the quote. You might just as well have said that he considered cycling to be irresponsible.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2011)

If a person didn't want to "pee off" motorists, it's worth that person bearing in mind that RLJ is a frequently brought up "why i hate cyclists" trope. (A recent survey of Bus Drivers by Manchester FoE had 70.3% of respondents cite it as their primary concern when sharing the road with cyclists).


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You have allready made it quite clear that anyone who dosnt agree with your opinion that it is ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists has no credibility in your eyes .
> When it comes to having no credibility in the eyes of the delinquent i regard that as a good sign tyvm.




You completely misunderstand my point. The issue in the OP is that motorists get pissed off with slow cyclists. 

I hope your RLJing does not lead to one of these easily-pissed off motorists chasing you down.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok whatever. You are obviously just being deliberately silly.
> Angelfishsolo, on 16 August 2011 - 19:40:02, said: 'tis not possible to debate with morons.



Interesting that you quote someone who, I believe, was banned for being an arse!


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You completely misunderstand my point. The issue in the OP is that motorists get pissed off with slow cyclists.
> 
> I hope your RLJing does not lead to one of these easily-pissed off motorists chasing you down.



The issue in the op is about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.
You seem to think this is all ok.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Interesting that you quote someone who, I believe, was banned for being an arse!



I was wondering where angel was.
Why was he banned ?
If you cant say openly could you pm me or direct me to a relevant topic.
Personally i think its a shame if he was banned cos he was usually a very entertaining debator.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> could you pm me or direct me to a relevant topic.



No.

Annoying isn't it?


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The issue in the op is about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.
> You seem to think this is all ok.



So it is OK to RLJ but not cycle slowly one handed ? 

What do you think is going to pee off motorists more. ? 

Wake up and smell the coffee


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> No.
> 
> Annoying isn't it?



But seriously, I do not have a link to a specific topic...


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> He didn't say that RLJing slowly was an indicator of irresponsibility, he said that "cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone" was an indicator or irresponsibility.
> 
> Although it is very funny that you accuse apollo of having a pick and choose attitude when you have yourself picked and chosen one word from the quote. You might just as well have said that he considered cycling to be irresponsible.



However it should be noted that that Apollo's (safe RLJing) breaks the law whereas the cyclist described in the OP does not. 

Pick and choose as you will.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

I have cycled whilst using a phone, not slowing down as I did it, and not having to.

I have never RLJed. It's illegal that is. naughty naughty very naughty...


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The issue in the op is about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.
> You seem to think this is all ok.



Have we established what speed he was cycling at prior to using the phone?
Maybe he had just finsished his really fast interval training and was phoning his wife to say he had done really well and not held up any motorists that day because he had been going so fast?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> So it is OK to RLJ but not cycle slowly one handed ?
> 
> What do you think is going to pee off motorists more. ?
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee



I think what would pee of anyone more would be sharing space with someone who makes such a moronic comment as that.
Your whole premise is incorrect.
It is not ok to rlj.
It is not ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It is not ok to rlj.
> It is not ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.



Do you RLJ?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566065 said:


> You've changed your mind on this issue?



Youve done very cleverly hyjacking this topic with concerns over my rljing adrian .
for the record as i have repeatedly clearly expressed elsewhere - my rlj behaviour has changed.
before i joined this forum i did not even realise it was wrong to rlj.
I now do and have altered my behaviour accordingly.
So can we move past this agenda to discredit me on the grounds of some past historical rljing - although again well done adrain , very admirable , well done.
I suspect these low cowardly tactics just reflect the weakness of your position regarding the op topic.


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I think what would pee of anyone more would be sharing space with someone who makes such a moronic comment as that.
> Your whole premise is incorrect.
> It is not ok to rlj.
> It is not ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.



Keep back tracking......


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Keep back tracking......


I just dont agree with your opinion that it is ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I just dont agree with your opinion that it is ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.




What part(s) do you think pisses the drivers off? And why?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

You have agreed previously that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
I think that the cyclist cyclling without courtesy or consideration to other traffic causing a tailback is what pees of the other road users.
Why - because we are all human beings.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You have agreed previously that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
> I think that the cyclist cyclling without courtesy or consideration to other traffic causing a tailback is what pees of the other road users.
> Why - because we are all human beings.




I have also said it would not piss me off. So what is it that causes them to be pissed off?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I have also said it would not piss me off. So what is it that causes them to be pissed off?



the cyclist cyclling without courtesy or consideration to other traffic causing a tailback


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You have agreed previously that the cyclist is behaving in a manner lacking courtesy and consideration.
> I think that the cyclist cyclling without courtesy or consideration to other traffic causing a tailback is what pees of the other road users.
> Why - because we are all human beings.



But getting back to a question of which no one has been able to answer yet:-

What speed would the cyclist have to be doing to be considered as riding ok ? What if he was riding slowly because he was taking a drink from his bidon rather than holding a phone, would that be Ok with you although he would have been doing the same speed ? 

It should be remembered that this road is not a single track road but an A road.

The real hang up here seems to be the fact that he was on his phone.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (6 Oct 2011)

Some people are considerate of those around them and behave accordingly.

Some people are not considerate of those around them and behave accordingly.

All cyclists and all drivers are people. Some people are both cyclists and drivers.

Therefore some cyclists/drivers are considerate of those around them and behave accordingly; and some cyclists/drivers are not considerate of those around them and behave accordingly.

So it is quite wrong to refer to "cyclists" and "drivers" as if they were single, unified groups.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> I know the A381 goes from Totnes to Kingsbridge. So why mention Kingsbridge Hill (it only confuses the issue) as the incident did not take place there!
> 
> Please pass on my sympathies to your mother-in-law: I can see how she would struggle with your cryptic directions.



I called it the Kingsbridge Hill because that is what all the locals call it and it was called that before it became the Western Bypass,I was hoping to use it as a point of reference for you as you are meandering around all over the place , for some one who claims to have cycled round the South Hams you do not seem to know much about it, also it is the Mother-in-law who gives the dodgy directions, by the way did you cycle your commute to Plympton ?,possibly not, Oh and you could try addressing the real point of the post instead of stumbling around like Blind Pugh in a coalmine and say if you think if a minorities behaviour has an effect on the way the majority are judged.


----------



## Norm (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> What speed would the cyclist have to be doing to be considered as riding ok ? What if he was riding slowly because he was taking a drink from his bidon rather than holding a phone, would that be Ok with you although he would have been doing the same speed ?


 Really? I thought that had been covered this several times.



Norm said:


> A person using x form of transport (this could be a car, tractor, lorry, 4x4, bus or bicycle) appeared to be acting selfishly by travelling slowly because their attention isn't on the road. Those who are unnecessarily held up, not by the person's presence in a slow moving vehicle but by their apparently selfish actions, will generalise and tar other users of the same form of transport with the same brush.
> 
> If the chosen vehicle of the apparently selfish person was a tractor, bus etc, then that wouldn't be too relevant, other than as an excuse for a rant. But the chosen vehicle was a bike, so it's us getting tarred here.





Norm said:


> My question was not about cyclists nor about how slow is too slow. The frustration was not a result of the absolute speed, as I've already acknowledged further up.
> 
> The issue is that there appeared to be a person needlessly delaying other people by performing a selfish act.





Norm said:


> I'm not certain, but maybe some people could find it annoying that they are forced to travel unnecessarily slowly by someone who is being selfish as well as being dangerous by tarting around with their phone in the middle of the road.





Norm said:


> If someone is riding slowly because they ride slowly, they are just one of any number of people who rides slowly.
> 
> This person was riding slowly because they were being visibly and obviously selfish, being ignorant of other road users and lacking in even the most basic of courtesies.





Norm said:


> That depends on the reasons. If someone was in recovery stage of interval training, then that wouldn't be an issue for me, similarly if someone was riding with kids or on a poor road surface.
> 
> However, if someone is slowing down to do something which has been proven for motorised road users to be more dangerous than drink driving, or travelling slowly because they were exercising their dog or carrying an unsafe load then that would be frustrating (as I said earlier) whatever their chosen mode of transport.
> 
> ...


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Oct 2011)

As seems to be the usual with these longer running topics, views become ever more entrenched and eventually only a very few are left in what becomes a pissing contest with the obligatory wind up merchant thrown in for good measure.
Can't we just have a poll on this one now in the hope of attracting more members views? Is it ok to use a mobile phone whilst cycling? Maybe this could start as another thread.
The riding slowly thing is a bit of a red herring, we all ride slowly at some point irrespective of other vehicles on the road.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> As seems to be the usual with these longer running topics, views become ever more entrenched and eventually only a very few are left in what becomes a pissing contest with the obligatory wind up merchant thrown in for good measure.
> Can't we just have a poll on this one now in the hope of attracting more members views? Is it ok to use a mobile phone whilst cycling? Maybe this could start as another thread.
> The riding slowly thing is a bit of a red herring, we all ride slowly at some point irrespective of other vehicles on the road.



But should we let them go past ?.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, *why not just stop and make the call* ?.



Because he's an arse 



totallyfixed said:


> As seems to be the usual with these longer running topics, views become ever more entrenched and eventually only a very few are left in what becomes a pissing contest with the obligatory wind up merchant thrown in for good measure.
> Can't we just have a poll on this one now in the hope of attracting more members views? *Is it ok to use a mobile phone whilst cycling? Maybe this could start as another thread.*
> The riding slowly thing is a bit of a red herring, we all ride slowly at some point irrespective of other vehicles on the road.




In all seriousness, using a mobile on a bicycle is a distraction and I think it should be an offense.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> But should we let them go past ?.



I think so, if it is safe and reasonable to do so.

To me, this whole argument seems to be six for one, half a dozen the other


----------



## Origamist (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I called it the Kingsbridge Hill because that is what all the locals call it and it was called that before it became the Western Bypass,I was hoping to use it as a point of reference for you as you are meandering around all over the place , for some one who claims to have cycled round the South Hams you do not seem to know much about it, also it is the Mother-in-law who gives the dodgy directions, by the way did you cycle your commute to Plympton ?,possibly not, Oh and you could try addressing the real point of the post instead of stumbling around like Blind Pugh in a coalmine and say if you think if a minorities behaviour has an effect on the way the majority are judged.



Most sensible people would simply have said it was on the A381 and provided a Street View image. Simples. However, clearly this was beyond your ken. 

Is it near here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=map...oid=yRF9rOUrY_t-SE3tfZN1gA&cbp=12,209.43,,0,0 

I'd rather trust your mother-in-law as your directions were awful. I certainly don't think you'd make a good letterboxer.

I did cycle from Plympton to Totnes (and back again): A385, B3372, B3213, through Ivybride, Lee Mill, Venton, Langage, Colebrook. If you want more precise details, I'm happy to oblige.

The location is important as the carriageway width changes and there are sections with double white lines on the A381. These factors and the cyclist's road postion/speed would also affect whether a cyclist was likely to delay traffic.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> In all seriousness, using a mobile on a bicycle is a distraction and I think it should be an offense.



In all seriousness - if you think it should be made illegal, because it poses such a _massive_ risk to public safety, go ahead and petition your MP.

In the meantime, and whether you like it or not, cycling whilst using a mobile phone is a perfectly legal activity. As is riding with one hand on the drops and riding slowly. And having all the gear.


We should be questioning why 'about twenty' drivers get so 'pissed off' simply because a cyclist going about his perfectly legal business meant that for a few minutes of their lives they were unable drive a the maximum permitted speed.

I suggest that the motorists in that queue were pissed off because (if they were actually pissed off - which we have no way of knowing since most drivers seem to adopt a po face as soon as they get behind the wheel) there was a cyclist _'in their way'_ and it is this attitude, that cyclists are little more that impediments to the much more important task of driving a car somewhere. So pervasive is this attitude that is has seeped in to the conciousness of some actual cyclists. 

Strip it all away. Is it the slowness, the mobile phone use, the one-handeness, the fact that he was riding 'on the drops' or that he had all the gear which 'pissed off' the drivers and the OP? You guys cant seem to agree.


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Oct 2011)

You mean we can't see to agree with _you_, Mickle. The use of the mobile phone and the inevitable lack of attention to the road and traffic conditions is the issue. We don't know that the drivers were pissed off - as I have stated before, it is possible that the lead driver was concerned for the safety of a cyclist whose attention was elsewhere, and was holding back.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> it is possible that the lead driver was concerned for the safety of a cyclist whose attention was elsewhere, and was holding back.



Should the rest of the drivers be pissed off at the lead driver then?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

I don't get why people think something being legal means that there is no problem with it.

When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?

If we all took a step back to have a look at the bigger picture once in a while, I think we might all be in danger of getting along much better. (And how TERRIBLE would that be?!)


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> You mean we can't see to agree with _you_, Mickle. The use of the mobile phone and the inevitable lack of attention to the road and traffic conditions is the issue. We don't know that the drivers were pissed off - as I have stated before, it is possible that the lead driver was concerned for the safety of a cyclist whose attention was elsewhere, and was holding back.



Nope, some people have said that his lack of speed was the issue, you and others have said that his mobile phone use was the issue. The OP seemed to suggest that in addition to the aforementioned, his 'one handed, on the drops with all the gear' also contributed the the motorists pissed-offness. 

Don't bother with 'it is possible'. Address the facts as we know them...

Please. _What is it about a mobile phone using slow travelling one handed on the drops with all the gear cyclist which might be a reasonable cause of pissed-offness in 'about twenty' motorists?_ Specifically.

Remembering that mobile phone use by cyclists is not an offence. Oh and neither is riding slowly. Oh and etc.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I don't get why people think something being legal means that there is no problem with it.
> 
> When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?
> 
> If we all took a step back to have a look at the bigger picture once in a while, I think we might all be in danger of getting along much better. (And how TERRIBLE would that be?!)



Uh oh, now you have gone and done it, a common sense attitude, it will never catch on [at least not amongst some on this thread




]


----------



## Norm (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?


 When they got on a bike, everything became ok as long as it was not illegal.



mickle said:


> Please. _What is it about a mobile phone using slow travelling one handed on the drops with all the gear cyclist which might be a reasonable cause of pissed-offness in 'about twenty' motorists?_ Specifically.


 Selfish and giving no consideration to others.

As it would be to you if the person involved wasn't on a bike.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Most sensible people would simply have said it was on the A381 and provided a Street View image. Simples. However, clearly this was beyond your ken.
> 
> Is it near here: http://maps.google.c...=12,209.43,,0,0
> 
> ...


It was there but heading towards Totnes, I gave you the coordinates before perhaps "KEN" could have given you a hand to find it, glad about the letterboxing bit, seems a childish activity, why did you not use the B3121 Erme valley route? much faster, my favourite route to Plymouth, Mother-in-law could not help you as it appears she is an Emmet.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I don't get why people think something being legal means that there is no problem with it.
> 
> When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?
> 
> If we all took a step back to have a look at the bigger picture once in a while, I think we might all be in danger of getting along much better. (And how TERRIBLE would that be?!)



@Mickle - this was my point, the cyclist might be acting perfectly legally but in the interest of getting along, he could have made life easier for those behind him.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I don't get why people think something being legal means that there is no problem with it.
> 
> When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?
> 
> If we all took a step back to have a look at the bigger picture once in a while, I think we might all be in danger of getting along much better. (And how TERRIBLE would that be?!)



Step back indeed. I am inconvenienced every Tuesday and Thursday by motorists who get in the way of my Volvo 340 GLE Estate (Turbo) when I take ours and our neighbours kids to school. I am unable to drive at anything like the speed limit because of all the cars in my way. In fact there are so many cars in my way that I am often forced to stop completely!

And it's even worse on my bike because, along the same stretch of road, they force their way past and pull in preventing me from going past them. 

If we are going to talk about 'let's all get along'.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I don't get why people think something being legal means that there is no problem with it.
> 
> When did it become ok to inconvenience others because "it's legal and to hell with everyone else"?



Wo ho tilly hold up there.
Hasnt mickle persuaded you that so long as it isnt legal its ok to do it however antisocial.
If you start advocating common sense and politeness round these parts your gonna lose alot of freinds.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

Poll. 

[_] Slowness.

[_] Mobile phone.

[_] On the drops.

[_] One handed.

[_] All the gear.


Tick the box which applies.


----------



## Dayvo (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Poll.
> 
> [_] Slowness.
> 
> ...



Done!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Step back indeed. I am inconvenienced every Tuesday and Thursday by motorists who get in the way of my Volvo 340 GLE Estate (Turbo) when I take ours and our neighbours kids to school. I am unable to drive at anything like the speed limit because of all the cars in my way. In fact there are so many cars in my way that I am often forced to stop completely!



As do all the cars in the traffic jam - they've not all congregated there just for the purpose of slowing you down. Annoying, but a fact of life.



mickle said:


> And it's even worse on my bike because, along the same stretch of road, they force their way past and pull in preventing me from going past them.
> 
> If we are going to talk about 'let's all get along'.



Oh, I quite believe you. There are a lot of inconsiderate people out on there, in cars, on bikes, on foot and it's very frustrating.

BUT, does this mean that we in turn should be inconsiderate? Of course not. 

I find the argument that "it's what everyone else does" a very uncompelling argument, as I have never much enjoyed being a sheep.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Poll.
> 
> [_] Slowness.
> 
> ...



[X] Mickle is a massive pedant 

Sorry bud you have asked for that, i think you should wind your neck in a bit. You've got a valid point but I think the record's stuck and needs moving on a bit?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

1566098 said:


> no let's explore the issue of hundreds of motorists cluttering up the road and slowing my progress to and from work. It is legal for them to do it but it is frightfully inconsiderate.



I know all these motorists DELIBERATELY waiting until the exact moment* I *leave the house to drive on the road!

Because I am actually THAT important that the whole world revolves solely around *me*!

(P.S. If my CPN is reading this, this is a joke, I am not having a delusion of grandeur. )


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566098 said:


> no let's explore the issue of hundreds of motorists cluttering up the road and slowing my progress to and from work. It is legal for them to do it but it is frightfully inconsiderate.



One advantage of selling the big issue is that you can do it anywhere.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Oct 2011)

Another useful thread


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> Another useful thread



Yes, surely it will end world poverty!


----------



## Origamist (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> It was there but heading towards Totnes, I gave you the coordinates before perhaps "KEN" could have given you a hand to find it, glad about the letterboxing bit, seems a childish activity, why did you not use the B3121 Erme valley route? much faster, my favourite route to Plymouth, Mother-in-law could not help you as it appears she is an Emmet.



I mentioned that very junction earlier, before you had finally given the coordinates (do keep up, TB): 



origamist said:


> What's the name/road no of the junction? Is it the A381, Green Lane junction - that has a farm at the top.



https://www.cyclechat.net/ 

I'll let others decide if they would be comfortable descending down to Totnes with cars potentially passing them in the same lane, with those bends and with that width of lane. I'd certainly be a good 3-4 feet from the hedge. Only a bit futher down, it's unbroken double white lines, so no overtaking there anyway. It's easy to see why a cyclist might have had a queue of cars behind, regardless of whether he was on the phone.

Oh, and I think you mean the A3121, not B3121 through Ermington! This rather proves my point about your navigation and direction skills, don't you think? As it happens, I did use the A3121 as well, but I preferred going through Ivybridge as I would often stop to see my gran. 

Letter boxing was good fun as a child (it teaches you how to read a map for one!), but I can't say I've done it for 20 years.

I don't know if your M-in-L is an emmet, but the more you post, the more I feel for her regardless of her Devonian heritage or not!


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.



re, 'facts' (Mickle) Where does the OP state that the drivers were pissed off - his opinion is that the behaviour of the cyclist 'just pees people off' - he is probably right. I don't know whether these drivers were 'peed off, and neither do you


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

youngoldbloke said:


> re, 'facts' (Mickle) Where does the OP state that the drivers were pissed off - his opinion is that the behaviour of the cyclist 'just pees people off' - he is probably right. I don't know whether these drivers were 'peed off, and neither do you



So why did the OP state "that sort of behaviour just pees people off"?

Why would it? It would not piss me off in the slightest.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So why did the OP state "that sort of behaviour just pees people off"?
> 
> Why would it? It would not piss me off in the slightest.



Good. one less, they all count


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So why did the OP state "that sort of behaviour just pees people off"?
> 
> Why would it? It would not piss me off in the slightest.



Because whether intentional or not, it conveys the message "You are all much less important than this text, which is probably, in all fairness, about TOWIE or some such other frippery."


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Because whether intentional or not, it conveys the message "You are all much less important than this text, which is probably, in all fairness, about TOWIE or some such other frippery."



And?

So for you it is the fact he was using a phone which is the main issue.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So why did the OP state "that sort of behaviour just pees people off"?
> 
> Why would it? It would not piss me off in the slightest.



Because being gratuitously inconvenienced by another road users sheer lack of courtesy and consideration is annoying.
You acknowledge this - your viewpoint is like a boxer not understanding why a member of the general public does not like getting thumped.


----------



## gaz (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I just dont agree with your opinion that it is ok to cycle one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on mobile phone causing a tailback of peed off motorists.


What about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and drinking from a biddon causing a tailback of peed off motorists?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> And?
> 
> So for you it is the fact he was using a phone which is the main issue.



Yes. If someone is going slow and there's nowhere to pull over, there's nothing he/she can do about it. Fair enough.

The "and" would be it's damn selfish. Where I come from that's a BAD thing.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> What about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and drinking from a biddon causing a tailback of peed off motorists?



That would depend on what a biddon is.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> The "and" would be it's damn selfish. Where I come from that's a BAD thing.



So do you get pissed off at everyone who is selfish? I don't, I accept it and move on...unless my way is blocked by slow moving cyclists.


----------



## gaz (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That would depend on what a biddon is.


Bottle of Rum
Water bottle


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> What about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and drinking from a biddon causing a tailback of peed off motorists?



I raised that question a few pages ago and it got ignored.......


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> I mentioned that very junction earlier, before you had finally given the coordinates (do keep up, TB):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you go again unable to post without making a snide comment, if you had read a map you would have found the location much quicker but you wanted to look up the location on Google Earth, and A or B road prefix it is the road through Ermington so my navigation and direction skills are fine, if you are developing feelings for my M-i-L, I should warn you that F-i-L , is still around and he is a big guy.I am not running a dating agency.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> What about cycling one handed, on the drops,slowly, and drinking from a biddon causing a tailback of peed off motorists?



Come on gaz, you know if you had caught this chap on film he'd be in an episode of silly cyclists. And your example is ok but there is almost an infinite amount of legitimate reasons why a person would be cycling slowly, with one hand and holding up traffic.

*Point is on this occasion, for this reason, the cyclist could have been more considerate.*



4F said:


> I raised that question a few pages ago and it got ignored.......



Not ignored, just not noticed, answered above


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

Poll. 

[_] Slowness.

[_] Mobile phone.

[_] On the drops.

[_] One handed.

[_] All the gear.


Tick the box which applies.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> *Point is on this occasion, for this reason, the cyclist could have been more considerate.*



He could have been. But why be so bothered by it?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> Bottle of Rum
> Water bottle



If the drinking process was likely to significantly undermine the individuals ability to concentrate on the road , his awareness of his surroundings or his control and ability on his bike then i would recommend stopping for a drink.
If the cyclist can drink without affecting his road awareness or detrimentally affecting him otherwise then i see no problem.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> So do you get pissed off at everyone who is selfish? I don't, I accept it and move on...unless my way is blocked by slow moving cyclists.



No, I don't get pissed off, but I would be within my rights to do so. Usually I just shake my head and pity them.

Life is too short and too full of morons to get angry at all of them.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> He could have been. But why be so bothered by it?



Theres no question of the degree of botheration just that selfish inconsiderate bahaviour can and does annoy/bother.
Seems noodles has finally got it.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> He could have been. But why be so bothered by it?



I don't think the majority of people on here are bothered by it (not saying everyone). In fact the people who seem to have the most bees in their bonnets are the ones who are all hot and bothered about being asked to consider other people.

I think maybe the OP even wasn't p'd off, more astounded at the breathtaking idiocy of someone going up hill, on a bike texting with a queue behind him.


----------



## Origamist (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> There you go again unable to post without making a snide comment, if you had read a map you would have found the location much quicker but you wanted to look up the location on Google Earth, and A or B road prefix it is the road through Ermington so my navigation and direction skills are fine, if you are developing feelings for my M-i-L, I should warn you that F-i-L , is still around and he is a big guy.I am not running a dating agency.



I didn't consult an OS map as I wanted to share the location with others (hence Google Maps) - that way, others could assess the road layout themselves to see if that could have had a bearing on why there was a queue behind the cyclist. I understand why the focus is on the mobile phone use, but there are other contributory factors to consider (as others have tried to point out) and I can well imagine cycling down that stretch with both hands on the hoods, but still with a queue of cars behind me. Would I be using my phone, or fiddling in a jersey pocket at that particular junction, "No" is the answer.

It's OK, my feelings towards your mother-in-law are more empathetic, than amourous. 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I have offended you - I though this was just a bit of banter, but I can see you are getting a bit het up. Apologies.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

And it makes a nice change from discussing which colour socks suit a certain bike colour best. black in my case.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Theres no question of the degree of botheration just that selfish inconsiderate bahaviour can and does annoy/bother.
> Seems noodles has finally got it.



I have got it from the start, I just cannot see why anyone gets pissed off at someone else doing something that does nothing more than slightly inconvenience them. Especially when that thing is legal - I can see the correlation between minor inconveniences which are also illegal maybe pissing someone off. Like driving and eating a packet of crisps and tipping them down your throat from the packet thereby removing your eyes from the road and swerving across the carriageway...without slowing down.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I have got it from the start, I just cannot see why anyone gets pissed off at someone else doing something that does nothing more than slightly inconvenience them. Especially when that thing is legal - I can see the correlation between minor inconveniences which are also illegal maybe pissing someone off.



Legal, schemgal.

My brother is entirely legal. He is, however, most annoying.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> I didn't consult an OS map as I wanted to share the location with others (hence Google Maps) - that way, others could assess the road layout themselves to see if that could have had a bearing on why there was a queue behind the cyclist. I understand why the focus is on the mobile phone use, but there are other contributory factors to consider (as others have tried to point out) and I can well imagine cycling down that stretch with both hands on the hoods, but still with a queue of cars behind me. Would I be using my phone, or fiddling in a jersey pocket at that particualry junction, "No" is the answer.
> 
> It's OK, my feelings towards your mother-in-law are more of empathetic, than amourous.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sorry if I have offended you - I though this was just a bit of banter, but I can see you are getting a bit het up. Apologies.


I am not het up hence my comments regarding M-i-L, but strangely some posters do drag on about something just to annoy, I understand that you were not one of those.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I think maybe the OP even wasn't p'd off, more astounded at the breathtaking idiocy of someone *going up hil*l, on a bike* texting* with a queue behind him.



You have just made that up, nowhere in the OP does it say going up a hill nor that he was texting - he was dialling according to the OP.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

I would have to stop to text as I need to wear my glasses ,can you imagine taking your eyes off the road long enough to write a message,


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You have just made that up, nowhere in the OP does it say going up a hill nor that he was texting - he was dialling according to the OP.



Because the action of pushing buttons to make numbers appear on the screen or pushing buttons to make letters appear on the screen are two different processes entirely!

The point is his thought process was the same - there wasn't one.

Can we calm down a bit please? This is an internet chatroom, not a court of law; it doesn't matter if people get things slightly wrong.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

Assuming it were legal, and just for the sake of this discussion, lets imagine a car parked at the point where our cyclist is on the road. 'Around' twenty cars are delayed as a result.

Would anyone witnessing this event consider it memorable enough to start a new thread on the subject on an internet discussion forum when they arrived home? 

Of course they wouldn't. Is there any difference in the level of 'selfishness and inconsideration' to others between our cyclists behaviour and the person who parked their car? 

My point is that we as a society have come to accept the 'rights' of cars to 'make good progress' as normal. The default. In the olden days (I'm old enough to remember them) cars used to slow down when they saw kids on or near the road. Now they dont, they expect the kids to leap out of their way.

We are at the point in our tolerance/acceptance/normalization of the motor car that old ladies try to break in to a jog to get accross zebra crossings sharpish so as to minimise the inconvenience to the cars. 

Take your car-centric blinkers off.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> I raised that question a few pages ago and it got ignored.......



Thats a real mystery that is then.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> He could have been. But why be so bothered by it?



I'm not that bothered, just sharing and agreeing with people the opinion that deliberately holding up traffic when unnecessary isnt always the best way to cycle. Its all about demonstrating a responsible and considerate cycling attitude that reasonable drivers can recognise and return the favour in kind.



Noodley said:


> I have got it from the start, I just cannot see why [drivers] get pissed off at someone else doing something that does nothing more than slightly inconvenience them. Especially when that thing is legal - I can see the correlation between minor inconveniences which are also illegal maybe pissing someone off. Like driving and eating a packet of crisps and tipping them down your throat from the packet thereby removing your eyes from the road and swerving across the carriageway...without slowing down.



I know but I have just changed 1 word as I think it makes your point better - drivers can and will get annoyed at anything that delays them and agree its OTT to react any different than just waiting on this occasion.

But it doesnt mean we (any of us) as cyclists should start to inconvience ourselves automatically for the benefit of others, but we should at least demonstrate the ability to recognise that we can make things easier for ourselves on occasion?

So far from all the answers I've read, I think only Mickle may have the ability to recognise he could make things easier but he still chooses not to.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Because the action of pushing buttons to make numbers appear on the screen or pushing buttons to make letters appear on the screen are two different processes entirely!
> 
> The point is his thought process was the same - there wasn't one.
> 
> Can we calm down a bit please? This is an internet chatroom, not a court of law; it doesn't matter if people get things slightly wrong.



Everyone is perfectly calm. We are all friends here, simply having a fun, if occasionally heated debate.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Can we calm down a bit please?



You are assuming I am not calm?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

1566132 said:


> There is no end of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour on our roads and just about everywhere else for that matter. The thing that interests me about this is the idea that this one example reflects badly on us all, when other examples of poor behaviour by other classes of road user are taken as individual behaviour in isolation.
> Does anyone have any useful insight on this one?



Well I think the problem comes from any case where you judge a massive group of people based on an individual's actions.

Being a woman and having driven in the past, I'm afraid I was also judged on others' actions. 

We all do it. It's an unhelpful element of human nature.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> You are assuming I am not calm?



Well when you said "You just made that up nowhere does the OP say....... rah de rah", I assumed that you thought it mattered.


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thats a real mystery that is then.



Yawn, I believe you were in the throws of the RLJ denial at the time


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Assuming it were legal, and just for the sake of this discussion, lets imagine a car parked at the point where our cyclist is on the road. 'Around' twenty cars are delayed as a result.
> 
> Would anyone witnessing this event consider it memorable enough to start a new thread on the subject on an internet discussion forum when they arrived home?
> 
> ...


you could start a thread on it but not on a cycle forum. Hmmm old ladies jogging, new spectator sport ?


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Everyone is perfectly calm. We are all friends here, simply having a fun, if occasionally heated debate.



OK I think we may have stumbled across something here...the assumption that because we don't agree with someone (either their actions or their veiws) that this in someway elicits a non-calm response: similar tones to the OP.

I bet the majority of those who are condemning the cyclist are from the south of England.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> OK I think we may have stumbled across something here...the assumption that because we don't agree with someone (either their actions or their veiws) that this in someway elicits a non-calm response: similar tones to the OP.
> 
> I bet the majority of those who are condemning the cyclist are from the south of England.



Sorry to buck the trend. Am a northerner - cut me in half and you will find pastry.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566132 said:


> There is no end of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour on our roads and just about everywhere else for that matter. The thing that interests me about this is the idea that this one example reflects badly on us all, when other examples of poor behaviour by other classes of road user are taken as individual behaviour in isolation.
> Does anyone have any useful insight on this one?



It contributes to a general image of cyclists.
Like the image of white van men all being thick neanderthals like the one that pulled over to have a go at mathewT.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Well when you said "You just made that up nowhere does the OP say....... rah de rah", I assumed that you thought it mattered.




No I just thought I should point out you made it up, since you had. When does the bear get included in the story..."there was a cyclist and a bear in all the gear..."


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> No I just thought I should point out you made it up, since you had. When does the bear get included in the story..."there was a cyclist and a bear in all the gear..."



I like the bear story much better.

Can we debate that instead?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> No I just thought I should point out you made it up, since you had. When does the bear get included in the story..."there was a cyclist and a bear in all the gear..."



Was it a panda or a brown bear or a black bear?


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It contributes to a general image of cyclists.
> Like the image of white van men all being thick neanderthals like the one that pulled over to have a go at mathewT.




Ah right so are you admitting it is rubbish then..a waste of time, as we know that to be a stereotype?


----------



## Panter (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I bet the majority of those who are condemning the cyclist are from the south of England.



Guilty as charged


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Was it a panda or a brown bear or a black bear?




Don't be ridiculous, when did you ever see a brown bear on a bike, or a black bear come to think of it. Unless they we wearing hi-viz.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Don't be ridiculous, when did you ever see a brown bear on a bike, or a black bear come to think of it. Unless they we wearing hi-viz.



You're right. Those ninja bear cyclists.

DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> So far from all the answers I've read, I think only Mickle may have the ability to recognise he could make things easier but he still chooses not to.



I'll let you in on a secret. I do pull over to the side of the road to let people past if necessary, show courtesy and ride within the law. I'm just interested in exploring perceptions. 

I think we are, as a nation, anti-cyclist. _And that includes many cyclists._

In forum after forum we grumble on about RLJers, people riding without lights etc. As if their behaviour reflects on us. It doesn't. The clue to the longevity of this thread is the title.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> Guilty as charged



I am taking you as representing the 'majority' and therefore proclaim; "see, I told you!"


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Yawn, I believe you were in the throws of the RLJ denial at the time



I see, at least that explains the mystery but shame your brilliantly insightful question went ignored.


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

As quite a few people in China ride bikes , the Panda should be pretty good. as long as it doesn't wear Lycra


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> As quite a few people in China ride bikes , the Panda should be pretty good. as long as it doesn't wear Lycra



I dunno, those sexy pandas and their sexy bib shorts...


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Don't be ridiculous, when did you ever see a brown bear on a bike, or a black bear come to think of it. Unless they we wearing hi-viz.



Here you go, seen on my commute last week


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Assuming it were legal, and just for the sake of this discussion, lets imagine a car parked at the point where our cyclist is on the road. 'Around' twenty cars are delayed as a result.
> 
> Would anyone witnessing this event consider it memorable enough to start a new thread on the subject on an internet discussion forum when they arrived home?
> 
> ...



Good point well made and no one here will drive (or cycle!) like that I hope! 

That said I agree that a minority of drivers hold that view you've described, and controversially I have to dip my toe in the water of arguing the cyclist should have not moved as it would only reinforce the views of the minority (kings of the road). 

No one has car centric blinkers on, we're just finding some middle ground.....


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Ah right so are you admitting it is rubbish then..a waste of time, as we know that to be a stereotype?



But our perp in the op was behaving improperly . He was contributing to a negative stereotype of cyclists - be that stereotype right or wrong.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Here you go, seen on my commute last week



Phwoar!


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

1566158 said:


> So where is the forum of white van drivers bemoaning a white van man dragging their good name through the mud?
> When did you ever hear of the BMW driver complaining about another one tailgating and flashing the lights in the 3rd lane if the motorway?
> It doesn't happen, so why do cyclists do it?



BMW drivers all drive like that and White van men are to busy reading the Sun and whistling at women, at least if they are all like the one of each I saw anyway.


----------



## Dayvo (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> As quite a few people in China ride bikes , the Panda should be pretty good. as long as it doesn't wear Lycra




If they were properly trained to resist, they could have had clothing made from bamboo to wear on their daily rides. 

Alas, no trainer has succeeded.


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I see, at least that explains the mystery but shame your brilliantly insightful question went ignored.



The question still remains though, what difference if they had slowed to drink from their bidon, look at their watch etc.

The main bug bear seems to be because he was holding a phone allegedly using it to dial.


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

Group hug?


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> Here you go, seen on my commute last week





A bear in a bikini, now that is gonna distract drivers...


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

Glasgow handshake ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Group hug?


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> The main bug bear seems to be because he was holding a phone allegedly using it to dial.




It was not a bug bear, it was a brown bear in a bikini holding the phone


----------



## twobiker (6 Oct 2011)

Dayvo said:


> If they were properly trained to resist, they could have had clothing made from bamboo to wear on their daily rides.
> 
> Alas, no trainer has succeeded.



Which do you think would be the better cyclist?. A Polar bear on the Tour De France would be awesome.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> Which do you think would be the better cyclist?. A Polar bear on the Tour De France would be awesome.



I think it would be very inconsiderate of him cycling along with his paw over his nose though...


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

4F said:


> The question still remains though, what difference if they had slowed to drink from their bidon, look at their watch etc.
> 
> The main bug bear seems to be because he was holding a phone allegedly using it to dial.



Then my answer is........ no difference to how the drivers should react (they should accept the delay and wait) but the cyclist should pull over for phone calls/mobile betting/TOWIE twitter/whatever.



mickle said:


> Group hug?



Yup


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> It was not a bug bear, it was a brown bear in a bikini holding the phone




Are you back at work next week, you feckless, northern git?

Yours sincerely, (a contented south-eastener)


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566158 said:


> So where is the forum of white van drivers bemoaning a white van man dragging their good name through the mud?
> When did you ever hear of the BMW driver complaining about another one tailgating and flashing the lights in the 3rd lane if the motorway?
> It doesn't happen, so why do cyclists do it?



One critical consideration is the vulnerability of cyclists.
Bmw drivers presumably coudnt care if everyone hates them cos there protected driving round in there tanks.
If theres a negative feeling towards cyclists in general then we are all vulnerable and potentially at increased risk .


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> One critical consideration is the vulnerability of cyclists.
> Bmw drivers presumably coudnt care if everyone hates them cos there protected driving round in there tanks.
> If theres a negative feeling towards cyclists in general then we are all vulnerable and potentially at increased risk .



Hey, I don't know if you got the memo, but we're having a breakout hugging sesh right now..


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Hey, I don't know if you got the memo, but we're having a breakout hugging sesh right now..



OOOh can i have one with you.


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Hey, I don't know if you got the memo, but we're having a breakout hugging sesh right now..




I may have been inadvertently rude to our honourable scottish member, for which I apologise unreservedly.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> I may have been inadvertently rude to our honourable scottish member, for which I apologise unreservedly.




Who's he?


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Group hug? You bunch of soft southern jessies!


----------



## Panter (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I am taking you as representing the 'majority' and therefore proclaim; "see, I told you!"



I guess so. I _assume_ from your post that you're _assuming_ that people in the South of England are _generally_ more impatient and stressed than those 'up North?
If so, then I agree, generally.

I like the North, I like the people, they just seem, I don't know, nicer.

Anyway, if I'd been a driver held up by the OP's cyclist then, yes, I would've been pissed off. More due to the "sod 'em" attitude that appears to have been portrayed.
As to what I'd have done about it? nothing. I wouldn't have tooted, certainly wouldn't have carried out a close pass, just muttered under my breath and accepted his right to be there.
The relevance? none really.

When I'm driving I admit that cyclists do regularly piss me off, the number that thank me for giving way is probably, on average, less than 1 in 50. Not that they _have_ to offer thanks of course, but it's something that a higher proportion of drivers seem to be able to manage out of courtesy.
I also get pissed off by the majority that RLJ (where I live,) the small, but dangerous number who ride along the footpaths at night with no lighting then hop off the kerb in front of me, and the number that ride two abreast along the road chatting away when it wouldn't hurt to drop back in for a few seconds to allow me to pass. Not that they _have_ to of course, and I fully respect their right not to, but then I am a cyclist.

When on the bike I'll hold my line if it's safer, but will pull over and let cars past if on a narrow road and it's convenient for me to do so. When riding two abreast, chatting to a mate, I'll drop back if there's traffic behind, still waffling, then resume my position when the road's clear. It's no biggy and smooths the way for everybody.

Anyway, I'll shut up now as I've no idea where I'm going with this, much like this thread really!

Peace and love to all


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Who's he?






Noodley said:


> Group hug? You bunch of soft southern jessies!




Him^^^^^!!!!!!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Group hug? You bunch of soft southern jessies!



If they were all hard and brittle, the hug wouldn't be as nice.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> Him^^^^^!!!!!!




Ah, I see. When people say northerner, I assume they mean north of England. I once called my Glaswegian housemate a northerner and she went a bit mental as she found it offensive.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> Anyway, I'll shut up now as I've no idea where I'm going with this, much like this thread really!




I'm trying to get this thread to 500 posts, I thought that was why everyone was replying?


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> I guess so. I _assume_ from your post that you're _assuming_ that people in the South of England are _generally_ more impatient and stressed than those 'up North?
> If so, then I agree, generally.
> 
> I like the North, I like the people, they just seem, I don't know, nicer.
> ...



Hey it might be grim up north but we're nicer 

Snipped the rest of it, seems to be common sense driving/cycling that you've got and no different to the rest of us


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Ah, I see. When people say northerner, I assume they mean north of England.



Small-minded? The English? Surely not...


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I'm trying to get this thread to 500 posts, I thought that was why everyone was replying?



I think we're all just a little disspointed we've mostly agreed whats right here, a couple of the more militant amongst us may have the 'stand firm and hold the line' attitude but we can all see no driver should ever get annoyed at delays*










*Except if someone is cycling slowly with one hand whilst holding a phone!


----------



## Bicycle (6 Oct 2011)

twobiker said:


> I was driving back home yesterday from picking up the eldest from Saturday job and saw a guy on a nice road bike, all the gear on ,he was riding one handed, on the drops,slowly, and dialing on his mobile phone ,behind him he had a queue of about 20 cars, that sort of behaviour just pees people off, why not just stop and make the call ?.




This is poor behaviour, whether illegal or not.

Dialling on a hand-held device while cycling in front of a long queue of traffic shows discourtesy.

Even if he hadn't slowed down to use the hand-held device, he may have given the impression that he had.

The OP is right to question this. We all have to share the roads.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> We all have to share the roads.



With the bears.

And pissed off southern English drivers.


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Small-minded? The English? Surely not...



I blame the Italians for not building the wall taller, how very inconsiderate of them.


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

1566191 said:


> This is essentially paranoid bollocks. Apologies if this dampens the group hug vibe.



I dont think its that paranoid, and its certainly not bollocks! How many of us have been shouted at to 'move over' or 'stay in the cycle lane', theres definitely a negative feeling towards cyclists at times.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> I dont think its that paranoid, and its certainly not bollocks! *How many of us have been shouted at to 'move over' or 'stay in the cycle lane',* theres definitely a negative feeling towards cyclists at times.



I get less shouts from drivers as I hear car horns beeping at other cars and drivers shouting at other drivers to hurry up, move over etc.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> I dont think its that paranoid, and its certainly not bollocks! How many of us have been shouted at to 'move over' or 'stay in the cycle lane', theres definitely a negative feeling towards cyclists at times.




There is, from knobs who know feck all. Nothing to do with me being a cyclist, everything to do with them being knobs.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Small-minded? The English? Surely not...



No, I called my Glaswegian housemate northern once and she went mental saying "I am a southerner! I am from Glasgow! Iam Scottish _NOT _British!"

Not making that mistake again!


----------



## apollo179 (6 Oct 2011)

1566191 said:


> This is essentially paranoid bollocks. Apologies if this dampens the group hug vibe.



Isnt paranoid bolocks when the england football team stand in front of a free kick are protecting their crown jewels for dear life.
Not cyclists vulnerability on the road.


----------



## Dayvo (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> No, I called my Glaswegian housemate northern once and she went mental saying "I am a southerner! I am from Glasgow! Iam Scottish _NOT _British!"
> 
> Not making that mistake again!




My sister used to live in Scotland and I used to send her postcards addressed 

Scotland
c/o England

She said the postman was REALLY pissed off!

Glad it worked!  

Anyway, don't worry about Noods: he's still upset about the rugby!  It'll pass, until the 6-Nations starts up again.


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Dayvo said:


> It'll pass.



Unlike the England rugby team...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Unlike the England rugby team...



Or the Welsh Football team *sigh*


----------



## wiggydiggy (6 Oct 2011)

1566200 said:


> Of course there are negative feelings toward cyclists but apologizing for our existence is not going to make that any better. The solution is for those people to learn some respect, as the modern vernacular has it.



Of course it wont, so I haven't


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Or the Welsh Football team *sigh*



Ahem...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

keyser soze said:


> Ahem...



Hullo!


----------



## Panter (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> I'm trying to get this thread to 500 posts, I thought that was why everyone was replying?



Sorry, my mistake!
Anyway, it's turned really cold today down here, first taste of Autumn




I had a nice ride home last night, I bought the MTB in and although it destroyed my legs (32mile round trip on sticky, nobbly tyres) it did mean I could take in a few miles of the North Downs way on the return journey. Made a nice change, even if riding up Hollingbourne hill nearly broke me!


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> Sorry, my mistake!
> Anyway, it's turned really cold today down here, first taste of Autumn
> 
> 
> ...



On a MTB on the road? Inconsiderate swine, don't you know that those knobbly tyres are not designed to go fast?
Think how many people you'll have pissed off!


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Hullo!



Do I sense more Welsh people in the midst?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

keyser soze said:


> Do I sense more Welsh people in the midst?



Not Welsh, but I was brought up in Wales.


----------



## Panter (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> On a MTB on the road? Inconsiderate swine, don't you know that those knobbly tyres are not designed to go fast?
> Think how many people you'll have pissed off!



Sod 'em


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Oct 2011)

Panter said:


> Anyway, it's turned really cold today down here, first taste of Autumn



I heard Scotland got its first snow of the year today 

Bit late this year


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Not Welsh, but I was brought up in Wales.



Ahh cool.. Shwmae


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

keyser soze said:


> Do I sense more Welsh people in the midst?



Is "Hullo" a traditional Welsh greeting?


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Is "Hullo" a traditional Welsh greeting?



You are really scraping the barrel now to get to 500 posts......


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

keyser soze said:


> Ahh cool.. Shwmae




Ah dwi'n siarad Cymraeg Ngoggledd (Sut mae?) Dwin'n da iawn ond dwi'n wedi blinon lan, a ti?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Is "Hullo" a traditional Welsh greeting?



No, Hylo is though


----------



## asterix (6 Oct 2011)

Pronounced 'Hullo'?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

asterix said:


> Pronounced 'Hullo'?



Yup!But I was just saying hullo in the same voice is Arthur Lowe when he did the Mr Men, because it makes me happy.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Oct 2011)




----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


>



Yes please!


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Ah dwi'n siarad Cymraeg Ngoggledd (Sut mae?) Dwin'n da iawn ond dwi'n wedi blinon lan, a ti?



You speak better than me there lol.. Northerners do I guess haha.. Pen y bont...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

keyser soze said:


> You speak better than me there lol.. Northerners do I guess haha.. Pen y bont...




Bridge head?


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

Bridgend lol


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2011)

499


----------



## keyser soze (6 Oct 2011)

Close..


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> 499



To quote Rick Flair - Woo!


----------



## Noodley (6 Oct 2011)

Well done everyone


----------



## HLaB (6 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Well done everyone



Pipe down or you'll get somebody a Bad Name


----------



## mickle (6 Oct 2011)

Woop.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2011)

HLaB said:


> Pipe down or you'll get somebody a Bad Name



Only if they play their part, and you play their game, I think.


----------

