# Doubling Up On Road



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?

Seen a lot of group cycling going on and they seem to ride in pairs. Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey). 

It's like overtaking a coach in length, but one with the stability of string, as every now and then one will dodge a pot whole and jut out without looking behind first etc. 

Wondering what the correct way to go about this would be as I'll be cycling to work soon and a few people have the same route and I wouldn't mind a natter on the way to work but not if it's against the law (or unsafe). 

Thanks for your help.


----------



## gaz (23 Oct 2011)

Of course, they aren't taking up any more space than any other vehicle on the road.


----------



## ianrauk (23 Oct 2011)

The highway code states that when overtaking a cyclists a car should give the same amount of space as if overtaking another car. So cycling 2 abreast should be no problem. Of course motons don't see it that way.


----------



## HLaB (23 Oct 2011)

Its perfectly legal and as well as being sociable in some places it can be of benefit to appear as a larger block and make the overtaker think and is more safe. It also allows for more efficient travel so drivers come across faster groups which holds them up less.


----------



## montyboy (23 Oct 2011)

Accident waiting to happen I'd say.


----------



## jig-sore (23 Oct 2011)

high way code clearly states that you should not ride *more* than two abreast, but most car drivers wrongly believe that it states you should not ride two abreast.

yes, its perfectly legal


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?



Are you allowed to drive round side by side with an empty seat? Disgraceful!

Worrying though that you are driving round without knowing your Highway Code.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Oct 2011)

I'll take the ''I'll be driving to work soon'' quote at face value and assume that the OP is building up counter-arguments against his or his colleague's mithering.


----------



## Bicycle (23 Oct 2011)

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that _'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a _car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car. 

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In the lanes around my picturesque market town, passing a single bicycle is fraught with difficulty. I know. I train regularly on those lanes; so do my two younger children, who still live at home.

Passing two cycles abreast is a practical impossibility unless they go in line astern.

I ride 2-abreast with my children along the lanes, but as soon as we hear a car we slip into line. It's a common courtesy.

On most roads, I would not even consider riding two-abreast. 

"Because the HC says I can" just seems the weak justification of the kind of cyclist who refers to motorists as 'motons'.

But I'm lucky. In 40 years cycling and 30 years driving, I've never had a cross word with another motorist or cyclist. Maybe if I'd been unfortunate enough to elicit quite unjustified insults from other road users, I'd be more inclined to hang with my grimy fingertips onto the hallowed word of the HC. I don't know.


----------



## montyboy (23 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.
> 
> It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.
> 
> ...



Well said that man!


----------



## ianrauk (23 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.
> 
> It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.
> 
> ...



Nor would I. It's plain common sense and simple road craft. Where the road allows 2 abreast then it should not be a problem for anybody.
Sensible car drivers also understand this and the majority are very good, wait until there is a space to over take safely or wait until the cyclists single file. Moton's do neither.


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.
> 
> It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.
> 
> ...



In my experience cyclist riding two abreast take little more width than a single cyclist if the single cyclist is riding where they should be on the road. There is no need to for the nearside cyclist to ride as far out as they would on their own to control the traffic. So pass cyclists riding two abreast with the same clearance from the off-side cyclist as you would if they were on their own. Simples.


----------



## Hip Priest (23 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?
> 
> That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.



You should give the same clearance when passing a cyclist as you would for a car. Not pretend a cyclist is a car. As bikes are narrower than cars, you wouldn't need to move as far to the right as you would for a car.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (23 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> You should give the same clearance when passing a cyclist as you would for a car. Not pretend a cyclist is a car. As bikes are narrower than cars, you wouldn't need to move as far to the right as you would for a car.



You are misquoting what the highway code says. Is that to try to give some apparent validity to your erroneous point? HC rule 163 says: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That means, if you would give a car 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you pass it, then you should give a cyclist 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you you pass.


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 Oct 2011)

S'funny you know, motorists have little problem being patient and giving a very wide berth to horses ....


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.
> 
> It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.
> 
> ...



That's what I sort of thought. 

Though clearly it is law and okay, so that answers my questions then. I'll keep sitting behind them until I can get in the other lane okay then.  

Sorry to the others if I got your back up. It was a genuine question, but clearly as a car driver (if you see my other threads I'm actually after advice on bikes, but thought I'd ask some other stuff while I'm here).


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> S'funny you know, motorists have little problem being patient and giving a very wide berth to horses ....



You're right there. But I give a wide berth and generally try not to rev when overtaking them in case they pull some wild west stut and jump on the car lol 

Unless it's Danny McKaskill (spelling?!) I couldn't see it happening with a biker.


----------



## Hip Priest (23 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You are misquoting what the highway code says. Is that to try to give some apparent validity to your erroneous point?



Erm no. 



MrHappyCyclist said:


> HC rule 163 says: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That means, if you would give a car 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you pass it, then you should give a cyclist 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you you pass.



Exactly. If you give a car and a cyclist 9 feet of clearance, you'll be further over for the car than the bike, simply because the right hand side of a car is going to be further over to the right than that of a bike.


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

You seem to be making the same points to me there. I get it though. 

If it's okay to double up then that's sound. And if making a bigger appearance saves lives when grouping up, that's more than just sound, that's probably saving a few lives there a year. 

So you've all answered my question. In a car I'll just hang back more now. And on a bike I'll try to tail a couple of people. 







YES! been looking for the smiley thing and just clocked it. Wanted a thumbs up one earlier. haha


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (24 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Exactly. If you give a car and a cyclist 9 feet of clearance, you'll be further over for the car than the bike, simply because the right hand side of a car is going to be further over to the right than that of a bike.


The point is that it doesn't say "clearance", it says "room". There is also a picture to show what the interpretation should be.

If the cyclist's wheel is 3 feet from the kerb then, allowing for the width of the bicycle, giving them 9 feet of room means giving them about 5 feet of clearance. When passing a 6 foot wide car whose nearside is 2 feet from the kerb, giving the same amount of room would actually mean giving them just 1 foot of clearance. In both cases, the overtaking vehicle's nearside would be the same 9 feet away from the kerb.


----------



## Mad at urage (24 Oct 2011)

Back in the olden days when courtesy was expected in order to pass a car test, we were taught that the amount of room to give a cyclist was enough room to fall over.

Because they just might hit that pothole you've not noticed and fall over.

In case the hard of thinking haven't got it yet ... the amount of room taken up by a falling cyclist is one lane width. 

I am courteous to courteous drivers but I require a lane's width when being overtaken; as it says in the HC, the same amount of room, on the road, that you'd give a car.

Yes, when I'm driving a car I give cyclists their own lane.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> The point is that it doesn't say "clearance", it says "room". There is also a picture to show what the interpretation should be.
> 
> If the cyclist's wheel is 3 feet from the kerb then, allowing for the width of the bicycle, giving them 9 feet of room means giving them about 5 feet of clearance. When passing a 6 foot wide car whose nearside is 2 feet from the kerb, giving the same amount of room would actually mean giving them just 1 foot of clearance. In both cases, the overtaking vehicle's nearside would be the same 9 feet away from the kerb.



Ah, I see. Why didn't you post that clarification earlier? Would've been more helpful than accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting the HC to make an 'erroneous point'.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?
> 
> Seen a lot of group cycling going on and they seem to ride in pairs. Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey).
> 
> ...





Would you prefer them to be riding in single file and now be 2 coach lengths long?


----------



## steve52 (24 Oct 2011)

lets learn from the netherlands and change our perspective towards cyclist and peds (better inclued electric vehical users to)


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (24 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Ah, I see. Why didn't you post that clarification earlier? Would've been more helpful than accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting the HC to make an 'erroneous point'.


Ah, yes, it would have helped if I had highlighted the word that you were misquoting. I'll try to do that if the occasion arises again.


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Would you prefer them to be riding in single file and now be 2 coach lengths long?



I don't actually have a preference.


----------



## screenman (25 Oct 2011)

Lets us also remember that on windy days like we are having now the cyclist has very limited hearing from cars behind, so although you may see them the chances may well be that they have not heard you and do not know you are there. When approaching a group I will give just a small inoffensive toot on the horn to let them know I am there, I certainly know I appreciate it if a driver does so for me. 

By the way I drive 30,000miles pa, motorbike 10,000 and cycle 7,000 so I come from all angles on this one as do most.


----------



## the snail (25 Oct 2011)




----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends




Oh FFS, which part of ''when it's safe to do so'' is so ****ing hard to understand?


Is the Highway Code no longer a requirement in the process of obtaining a driving licence? Or are you just unable to read?


----------



## PK99 (25 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You are misquoting what the highway code says. Is that to try to give some apparent validity to your erroneous point? HC rule 163 says: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". *That means, if you would give a car 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you pass it, then you should give a cyclist 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you you pass.*




No, it means leave the same space between the car and vehicle it is passing


----------



## the snail (25 Oct 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> S'funny you know, motorists have little problem being patient and giving a very wide berth to horses ....



apart from the BT van on a club run recently. We slowed down to pass a horse rider on a bend. I put my hand up to warn WVM behind me, then BEEEEEEEEEP on the horn, the rider was nearly thrown from her horse.


----------



## the snail (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Oh FFS, which part of ''when it's safe to do so'' is so ****ing hard to understand?
> 
> 
> Is the Highway Code no longer a requirement in the process of obtaining a driving licence? Or are you just unable to read?



I think it's you who needs to read the HC:



> never ride more than two abreast, and _*ride in single file*_ on narrow or busy roads and _*when riding round bends*_


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

the snail said:


> I think it's you who needs to read the HC:




Don't be ridiculous. Overtaking around blind corners is what we are talking about. Regardless of what the traffic ahead of you is doing, standing on it's head for all I care, the onus of a safe overtake is on the vehicle doing the overtaking. The overriding principle being that you only overtake IF it's safe to do so. End of. 


Edit: as for riding doubled up, I agree it can be dangerous in certain situations, and impolite in others. That was not my comment. My comment, as highlighted by the included quote, pertained to the OP's apparent desire to overtake whatever it takes.


----------



## Mad at urage (25 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> No, it means leave the same space between the car and vehicle it is passing


No, it doesn't. As already posted, it says "at least as much room as you would a car" and not "allow the same space between you as you would a car".
The snail has already posted the pretty picture if you have trouble comprehending the written word.


the snail said:


>


And the rest of it, here : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314
Also

Road users requiring extra care (204-225)
which includes 
"*213*Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."


----------



## snorri (25 Oct 2011)

The fact that this topic is even being discussed on here proves that the Highway Code is failing to get the message over in a manner that all road users can understand.  
I hope we will all be appealing for a rewording the next time the HC comes up for revision. 

(Just as many of us did the last time  )


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> No, it means leave the same space between the car and vehicle it is passing


No, it really doesn't. Try looking at the picture that is provided to make this crystal clear to anyone. (I won't show it again as it's already in two posts in this topic.)


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> I don't actually have a preference.


if it's an organised group ride then the ride leader should consider what's safest for the other cyclists, and not bother overmuch about holding up traffic. Single out if necessary when it's safe for motor vehicles to overtake, but double up when it's not. It pays to have someone at the back with a bit of oomph - capable of holding back the traffic.

The general rule is two abreast. Group rides are generally conversational.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if it's an organised group ride then the ride leader should consider what's safest for the other cyclists, and not bother overmuch about holding up traffic. Single out if necessary when it's safe for motor vehicles to overtake, but double up when it's not. It pays to have someone at the back with a bit of oomph - capable of holding back the traffic.
> 
> *The general rule is two abreast. Group rides are generally conversational.*



Here is a perfect example of the kind of selfish attitude that causes cyclists to get a bad rep.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> No, it really doesn't. Try looking at the picture that is provided to make this crystal clear to anyone. (I won't show it again as it's already in two posts in this topic.)



The picture is clear in my mind.

Replace the bicycle with a car and the passing car would be far too close to the passed car.

Therefore, the "room", "space" (whatever the HC says, cant be bothered to look it up) must mean space, gap.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Here is a perfect example of the kind of selfish attitude that causes cyclists to get a bad rep.


Yes, selfish cyclists for considering their safety over others convenience. Shame on you!


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> The point is that it doesn't say "clearance", it says "room".



a definition of "room"

*1.* *space *or extent, esp unoccupied or unobstructed space for a particular purpose _*is there room to pass?*_*2.* (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Architecture) an area within a building enclosed by a floor, a ceiling, and walls or partitions*3.* _(functioning as singular or plural)_ the people present in a room the whole room was laughing*4.* _(foll by for)_ opportunity or scope room for manoeuvre*5.* _(plural)_ a part of a house, hotel, etc. that is rented out as separate accommodation; lodgings she got rooms quite easily in Dulwich Road*6.* a euphemistic word for lavatory [1]


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> Yes, selfish cyclists for considering their safety over others convenience. Shame on you!



So is cycling 2 abreast safer than riding single file ?
Isnt is cyclists putting chatting to each other over others convenience ?


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> So is cycling 2 abreast safer than riding single file ?


If it deters dangerous overtakes, yes


----------



## adscrim (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> So is cycling 2 abreast safer than riding single file ?



Yes, the group I cycle with tends to double up. It deters motorists trying to squeeze past and also shorten the distance required to pass. We single out when the road requires it.



freecyclist said:


> Isnt is cyclists putting chatting to each other over others convenience ?




No


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> If it deters dangerous overtakes, yes



Isnt it up to motorists to decide if its safe for them to overtake ?


----------



## User169 (25 Oct 2011)

Not legal in Belgium, apparently.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> Yes, the group I cycle with tends to double up. It deters motorists trying to squeeze past and also shorten the distance required to pass. We single out when the road requires it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When does the road require you to single out ?


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Not legal in Belgium, apparently.



Sensible. 
Cyclists riding single file - seen to be fitting in with other traffic and everybody fitting in with everyone else as best they can. 
Not the cycling militancy that prevails on this forum - were cyclists and we'll do what we want and f anyone else.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Isnt it up to motorists to decide if its safe for them to overtake ?


Given that the vehicle ahead (i.e. the cyclist) has a better view of oncoming traffic and very likely a better sense of his own speed, I cannot think of any reason this decision would be better made by the motorist instead. Can you?


----------



## User169 (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sensible.
> Cyclists riding single file - seen to be fitting in with other traffic and everybody fitting in with everyone else as best they can.
> Not the cycling militancy that prevails on this forum - *were cyclists and we'll do what we want and f anyone else*.



? Not sure I really see that very much at all on this forum.


----------



## adscrim (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> When does the road require you to single out ?



We single out on narrow/back road to allow other faster traffic through. Where is the inconvenience in cyclists riding two abreast?


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> No, it means leave the same space between the car and vehicle it is passing






MrHappyCyclist said:


> No, it really doesn't. Try looking at the picture that is provided to make this crystal clear to anyone. (I won't show it again as it's already in two posts in this topic.)






400bhp said:


> The picture is clear in my mind.
> 
> Replace the bicycle with a car and the passing car would be far too close to the passed car.
> 
> Therefore, the "room", "space" (whatever the HC says, cant be bothered to look it up) must mean space, gap.



I am currently involved in a protracted correspondence with the Driving Standards Agency (an executive agency of the Department for Transport) about this very question. When I have collated all of the information, I will post it up. However, it will take a while...


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> Given that the vehicle ahead (i.e. the cyclist) has a better view of oncoming traffic and very likely a better sense of his own speed, I cannot think of any reason this decision would be better made by the motorist instead. Can you?



Yes . The motorist has a better understanding of what his car has the capacity to do than a cyclist in front.


----------



## Origamist (25 Oct 2011)

Depending on the size of the group of cyclists and the road/traffic conditions, sometimes it's better to ride two abreast, other times it's better to move into single file.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> We single out on narrow/back road to allow other faster traffic through. Where is the inconvenience in cyclists riding two abreast?



Ok you ride single file on narrow/ back roads to allow faster taffic through. Thats good.
How do you ride on a single carrageway road that dosnt qualify in your understanding as a narrow/back road ?


----------



## adscrim (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes . The motorist has a better understanding of what his car has the capacity to do than a cyclist in front.




In all instances, the best course of action is to wait until is it safe to pass. If that means sitting behind cyclist riding two abreast then so be it. When you're driving, do you immediately pull over when a car travelling faster than you approaches from the rear?


----------



## snorri (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> The motorist has a better understanding of what his car has the capacity to do than a cyclist in front.



You have more faith in the "understanding" of the average driver than many cyclists do.

Assertive positioning by the cyclists assists the dithering driver in making a clear decision to overtake or not, to the benefit of all road users .


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> In all instances, the best course of action is to wait until is it safe to pass. If that means sitting behind cyclist riding two abreast then so be it. When you're driving, do you immediately pull over when a car travelling faster than you approaches from the rear?



When your driving you let the car behind you overtake you when he decides. You dont take it upon yourself to decide for him by deliberately blocking him.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes . The motorist has a better understanding of what his car has the capacity to do than a cyclist in front.


They go along roads and around corners and are probably capable of speeds in excess of any legal limit in the UK. Some of the less capable models have "indicator" lights at each corner which are used to signal the drivers intentions to other road users. They go better on tarmac than on ice or grass. They don't go up kerbs or over bollards very easily.


Unless you're driving a car with a magic teleport button or a local gravitational field manipulator, it is unlikely that it has much capacity to do anything in any way relevant to overtaking safely that I as a cyclist don't have a pretty good working understanding of already. But it's a nice thought


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> Replace the bicycle with a car and the passing car would be far too close to the passed car.







Yes, it is a bit close, but I've seen many a driver passing this close to a cyclist, let alone another car. OK, it's not quite as much room as they would (or rather should) give a car, but it's near enough.

On the other hand, if the driver passed a car with the same amount of clearance as the one in the picture is giving the cyclist, they would be at least half on the grass verge and may well have collided with the lamp post. Now that is patently absurd.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Not the cycling militancy that prevails on this forum - were cyclists and we'll do what we want and f anyone else.



See the quotation in my signature bar.


----------



## Moss (25 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> I am currently involved in a protracted correspondence with the Driving Standards Agency (an executive agency of the Department for Transport) about this very question. When I have collated all of the information, I will post it up. However, it will take a while...



Must say I've enjoyed reading this thread; and I'm looking forward to reading the information you receive from the D.S.A and D.O.T.

The old Highway Code Book stated, that when overtaking a cyclist, you should give them a distance of 6, to 8, feet while passing. Also stated that cyclists could ride two abreast on all A roads.	Personally, I think some courtesy and a well mannered attitude, shown by motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, is the only true option for the safety of all road users.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> You have more faith in the "understanding" of the average driver than many cyclists do.



Yes. When you have cyclists deciding when they think its ok to let motorists pass then you dont have to be a brain surgeon to see that some cyclists arnt going to be overly concerned about prioritising the interests of motorist and that this is inevitably going to antagonise motorists. Its a judgement call - some cyclists will judge it correctly and some will be selfish .
Even those who judge it correctly will still probably provoke the anger of motorists , unjustifiably , just because riding 2 abreast is viewed as selfish even when it is justified.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> a definition of "room"
> 
> *1.* *space *or extent, esp unoccupied or unobstructed space for a particular purpose _*is there room to pass?*_



Or, in this case, "is there room for the cyclist to come off their bike without you hitting them?"


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> They go along roads and around corners and are probably capable of speeds in excess of any legal limit in the UK. Some of the less capable models have "indicator" lights at each corner which are used to signal the drivers intentions to other road users. They go better on tarmac than on ice or grass. They don't go up kerbs or over bollards very easily.
> 
> 
> Unless you're driving a car with a magic teleport button or a local gravitational field manipulator, it is unlikely that it has much capacity to do anything in any way relevant to overtaking safely that I as a cyclist don't have a pretty good working understanding of already. But it's a nice thought



Maybe. 
Depends strongly on the cyclists being attentive to the needs of following traffic.
There will be those that will be good and those that will be bad.
The perception will allways however be that its selfish cyclists holding the traffic up riding 2 abreast even if it is legitimate.


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> some cyclists arnt going to be overly concerned about *prioritising* the interests of motorist and that this is inevitably going to antagonise motorists.




Really? Should I really prioritise a driver's ability to save a few seconds, which he'll likely give up with interest at the next traffic snarl-up, over my safety? Really??

I am a motorist, and a rider ahead taking a defensive position never antagonises me. Never antagonised me when I wasn't a cyclist either.

You can't put an equals sign between convenience and safety, which is why the HC has special provisions for vulnerable road users. Not all road users are equal, vulnerable ones have more rights. It's really very simple.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Really? Should I really prioritise a driver's ability to save a few seconds, which he'll likely give up with interest at the next traffic snarl-up, over my safety? Really??
> 
> I am a motorist, and a rider ahead taking a defensive position never antagonises me. Never antagonised me when I wasn't a cyclist either.
> 
> You can't put an equals sign between convenience and safety, which is why the HC has special provisions for vulnerable road users. Not all road users are equal, vulnerable ones have more rights. It's really very simple.



You can have more than one priority.
Obviously there own safety should be a cyclists priority. 
But so should the interests of other traffic be a priority. Like if you are holding up traffic with no likelyhood of there being anywhere safe for them to overtake for a long while you could pull over and let them pass. If you dont prioritise other people then you wont.


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> You can have more than one priority.
> Obviously there own safety should be a cyclists priority.
> But so should the interests of other traffic be a priority. Like if you are holding up traffic with no likelyhood of there being anywhere safe for them to overtake for a long while you could pull over and let them pass. If you dont prioritise other people then you wont.




That's common road courtesy, and I am sure you won't find many on here who would hold up traffic in the way you describe.

On the other hand, in pinch points where I've had a car try to force me off the road because he misjudged my speed, or his speed, or wasn't aware, or something distracted him; there I will assume a defensive position, and make it hard for him to overtake, for my safety. This is why people double up on club rides, it makes dodgy overtakes less likely. Ability to hold a pleasant conversation is a happy by-product.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Here is a perfect example of the kind of selfish attitude that causes cyclists to get a bad rep.


I'll live with that. We're on the road, riding sensibly and, possibly defensively. If you can't get past - wait.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> That's common road courtesy, and I am sure you won't find many on here who would hold up traffic in the way you describe.
> 
> On the other hand, in pinch points where I've had a car try to force me off the road because he misjudged my speed, or his speed, or wasn't aware, or something distracted him; there I will assume a defensive position, and make it hard for him to overtake, for my safety. This is why people double up on club rides, it makes dodgy overtakes less likely. Ability to hold a pleasant conversation is a happy by-product.



Yes maybe.
I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.
And theres allways the perception issue - its allways going to be perceived as selfish cyclists holding up mr motorist but you will rightly counter who cares about perception.
Its not as clear cut issue as it seems to most cyclists. Personally id be happy to give up the right to cycle 2 abreast if it meant cycling being more favourably regarded by society as a whole.


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes maybe.
> I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.
> And theres allways the perception issue - its allways going to be perceived as selfish cyclists holding up mr motorist but you will rightly counter who cares about perception.
> Its not as clear cut issue as it seems to most cyclists. Personally id be happy to give up the right to cycle 2 abreast if it meant cycling being more favourably regarded by society as a whole.




Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.

I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.
> 
> I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.




No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs


----------



## VamP (25 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs



 

I had to google it. It's a long way down this list. But I take your point. Still, these POBs will be a darn sight less lethal than the same people inside cars.

Visiting Amsterdam is a good way to get a feel for what the future will look like  (no I am not talking about the red light district.)


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs


I will be perfectly happy with a nation of POBs.


----------



## Bicycle (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> Given that the vehicle ahead (i.e. the cyclist) has a better view of oncoming traffic and very likely a better sense of his own speed, I cannot think of any reason this decision would be better made by the motorist instead. Can you?




Dan B,


You propose that the decision on when it is safe for a car to overtake a bicycle is better made by the cyclist.

I'm not sure quite what you're proposing, but it seems slightly improbable to me.

You ask for a reason why this decision would be better made by the motorist.

Well... I've never made that decision for a passing motorist when cycling and a cyclist has never made it for me when I'm driving. Never.

But.. to your question:

1. The motorist is tested to a minimum standard of competency - or is accompanied by a qualified driver.

2. The motorist has mirrors (I am more aware of what is behind me when driving than cycling*)

3. The motorist will be aware of the length of his/her vehicle, its accelaration, width, ability to pass before any visible hazards make an overtake unwise.

4. If any hazard is visible to the cyclist ahead and not to the driver behind, it is by definition not a safe place to overtake - an overtaking driver must have sufficient forward vision to be sure that there is no predictable hazard. So your notion that the rider has a better view of the road ahead seems not to have much purchase.

5. The cyclist may well have a better sense of his/her own speed, but not necessarily. However, this may not be pertinant. An overtaking driver needs only to have sufficient awareness of the relative speeds of both vehicles. The passing driver (who has had the cyclist in constant view for some time) is very likely to have a better idea of the relative speeds than the cyclist. 


I'm a little surprised really that anyone would suggest that a cyclist is in a better position than the motorist behind them to decide when it is safe to pass. That you suggest this doesn't lessen my surprise. 

If we really are going for this option, what would the universally recognised signal be? 


(* It may surprise you that I am more aware when driving of what is behind me than when I cycle, but it is so. It is also so for everyone I know who both cycles and drives. Why?

1. Most road traffic is travelling at my speed. It therefore looms into my patch of road far more slowly when I drive than when I cycle.

2. I have three mirrors on my car and have been drilled for many years to peeki into them at regular intervals.

3. I don't have to turn my head to look in my mirrors in a car. I barely have to move it.

I know that many bicycles have mirrors (my son has a clever one on his drops) but these rarely offer the panorama given by most car mirrors.)

Addendum: This is an enjoyable thread, but I'm not sure contributors need to get quite as cross as some appear to get over this subject. We are all road users and ought simply to rub along.


----------



## Red Light (25 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> See the quotation in my signature bar.
> ______________________________
> That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument. (Julian Assange)



Do you have any evidence for that assertion?


----------



## Red Light (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes maybe.
> I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.



You are only having trouble overtaking them because you selfishly insist on driving round two abreast, mostly with an empty seat next to you. Most of the time you don't even have the excuse of having a conversation to justify it. So who exactly is being selfish?


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Dan B,
> 
> 
> You propose that the decision on when it is safe for a car to overtake a bicycle is better made by the cyclist.
> ...


it's a decision that the cyclist must exercise control over. That's one of the reasons why we ride in the primary position, that's why those at the back of group rides need to be assertive.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Well... I've never made that decision for a passing motorist when cycling and a cyclist has never made it for me when I'm driving. Never.


I'm sure that you have many times and you have had it made for you as well: it's a simple matter of road positioning. If you don't want people to pass you ride further out: if you do want them to pass, you move towards the kerb. Perhaps you do it unconsciously and aren't aware of it.


But for all the reasons you give that a motorist apparently _should_ be better placed to judge a safe overtake, empirically we can observe that many don't - and if it's never happened to you personally that someone's misjudged your speed and cut you up before turning left or on the approach to a traffic island or pulling in at a bus stop, go and look at some Youtube videos. Whatever aspects of his vehicle the motorist may be more familiar with than the cyclist, fundamentally the decision to overtake is one in which he receives the benefits if he gets it right, and the cyclist receives the majority of the penalty if he gets it wrong. For that reason, it's somewhat foolhardy to leave it entirely to him


----------



## PK99 (25 Oct 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> No, it doesn't. As already posted, it says "at least as much room as you would a car" and not "allow the same space between you as you would a car".
> The snail has already posted the pretty picture if you have trouble comprehending the written word.
> 
> And the rest of it, here : http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_070314
> ...



The logic of what you say the picture implies is that it is impossible to overtake a car.

3 feet is a reasonable space to leave and require


----------



## Bicycle (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> I'm sure that you have many times and you have had it made for you as well: it's a simple matter of road positioning. If you don't want people to pass you ride further out: if you do want them to pass, you move towards the kerb. Perhaps you do it unconsciously and aren't aware of it.
> 
> But for all the reasons you give that a motorist apparently _should_ be better placed to judge a safe overtake, empirically we can observe that many don't - and if it's never happened to you personally that someone's misjudged your speed and cut you up before turning left or on the approach to a traffic island or pulling in at a bus stop, go and look at some Youtube videos. Whatever aspects of his vehicle the motorist may be more familiar with than the cyclist, fundamentally the decision to overtake is one in which he receives the benefits if he gets it right, and the cyclist receives the majority of the penalty if he gets it wrong. For that reason, it's somewhat foolhardy to leave it entirely to him



No. The decision has never been made for me and I've never made the decision for another road user.

If a cyclist is riding in primary, he or she may be doing so to discourage me from passing, but the decision is not being made for me. This is not a matter of semantics or syntax. The person in control of the overtaking vehicle makes the decision, whether that is me in my car or another driver when I'm on my bicycle.

The decision whether to pass or attempt a pass or not lies with the driver behind. It cannot be otherwise. 

Your second point: Of course these things have happened to me. They do not happen because I am better placed than the motorist to decide when the overtake should be made.

Nor do they happen because (as you suggest in an earlier post) I have had a better view of the road ahead or a better awareness of my own speed.

They happen because the motorist is either a poor driver or exhibits a momentary lapse in concentration or judgement.

There are many poor drivers and many poor cyclists. Similarly, many of both suffer occasional lapses in judgement.

This does not mean that a cyclist is better placed than the passing motorist to judge (or decide) when the pass should be made.

Nor does it imply that the road user to the front makes that decision. Occasionally they will behave in a way that might affect the decision made by the passing vehicle, but that is not the same thing,

I have never had a bicycle decide when I overtake it in my car. I have never decided (as a cyclist) when a car can pass me.

I am fortunate (in comparison with many users of this forum) in having had no harsh words with cyclists when driving and none with drivers when cycling. I ride frequently in London and the sticks. 

It's a matter of courtesy, awareness and (up to a point) skill and experience - not that I have much of the former... I have been very lucky. For over forty years.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Oct 2011)

Occasionally, I'll find myself in a situation where a pass would be dangerous, but the driver behind is in two minds whether to 'go for it'. I like to think that by riding assertively, I can help him make the right decision.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.
> 
> I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.



But the point is one of perception - the tractor is regarded as an unavoidably irritating tractor whereas the cyclists are liable to be regarded as a a group of cyclists choosing to be an obstacle rather than being considerate and riding single file. Right or wrong thats liable to be how it is perceived. Again the cycling hardliners will say who cares how were perceived .
I think cyclists attitudes will have to alter as well as society generally before we reach a continental style cycling eutopia.
Unfortunately as soon as the oil dries up electric vehicles will fill the void and everyone will be working like trojans to pay for the nuclear powered electricity and everyone will be in even more of a hurry.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it's a decision that the cyclist must exercise control over. That's one of the reasons why we ride in the primary position, that's why those at the back of group rides need to be assertive.


Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.


----------



## Red Light (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
> So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.



Says the man driving round two abreast with the empty seat in his car. Pots, kettles etc.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> [attachment=5819:dg_070531a.jpg]
> 
> 1. Yes, it is a bit close,
> 
> On the other hand, if the driver passed a car with the same amount of clearance as the one in the picture is giving the cyclist, they would be at least half on the grass verge and may well have collided with the lamp post. Now that is patently absurd.



1. Well, you've photochopped one car in the gutter. Position the overtaken car correctly then it's obvious the original picture shows that the idea is that a gap between cyclists and overtaking car is about 3ft. Not what you thought.
h
2. Unlikely. And, on the road in question you would overtake in the same space as a passing car would have been in if coming the other direction.

This is a bloody stupid discussion.


----------



## Andy84 (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> <br />Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.<br />So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.<br />


<br /><br /><br />

Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?

Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?


----------



## Bicycle (25 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Says the man driving round two abreast with the empty seat in his car. Pots, kettles etc.



This isn't really a 'pot & kettle' situation.

That is just the way cars are.

I rarely hold up cyclists when in my car and am rarely held up by cars when on my bicycle.

From Paddington to Whitehall at 08.40 on a Monday, nothing can touch my bicycle and I whizz past cars.

From my home to a nearby Cotswold town at 0840 on a Monday, little can touch my car and I whizz past bicycles.

In the (rare) event that two-abreast bicycles hold me up when I'm driving, I tend to think they are slightly thoughtless.

When a car with seating for two across the vehicle (but only one occupant) holds me up as I cycle, I find myself unable to get in a huff about it.

Most cyclists are not upset by cars having two seats across their width. Many drivers and many cyclists find some 

instances of two-abreast cycling perverse, selfish, discourteous or thoughtless.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> If a cyclist is riding in primary, he or she may be doing so to discourage me from passing, but the decision is not being made for me. This is not a matter of semantics or syntax.


If your decision is to stay behind them or to run them off the road in the process of passing because there is not space to go round them, it is not much of a decision. Sounds entirely like a semantic argument to me, and as such I shall bow out


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
> So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.


do not ever, ever assume any responsibility for any other cyclist on an organised ride. You're not up to the job


----------



## Bicycle (25 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> If your decision is to stay behind them or to run them off the road in the process of passing because there is not space to go round them, it is not much of a decision. Sounds entirely like a semantic argument to me, and as such I shall bow out




Sounds like I'm right to me.

The driver of the following vehicle makes the decision.

There have been plenty of cases where the decision has been a poor one and there has been contact or worse.

The following driver always makes the decision.

It really isn't to do with semantics. It's more to do with A&E statistics, sadly.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> This is a bloody stupid discussion.


Yes, it is. Unfortunately, the Highway Code wording leaves the potential for misinterpretation. The picture, however, is quite clear: you should provide a significantly greater clearance than anyone would normally give a car. It is this principle that the writers were trying to establish in their rather clumsy way.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Do you have any evidence for that assertion?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The following driver always makes the decision.


I have to agree that, as a statement of fact, this is correct. If the driver behind decides to take a risk with the cyclist's safety in a given situation, then there is sod all the cyclist can do about it.

All we can do is to take up a road position that would make it even more risky to pass, in the hope that the driver will decide the massive risk outweighs the usually minuscule benefit that would be gained.

There a still a significant number of drivers who will squeeze past extremely dangerously anyway in order to get to the next red light a few seconds earlier. This is reinforced by the fact that the police generally will not do anything unless the motor vehicle actually hits the cyclist, probably because they know it would be futile.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> do not ever, ever assume any responsibility for any other cyclist on an organised ride. You're not up to the job



Judging by your web site and the youtube videos of your rides neither are you.
Unfortunately the selfishness of a few taints the image of all cyclists.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sounds like I'm right to me.
> 
> The driver of the following vehicle makes the decision.
> 
> ...


there's been plenty of cases where the cyclist makes that decision extremely unlikely, and, further, it's up to us to exert ourselves in this regard.

Now, a little while ago, weather conditions forced a change in the route to a road that I had always avoided. I knew that if cars overtook then the cyclists (there were about 60 of them) would be put at risk. I took the back with a couple of strong riders and we formed a rolling road block, going up hill at about six miles an hour. One or two cars did get by, and one came very close to putting some of the slower riders in the ditch, but the rest formed a queue stretching back about twenty cars. Job done, as best we could.

Equally I've seen tail-enders not take up a defensive position, cars steam by, then the drivers realise that something was coming the other way, and swerve left in to the bunch. That's lackadaisical.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Judging by your web site and the youtube videos of your rides neither are you.
> Unfortunately the selfishness of a few taints the image of all cyclists.


60 odd rides, with numbers averaging 90 this year and I can't recall an incident of a car offing a cyclist. That, my friend, is called a result.


----------



## Andy84 (25 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> <br /><br /><br />
> 
> Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?
> 
> Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> <br /><br /><br />
> 
> Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?
> 
> Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?



You could argue that and in some circumstances you may be right. But there are some circumstances where a following motorist is more easily able to pass single line cyclists. A single cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past than 2 cyclists abreast or another car for that matter. Surely we should be looking to facilitate cars getting past where possible and not digging our heels in adopting the rigid defiant attitude that goes along the lines of we're legally entitled to do it so nothing else matters.
But i accept your point that in some circumstances it is fine its just the attitude that some have that concerns me.


----------



## Red Light (25 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> From Paddington to Whitehall at 08.40 on a Monday, nothing can touch my bicycle and I whizz past cars.



I'd love to know which route you take that achieves that. I suspect either you are threading your way down the back streets to avoid cars or you are being delayed by cars on the main routes at that time of the day. BICBW


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> 60 odd rides, with numbers averaging 90 this year and I can't recall an incident of a car offing a cyclist. That, my friend, is called a result.



Im pleased to hear it. That is one box ticked. Are you ticking the minimising inconveniencing other road users box? Minimising annoyance to local residents ? I woudnt sing your own praises to highly on the basis you havnt had an incident yet , that should be your minimum acceptable standard.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Im pleased to hear it. *That is one box ticked*. Are you ticking the minimising inconveniencing other road users box? Minimising annoyance to local residents ? I woudnt sing your own praises to highly on the basis you havnt had an incident yet , that should be your minimum acceptable standard.


that's a strange way of putting it......

the trouble is that this insipid, mimsy, 'aren't I the polite one' attitude gets people killed. If you're going to promulgate the idea that you just ride and hope, you're not just rejecting thirty years of wisdom, but also, in the event that anybody is gives these ideas houseroom, putting people at risk. 

Safety has to be the number one consideration. If it's safe to single out, then single out, but, if it isn't, be strong and look after yourself and others. Don't get doored, don't get left hooked and don't get passed when it puts you at risk.


----------



## Andy84 (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> You could argue that and in some circumstances you may be right. But there are some circumstances where a following motorist is more easily able to pass single line cyclists. A single cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past than 2 cyclists abreast or another car for that matter. Surely we should be looking to facilitate cars getting past where possible and not digging our heels in adopting the rigid defiant attitude that goes along the lines of we're legally entitled to do it so nothing else matters.
> But i accept your point that in some circumstances it is fine its just the attitude that some have that concerns me.





Sorry if I've got this wrong, but it seems that your claim that 'a single person cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past' is actually, 'if they're only in single file, then I can squeeze through to gain that little bit of road, then repeat this maybe two or three times to get past all of them, instead of waiting until it's safe to perform a safe overtaking manouvere"
I originally posted this (regarding group riding) as you replied to dellzeqq regarding the selfishness of his rides. Do you just have a problem with group rides?


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> Sorry if I've got this wrong, but it seems that your claim that 'a single person cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past' is actually, 'if they're only in single file, then I can squeeze through to gain that little bit of road, then repeat this maybe two or three times to get past all of them, instead of waiting until it's safe to perform a safe overtaking manouvere"
> I originally posted this (regarding group riding) as you replied to dellzeqq regarding the selfishness of his rides. Do you just have a problem with group rides?



Sorry if ive got the wrong idea of you but it seems like your saying you want to make it as difficult for anyone to get past you whether you are riding solo or in a group. 
Are you saying that cars should only overtake any cyclist if they were able to overtake a car in the same position ?


----------



## StuartG (25 Oct 2011)

This does feel an artificial conversation. I regularly ride with a group and we have not even had need to discuss when we ride single file or two abreast.

Basically if there is enough room to overtake then riding two abreast halves the overtaking distance and is hence best for the motorist, safest for us and doesn't disturb our chat. When there is not then a call of 'car up' from the backrider melts the group into single file creating enough space for the overtake. If single file would be too tight an overtake the back rider stays silent and the two abreast blocks a dangerous overtake.

Simples.

As for questioning Del's ability to manage a ride. Well freecyclist I think you are speaking from a distinct position of ignorance. I don't think I'd rather have anyone else in front, behind or at the side. No one I know does more to intelligently minimise risk at great personal cost. And i don't think you will find anyone who has done a FNRttC who would say different. Check any FNRttC thread on the Informal Ride section of CC immediately following the ride. Or do one yourself. You will learn a lot ...


----------



## gaz (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Don't get doored, don't get left hooked and don't get passed when it puts you at risk.


----------



## Andy84 (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sorry if ive got the wrong idea of you but it seems like your saying you want to make it as difficult for anyone to get past you whether you are riding solo or in a group.
> Are you saying that cars should only overtake any cyclist if they were able to overtake a car in the same position ?



No I've only been talking about group riding, If I was just riding along with one other person then I would drop back in to single file.
I would say though, that cars should should only overtake if it is safe to do so.


----------



## freecyclist (25 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> No I've only been talking about group riding, If I was just riding along with one other person then I would drop back in to single file.
> I would say though, that cars should should only overtake if it is safe to do so.


Ok. Well maybe its the nature of the beast that groups are just inherantly a difficult obstacle for cars to navigate. If its safety motivated then i can see the cyclists pov , but i can also see the motorists pov . Maybe large groups should be discouraged. Wheres the need to be in groups above 6 or 8. It seems to me that large groups are detrimental to the public image of cycling , they clearly have inherant problems associated with size and present a public nuisance akin to cycling hooliganism.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok. Well maybe its the nature of the beast that groups are just inherantly a difficult obstacle for cars to navigate. If its safety motivated then i can see the cyclists pov , but i can also see the motorists pov . Maybe large groups should be discouraged. Wheres the need to be in groups above 6 or 8. It seems to me that large groups are detrimental to the public image of cycling , they clearly have inherant problems associated with size and present a public nuisance akin to cycling hooliganism.


I think we're being wound up here......


----------



## StuartG (25 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Maybe large groups should be discouraged. Wheres the need to be in groups above 6 or 8. It seems to me that large groups are detrimental to the public image of cycling , they clearly have inherant problems associated with size and present a public nuisance akin to cycling hooliganism.


Every other vehicle or bike on the road is a public nuisance to me whether I'm cycling or driving. As a motorist it is other motorists who really hold me back. Sadly there's not enough cyclists to significantly delay my journeys whether they are riding en peloton or singly.

You should be prepared to accept that the vulnerable cyclists should whenever possible seek to minimise risk even if its upsets a following driver. Remember a collision would upset the driver more.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I think we're being wound up here......



Rather than address the issue you prefer to say its a wind up.
It is clear that large groups comprise a public nuisance. I cant really see the attraction to the cyclists in forming big groups or any justification in allowing the continued nuisance.
If the organisers took the problems seriously then maybe id think differently but given the apparent devil may care attitude im not convinced that these large groups are a good idea.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2011)

any thoughts on gay marriage, while you're in the mood?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

StuartG said:


> Every other vehicle or bike on the road is a public nuisance to me whether I'm cycling or driving. As a motorist it is other motorists who really hold me back. Sadly there's not enough cyclists to significantly delay my journeys whether they are riding en peloton or singly.
> 
> You should be prepared to accept that the vulnerable cyclists should whenever possible seek to minimise risk even if its upsets a following driver. Remember a collision would upset the driver more.



Yes i agree. But i still have concerns over the wisdom on large groups on public roads - from a number of perspectives , including safety.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> any thoughts on gay marriage, while you're in the mood?



No sorry im not interested. Your barking up the wrong tree completely there with me im afraid.
You seem to have alot of admirers on here though so im sure you'l find somebody.


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> But i still have concerns over the wisdom on large groups on public roads.


Absolutely. Let's enact a law that no more than 6 or 8 cars be allowed to queue in one place at one time. Now that would solve a lot of problems.

I guess you are against 6 or 8 people gathering to demonstrate on a street too. This man would agree with you:


----------



## totallyfixed (26 Oct 2011)

Well now Freecyclist I have been leading club rides for a very long time and after reading your posts I have just about reached the conclusion [and I agree totally with Del and Andy] that either:
A. You are clueless
B. Have never ridden in an organised bunch ride.
C. Troll.
D. All of the above.

If just A or/and B please take heed of those with experience.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Well now Freecyclist I have been leading club rides for a very long time and after reading your posts I have just about reached the conclusion [and I agree totally with Del and Andy] that either:
> A. You are clueless
> B. Have never ridden in an organised bunch ride.
> C. Troll.
> ...



You clearly have a closed mind on the subject and are unwilling to even consider the possibility that there could be issues with large groups. Your unreceptiveness to other ideas that are contrary to your own is disappointing but not a surprise.
You are not clueless, you are in the category : ive lead a few club rides so i know it all and wont listen to anybody that dosnt agree with me. Carry on.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (26 Oct 2011)

StuartG said:


> This does feel an artificial conversation. I regularly ride with a group and we have not even had need to discuss when we ride single file or two abreast.
> 
> Basically if there is enough room to overtake then riding two abreast halves the overtaking distance and is hence best for the motorist, safest for us and doesn't disturb our chat. When there is not then a call of 'car up' from the backrider melts the group into single file creating enough space for the overtake. If single file would be too tight an overtake the back rider stays silent and the two abreast blocks a dangerous overtake.
> 
> ...



+1*


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Rather than address the issue you prefer to say its a wind up.
> It is clear that large groups comprise a public nuisance. I cant really see the attraction to the cyclists in forming big groups or any justification in allowing the continued nuisance.
> If the organisers took the problems seriously then maybe id think differently but given the apparent devil may care attitude im not convinced that these large groups are a good idea.



In two posts you have gone from " well maybe it's..." to "It is clear..." but without adding anything else to your argument. Is this some new sort of inflation we should be warned against?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

StuartG said:


> Absolutely. Let's enact a law that no more than 6 or 8 cars be allowed to queue in one place at one time. Now that would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> I guess you are against 6 or 8 people gathering to demonstrate on a street too. This man would agree with you:



Id rather cyclists and organisers took the initiative in taking responsibility for tackling the problem themselves.


----------



## VamP (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Id rather cyclists and organisers took the initiative in taking responsibility for tackling the problem themselves.




But failing that, the law will do just as well....


Crikey. Even in Communist East Europe group riding was allowed.


You, my friend, have the makings of something special


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> I would say though, that cars should should only overtake if it is safe to do so.



Yes they should but many of them don't and when that happens the risk to the cyclists is much much greater than to the motorist in their steel protective cage. So the responsibility then unfortunately falls on the cyclist to guarantee their own safety and not rely on motorist doing what they should do but don't.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> But failing that, the law will do just as well....
> 
> 
> Crikey. Even in Communist East Europe group riding was allowed.
> ...



Comminism isnt necessarily bad. Look at calcutta / east bengal the oldest communist regime in existance , mother teresa rip got on ok. Look at china cant be doing so badly if the west is having to go borrowing from them as our economy goes belly up.
The more i think of it things would be much improved if all road users adopted a more communal attitude.
So comrade i am inclined to think it might be beneficial for social cohesion to discourage large gangs of cyclists.
What difference does it make to the cyclist in going out a 2 groups of 6 rather than one group of 12 ?


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> What difference does it make to the cyclist in going out a 2 groups of 6 rather than one group of 12 ?


Two overtakes instead of one is not necessarily easier or safer. A group of 12 is easier to pass then your average Tesco/Sainsbury/Asda lorry. Remember most of us drive too. You sir, are fixated and total lack of support suggests your view is unsupported and hence might possibly be in more error than those whom you rubbish. You have presented a weak case and not too intelligently. You have a way to go in the discreet art of persuasion.

And like several others before me I think it a waste of time to continue. Blame us if you want, but ...


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2011)

the other thing to bear in mind is that streets and roads are not just about getting from A to B. They're public space. Space to meet, greet and get to know one another. Space to enjoy the view. Space to listen to birdsong and the thrum of city life.

If everywhere is on the way to somewhere else, where is there left to go?


----------



## akb (26 Oct 2011)

Ref: Overtaking. 
My route is majority of fast back single lane roads. I tend to take primary a lot of the time due to the poor state of repair of the road / pot holes / glass in the gutter etc. 
The only way for a car to over take me is to use the oncoming lane, so I expect to be treated the same as if they were over taking a car, giving me just as enough room. 
If they are unable to over take, I know now the best secondary riding places to give the overtaker a bit more room to make the manouver. So I dont expect a full 'oncoming-lane' over take. 

I guess it depends on the road situation and being assertive of your surroundings as a a rider and as a driver.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Isn't this just another thing where common sense dependent on the particular circumstances should prevail, and cannot possibly be solved by a discussion in a forum as the variables of the situation are too wide to conquer here?


----------



## akb (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Isn't this just another thing where common sense dependent on the particular circumstances should prevail, and cannot possibly be solved by a discussion in a forum as the variables of the situation are too wide to conquer here?




Nail. Head.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> the other thing to bear in mind is that streets and roads are not just about getting from A to B. They're public space. Space to meet, greet and get to know one another. Space to enjoy the view. Space to listen to birdsong and the thrum of city life.
> 
> If everywhere is on the way to somewhere else, where is there left to go?



Quite. And in view of this, we positively owe it to ourselves and our companions to ride two abreast more often, not less. Singling up unnecessarily is a craven capitulation to the ideology of transportation, a feeble-minded dereliction of civic duty.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

This is a good thread.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588347"]
Whether there are 6 or 12 cyclists in a group on the road makes very little difference to any road user.
[/quote]

What qualifies you to speak on behalf of all road users ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

StuartG said:


> Two overtakes instead of one is not necessarily easier or safer. A group of 12 is easier to pass then your average Tesco/Sainsbury/Asda lorry. Remember most of us drive too. You sir, are fixated and total lack of support suggests your view is unsupported and hence might possibly be in more error than those whom you rubbish. You have presented a weak case and not too intelligently. You have a way to go in the discreet art of persuasion.
> 
> And like several others before me I think it a waste of time to continue. Blame us if you want, but ...



I am pro cycling more than anyone. However i do not subscribe to your mindset that any concesion or accomodation of other road users should be automatically dismissed and regarded as a sign of weakness. All ideas that benefit the overall mutual harmonious use of the roads i think are worthy of considerartion.
But i will put you down in the intransigently selfish cycling fanatic camp.
Obviously this being a cycling forum i expect a fair quota of cycling militants who will just knee jerk disagree - that dosnt necessarily make me wrong.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Isn't this just another thing where common sense dependent on the particular circumstances should prevail, and cannot possibly be solved by a discussion in a forum as the variables of the situation are too wide to conquer here?



Yes

Unfortunately common sense is often few and far between.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I am pro cycling more than anyone. However i do not subscribe to your mindset that any concesion or accomodation of other road users should be automatically dismissed and regarded as a sign of weakness. All ideas that benefit the overall mutual harmonious use of the roads i think are worthy of considerartion.
> *But i will put you down in the intransigently selfish cycling fanatic camp.*
> Obviously this being a cycling forum i expect a fair quota of cycling militants who will just knee jerk disagree - that dosnt necessarily make me wrong.



And you'd be as wrong as it's possible to be. But that hasn't stopped you so far...


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Quite. And in view of this, we positively owe it to ourselves and our companions to ride two abreast more often, not less. Singling up unnecessarily is a craven capitulation to the ideology of transportation, a feeble-minded dereliction of civic duty.


This is a really important point. People who ride in the gutter and in the door zones of parked cars, filter always on the left and generally fail to assert their right to be on the road just reinforce the belief in motorists that the roads are for motor vehicles and cyclist are just intruders to be tolerated (or not).

Having said that, I can understand why some people who are not naturally assertive or aren't confident riders would ride like that, given that this attitude does exist among a significant number of motorists.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> Well now Freecyclist I have been leading club rides for a very long time and after reading your posts I have just about reached the conclusion [and I agree totally with Del and Andy] that either:
> A. You are clueless
> B. Have never ridden in an organised bunch ride.
> C. Troll.
> ...




Bet your membership sec. loves you when it comes to recruitment time


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I am pro cycling more than anyone. However i do not subscribe to your mindset that any concesion or accomodation of other road users should be automatically dismissed and regarded as a sign of weakness.


That is an absurdly extreme strawman characterization of the argument. Just because someone gets annoyed if someone tries to squeeze past dangerously at speed, and takes a road position to prevent it, doesn't mean they won't move over courteously to let someone pass *when it is safe to do so*.


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Isn't this just another thing where common sense dependent on the particular circumstances should prevail, and cannot possibly be solved by a discussion in a forum as the variables of the situation are too wide to conquer here?



You can't talk specifics for the reasons you give but you can talk general principles I would suggest. And freemotorists suggestion that we should all defer to the mighty motorist does not seem to be one that is supported much here.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> This is a really important point. People who ride in the gutter and in the door zones of parked cars, filter always on the left and generally fail to assert their right to be on the road just reinforce the belief in motorists that the roads are for motor vehicles and cyclist are just intruders to be tolerated (or not).
> 
> Having said that, *I can understand why some people who are not naturally assertive or aren't confident riders would ride like that*, given that this attitude does exist among a significant number of motorists.



So can I, but it's up to the rest of us to help build their confidence, protect them and set a good example when riding with them, and not to make unnecessary concessions to the domination of public space by motor traffic when riding alone. I just threw in the "feeble-minded" bit in honour of freecyclist.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> And you'd be as wrong as it's possible to be. But that hasn't stopped you so far...



I hope i am wrong about StuartG but the impression he has given me is one of unwillingness to even consider the idea and because i am posing a (predictably?) unpopular opinion about a cycling issue on a cycling forum i am uninteligent , fixated and necessarily wrong.
If we can only discuss within cosy cycling biased parameters then i think thats a bit sad.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

How dare you boldface part of my ... (only joking)



theclaud said:


> So can I, but it's up to the rest of us to help build their confidence, protect them and set a good example when riding with them, and not to make unnecessary concessions to the domination of public space by motor traffic when riding alone.


Yes, I agree.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588359"]
I'm not qualified to speak.
[/quote]

FTFY


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> But i will put you down in the intransigently selfish cycling fanatic camp.


I am amazed by your mastery of mutually harmonious communications and persuasive ability


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> I am amazed by your mastery of mutually harmonious communications and persuasive ability



Thanks - nice picture.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I hope i am wrong about StuartG but the impression he has given me is one of unwillingness to even consider the idea and because i am posing a (predictably?) unpopular opinion about a cycling issue on a cycling forum i am uninteligent , fixated and necessarily wrong.
> If we can only discuss within cosy cycling biased parameters then i think thats a bit sad.



Trust me, you are wrong. We have all "considered" the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic and that our default response should be to get out of the way - we are obliged to "consider" it every time we are deliberately intimidated by someone who holds that view. Having considered it at enormous length, few of us are prepared to accept it. Some of us are clearly prepared to make concessions to it, but some of us have had enough, and are not. The latter category are stronger, happier, more confident cyclists, more affable companions and better citizens. If you want to try and make a virtue of spinelessness, then go ahead, but don't expect everyone to be impressed.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I hope i am wrong about StuartG but the impression he has given me is one of unwillingness to even consider the idea and because i am posing a (predictably?) unpopular opinion about a cycling issue on a cycling forum i am uninteligent , fixated and necessarily wrong.
> If we can only discuss within cosy cycling biased parameters then i think thats a bit sad.




Yep thats about it in a nutshell , glad to see you are getting the hang of this now !


----------



## VamP (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Comminism isnt necessarily bad. Look at calcutta / east bengal the oldest communist regime in existance , mother teresa rip got on ok. Look at china cant be doing so badly if the west is having to go borrowing from them as our economy goes belly up.
> The more i think of it things would be much improved if all road users adopted a more communal attitude.
> So comrade i am inclined to think it might be beneficial for social cohesion to discourage large gangs of cyclists.
> What difference does it make to the cyclist in going out a 2 groups of 6 rather than one group of 12 ?



I was born and lived under communism. It sucked.

I suspect you know nothing about a lot of things.


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I hope i am wrong about StuartG but the impression he has given me is one of unwillingness to even consider the idea


Hooray!!! Your hopes are realised Yes you are completely wrong yet again.

Any sensible cyclists/motorists (and there are a few here methinks) does consider all the alternatives and then uses their skill, experience and the experience of others to inform their decisions on road placement. When they all, except you, come to similar conclusions - you have to ask, what do you bring to the party?

The answer is some illogical, unsupported ramblings which have convinced no one. Now that could be down to:

1) Your warm friendly attitude to other road users
2) Everybody here doesn't know what they are talking about
3) We all annoy people just because we can
4) We think you are a Troll
5) Friday has come early this week ...


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> I was born and lived under communism. It sucked.
> 
> I suspect you know nothing about a lot of things.




Blimey communism to Weybridge that must have come as a cultural shock !


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Trust me, you are wrong. We have all "considered" the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic and that our default response should be to get out of the way - we are obliged to "consider" it every time we are deliberately intimidated by someone who holds that view. Having considered it at enormous length, few of us are prepared to accept it. Some of us are clearly prepared to make concessions to it, but some of us have had enough, and are not. The latter category are stronger, happier, more confident cyclists, more affable companions and better citizens. If you want to try and make a virtue of spinelessness, then go ahead, but don't expect everyone to be impressed.



Your interpretation of being considerate as spineless is unfortunate i feel.
You seem to be in the ; weve had enough and were not prepared to make concessions, camp.
I am not so jaded - i still think mutual existence and cooperation and consideration is to be recommended.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

User said:


> Perhaps it is time to stop feeding the under bridge dwellers...?



Killjoy.


----------



## VamP (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Blimey communism to Weybridge that must have come as a cultural shock !




Oh there have been quite a few places along the way  

Nothing much shocks me, culturally or otherwise


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Ok so is the accepted forum viewpoint . 2 abreast by default and f other road users weve had enough and are not going to make concessions. ?


----------



## SavageHoutkop (26 Oct 2011)

Ah well, my tuppence... 

I have recently been hooted at by a passing Smart car (of all things!) because, I presume, my husband & I were cycling 2 abreast on a residential street inside our own lane. 
There was no oncoming traffic. And, I might add, I was preparing to turn right so I hold strong primary there in any case.

Some motorists will be irrationally upset at the very sight of a cyclist, nevermind 2 abreast! This is similar to the RLJ debate, some drivers are probably livid about it, others couldn't care. Unfortunately we need to deal with irrational motorists as well as well-balanced individuals.

On the other side, if the road is busy with fast moving cars and cycling 2 abreast clearly inconveniences all the cars; it's only polite to move over.
Different roads, conditions and driver behaviour should all come into the discussion.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588383"]
Attitude. That's all. 1 or 2 abreast, you should give them the same passing distance, but you're better off with 2 abreast as it's a shorter pass. 

It's your attitude which needs to change to make you better.
[/quote]

Can the be a bit more specific what is wrong iyo about my attitude and how you think it needs to change.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Your interpretation of being considerate as spineless is unfortunate i feel.
> You seem to be in the ; weve had enough and were not prepared to make concessions, camp.
> I am not so jaded - i still think mutual existence and cooperation and consideration is to be recommended.



Every groupride I have been on (club or recreational) is predicated on mutual understanding and cooperation with all road users - this will sometimes mean riding in single file and sometimes riding two abreast. The road and traffic conditions dictate the groups' lateral position - this often happens organically (with experienced riders) or through a serious of calls/gestures. In these situations, groups of cyclists move in a shoaling/schooling manner - this is for reasons of aerodynamics *and more importantly,* safety. Sometimes this means motorists will be delayed, but incovenience should never trump safety. When the safety of a group of cyclists is not compromised, facilitating the progress of other road users is a given.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok so is the accepted forum viewpoint . 2 abreast by default and f other road users weve had enough and are not going to make concessions. ?



I think the accepted forum viewpoint is that you should only overtake when it is safe to do so. You seem to have trouble with this.


----------



## VamP (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Your interpretation of being considerate as spineless is unfortunate i feel.
> You seem to be in the ; weve had enough and were not prepared to make concessions, camp.
> I am not so jaded - i still think mutual existence and cooperation and consideration is to be recommended.



Honestly, you need to move away from this us and them notion. Most of us both cycle and drive. We can judge for ourselves what works and what doesn't. Taking assertive ownership of the road is an underlying principle of roadcraft. Not just cycling. It is taught in advanced driving courses too. As is anticipation of what is about to happen next. And tolerance of vulnerable road users.

It seems to me that you are just looking to be in perma-opposition. 

Take a reality check. I have spent hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours over my lifetime sitting in stationary traffic. Never has this been due to cyclists riding two abreast. A problem that needs solving? I don't think so.


----------



## Andy84 (26 Oct 2011)

I thinks accepted that a group ride with riders 2 abreast takes up a much shorter stretch of road, therefore making it easier for other road users to overtake.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> I was born and lived under communism. It sucked.
> 
> I suspect you know nothing about a lot of things.



I suspect we all do.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> I thinks accepted that a group ride with riders 2 abreast takes up a much shorter stretch of road, therefore making it easier for other road users to overtake.



Yes i can see that is a valid viewpoint. But i still question the desirability of having very large groups of cyclists on public roads. Problems - both real and perceived.


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok so is the accepted forum viewpoint . 2 abreast by default and f other road users weve had enough and are not going to make concessions. ?


Which would confirm your comprehension and reading ability is only surpassed by your punctuation. Next?


----------



## srw (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok so is the accepted forum viewpoint . 2 abreast by default and f other road users weve had enough and are not going to make concessions. ?



The accepted forum viewpoint from this corner of the forum is that you have a bizarre bee in your bonnet. 52 posts in total, the majority of them on this single thread, without apparently taking in what anyone else is saying.

There's a five-letter word beginning with "T" that I'm struggling to remember.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok so is the accepted forum viewpoint . 2 abreast by default and f other road users weve had enough and are not going to make concessions. ?



No.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> I think the accepted forum viewpoint is that you should only overtake when it is safe to do so. You seem to have trouble with this.


No thats a gimme.
I regret your attitude of f other road users ive had enough and im not going to make concessions. ?
Mutually harmonious road use is based on everyone making concessions and considering others.
If everyone had your attitude it would not be good.


----------



## theclaud (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No thats a gimme.
> I regret your attitude of f other road users ive had enough and im not going to make concessions. ?
> Mutually harmonious road use is based on everyone making concessions and considering others.
> If everyone had your attitude it would not be good.



Read things properly, there's a good fellow. What I said I'd had enough of was not other road users but deliberate intimidation by those who regarded me as an inconvenience that should get out of the way. And their online equivalents.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Read things properly, there's a good fellow. What I said I'd had enough of was not other road users but deliberate intimidation by those who regarded me as an inconvenience that should get out of the way. And their online equivalents.



Likey ^


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Mutually harmonious road use is based on everyone making concessions and considering others.




Thats good, where are the concessions of the motorist when considering the right of cyclists to be on the road two abreast? It's not a real problem. It's a perceived inconvenience on the part of the motorist. Given that cyclists should be given a safe amount of distance when passed, it makes little or no difference whether a group is 1 or 2 deep.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Read things properly, there's a good fellow. What I said I'd had enough of was not other road users but deliberate intimidation by those who regarded me as an inconvenience that should get out of the way. And their online equivalents.



I suspect that the intimidation that you say you experience might reflet your riding style.
My experience is that motorists are pretty sensible and can generally tell when cyclists are legitimately cycling 2 abreast or in primary and are happy with that but likewise can tell when cyclists are being inconsiderate and selfish.
You might like to reappraise your riding style if you are getting intimidated alot , for your own safety if nothing else.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> Thats good, where are the concessions of the motorist when considering the right of cyclists to be on the road two abreast? It's not a real problem. It's a perceived inconvenience on the part of the motorist. Given that cyclists should be given a safe amount of distance when passed, it makes little or no difference whether a group is 1 or 2 deep.



Are you saying that motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake).
I can see the theoretical validity but really ? in real life ?
And if that were to be the case cyclists would be even more unpopular - i know - we dont care how poular we are - its not a popularity contest. I know.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> alot



grrrr


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588397"]
I've explained it clearly.

Whether there are 6 or 12 bikes in a group makes very little physical difference on a road.

Whether you are passing 2 bikes abreast or a lone cyclist you should give them the same width as you pass. It's easier to pass 2 abreast as you should than two in line as you should.

Those facts considered, it can only be the attitude of the riled road user that is the problem. I would suggest some internal analysis of why you are annoyed at only one of two almost identical sets of circumstances.

How does it need to change? Get over it and let it go. You'll be a lot happier.
[/quote]

So are you saying that motorists should only overtake a solo cyclist or group of single file riders cycling in secondary by moving totally into the other lane ? Like they would if overtaking a car.
SAorry just seen your reply above !!!!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are you saying that motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake).
> I can see the theoretical validity but really ? in real life ?
> And if that were to be the case cyclists would be even more unpopular - i know - we dont care how poular we are - its not a popularity contest. I know.



Well that's what the highway code asks drivers to do.


----------



## Mad at urage (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588403"]
Yes. It's only safe enough to poke 12" of your car into the offside/opposing lane if it's safe enough to move lanes completely. 

If you can't pass a bike in the same lane without giving them at least the "width of a car" space then you shouldn't be overtaking. Unless you're in a country lane and travelling at an appropriate speed.
*
According to the book that you should have read when you learned to drive.*
[/quote]

Ahh, but that's not "real life" is it


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> My experience is that motorists are pretty sensible and can generally tell when cyclists are legitimately cycling 2 abreast or in primary and are happy with that but likewise can tell when cyclists are being inconsiderate and selfish.


Have you actually ridden?

You can ride in the approved (CycleCraft) manner and be treated with complete courtesy and care by some motorists and be treated with disdain, abused and dangerously by others who think they are (wrongly) right.

99% of motorists are unaware of why experienced cyclists are taking a particular line in the interests of his/her safety and the driver's paintwork. Some will trust the cyclist, others will abuse the cyclist. Abuse is just something you have to live with. Explaining things to them/you is just a waste of time.

IMHO abuse is never justified no matter what your perceived view of the other road user - but that's another discussion.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I suspect that the intimidation that you say you experience might reflet your riding style.
> My experience is that motorists are pretty sensible and can generally tell when cyclists are legitimately cycling 2 abreast or in primary and are happy with that but likewise can tell when cyclists are being inconsiderate and selfish.
> You might like to reappraise your riding style if you are getting intimidated alot , for your own safety if nothing else.


those of us who have admired TC's riding style, which is practiced, purposeful and a vivid testament to virtues of nature's economy, will make our own minds up on that one........


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588402"]
IRONY ALERT

Bloke admitting to getting wound up by a group of 12 cyclists, but not wound up by 6, accuses other road user of having wrong attitude.
[/quote]

Wrong.
I have not admitted getting wound up by any groups of cyclists - i have just questioned the wisdom of cycling in large groups and that seems to have ruffled a few feathers.
Im not sure who you mean when you say "accuses other road user of having wrong attitude."
Do you mean clauds attitude might be in some way causing the intimidation ? or what ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588403"]
Yes. It's only safe enough to poke 12" of your car into the offside/opposing lane if it's safe enough to move lanes completely. 

If you can't pass a bike in the same lane without giving them at least the "width of a car" space then you shouldn't be overtaking. Unless you're in a country lane and travelling at an appropriate speed.

According to the book that you should have read when you learned to drive.
[/quote]

What about when part of the opposite lane is taken up with parked cars or other obstacles ?


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

I'm bored.

Freecyclist, can you sum up your stance on riding > 1 abreast (if that exists) and your reasons why you have taken such stance?


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> What about when part of the opposite lane is taken up with parked cars or other obstacles ?




If the other lane is blocked then it's unsafe to pass. This is where it become the cyclists decision to slow and allow other road users through if they deem is safe enough to do so.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

StuartG said:


> Have you actually ridden?
> 
> You can ride in the approved (CycleCraft) manner and be treated with complete courtesy and care by some motorists and be treated with disdain, abused and dangerously by others who think they are (wrongly) right.
> 
> ...



Well i agree with you on that at least.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> If the other lane is blocked then it's unsafe to pass. This is where it become the cyclists decision to slow and allow other road users through if they deem is safe enough to do so.



So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
car cannot overtake completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Can the car go past ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> I'm bored.
> 
> Freecyclist, can you sum up your stance on riding > 1 abreast (if that exists) and your reasons why you have taken such stance?



1 abreast because theres only 1 of me.


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
> No oncoming traffic.
> Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
> car cannot overtake completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
> Can the car go past ?




The question isn't can the car go past but rather should the car go past. There being enough room for a car to fit through should not be the only consideration. Respect should be given to the cyclist as a road user of equal right.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

It appears that the only pedals freecyclist presses are the accelerator and clutch.

This thread is too tempting- we need a Bonfire of the Vanities...Come on mods, let's close this down


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588417"]
You have an attitude problem with groups of cyclists, despite it being pointed out that 6 on the road is little different to 12 on the road, and that passing 2 abreast is easier than passing 2 in a line. Your problem with the latter example can only be your attitude and your wrong perception.

You accuse TC of having a poor riding style based on her attitude towards the issues we're discussing.
[/quote]

No i expressed concern that tc was getting intimidated because of her riding style.
By "You have an attitude problem with groups of cyclists" do you mean because i have questioned the practice ?
So does questioning anything mean an attitude problems ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> The question isn't can the car go past but rather should the car go past. There being enough room for a car to fit through should not be the only consideration. Respect should be given to the cyclist as a road user of equal right.



Ok so should the car go past.
If i drove i think i would probably be tempted to go past very carefully.


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> 1 abreast because theres only 1 of me.



And apparently no friends


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Oct 2011)

Freecycle;

I was leading a club run of about 15 cyclists a couple of weeks ago, we were riding in a pairs along a wide country road when a car drew level with the front of the group and drove next to us for about 20 seconds with the passenger leaning out of the window shouting that he was a cyclist and we were 'giving cyclists a bad name' by not riding in single file. He declined my invitation to get out of his car and continue the conversation.

Was that you?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Freecycle;
> 
> I was leading a club run of about 15 cyclists a couple of weeks ago, we were riding in a pairs along a wide country road when a car drew level with the front of the group and drove next to us for about 20 seconds with the passenger leaning out of the window shouting that he was a cyclist and we were 'giving cyclists a bad name' by not riding in single file. He declined my invitation to get out of his car and continue the conversation.
> 
> Was that you?



No.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

I have ridden in a group quite a few times and almost every time there is a car behind on a narrow road, the call goes out down the group to move over.

Not really sure where you get the idea that all groups are some kind of road-blocking gang of hoodlums.


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok so should the car go past.
> If i drove i think i would probably be tempted to go past very carefully.




The car should not go past unless it's safe to do so. It there is barely enough room, a car creeping past can be more unsettling than one screeming past - and the screemer is unsettling enough.

May I ask the question in a different way - a motorist, lets say a car driver, is progressing along a street narrowed by parked cars and other non descript street furniture. The motorist closes in on a slower moving vehicle ahead, lets say a lovely old lady in her Micra. There is enough room to fit both cars through but it would mean getting close ebough to adjust the car in fronts wing mirrors. Should the car behind go through?

Edit - are you saying you don't drive?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> And apparently no friends



Ouch dan .
I expected someone to reply - thank god for that but i didnt expect it of you.
You look so lovely in your picture.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

Lets put this thread into a real life situation.

Car driver = freecyclist

cyclists = the rest of the people on this thread

Situation.

Cycle chat people in a group, riding 2 abreast on a winding country road. Freecycle approaches from behind in a car.

It would go something like this:

Freecycle: beep beep 

Group: looks around, no point in moving in single file as would make no difference to perceived overtake

Freecycle: beep beep beep (getting gradually angrier and wound up behind wheel)

...continues for 1/2 mile when road opens up and the opportunity presents itself to overtake safetly

Freecycle then drives past blaring horn and waving fist.

Cycle group shrug shoulders.

This is the thread, drawn out over #204 replies (and counting)


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> The car should not go past unless it's safe to do so. It there is barely enough room, a car creeping past can be more unsettling than one screeming past - and the screemer is unsettling enough.
> 
> May I ask the question in a different way - a motorist, lets say a car driver, is progressing along a street narrowed by parked cars and other non descript street furniture. The motorist closes in on a slower moving vehicle ahead, lets say a lovely old lady in her Micra. There is enough room to fit both cars through but it would mean getting close ebough to adjust the car in fronts wing mirrors. Should the car behind go through?



No it woudnt / shoudnt.
But the point is that cyclists in secondary would seem to accomodate overtakes that cars in the same situation would not by virtue of there being more space. 
Is it ok to go past 1/3 and 2/3 if there seems to be enough room ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

HELMET!


*runs away*


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Isnt it up to motorists to decide if its safe for them to overtake ?



Hahahaha, that's a good one. Do you do stand-up?


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No i expressed concern that tc was getting intimidated because of her riding style.
> By "You have an attitude problem with groups of cyclists" do you mean because i have questioned the practice ?
> So does questioning anything mean an attitude problems ?



You have done more than "question the practice" when someone mentioned that they often ride two abreast, you said they had a "brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude". If you're going to couch your language in those terms, it's not surprising that you're going to cop some flak for your attitude.

As it appears you have never ridden in a group, you do not understand the dynamics of group riding. This position of ignorance allied to intransigence, is both amusing, and a teensy, weensy bit sad.


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No it woudnt / shoudnt.
> But the point is that cyclists in secondary would seem to accomodate overtakes that cars in the same situation would not by virtue of there being more space.
> Is it ok to go past 1/3 and 2/3 if there seems to be enough room ?




I don't agree. The point is that cyclists are vulnerable road users who have an equal right to be on the public highway. They/We have the right to use the highway without fear of dangerous overtaking actions. I think most motorist fail to recognise that the distance between their front bumper/front wing/wing mirror and the cyclist is not the same as the distance from their left elbow to the cyclist.

As to whether it's safe 1/3 and 2/3, I believe this is where we have to deffer to the discretion of the forward road user. If, when cycling on a narrow street (either singley or in a group), it becomes clear that a safe passing point may be some distance away, I slow and move over to the far left and wave other traffic through. The decision to do this must be mine though.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588434"]
The distance between you and the cyclist you are passing should always be at least one car's width. Regardless of where the cyclist is on the road. It's not the distance between you and the kerb.
[/quote]

Ok so on that basis cars should basically allways overtake 100% in the opposite lane and never when it would only be possible to overtake by going part in the cyclists lane.
On that theoretic basis then as you say it makes no diference how many cyclists are in the lane as any passing motorist has to move into the opposite lane whether its a single cyclist or a bunch 4 abreast.
I get you theoretically.
My experience is that cars normally pass me about 1 or 1.5 meters away with a very few giving ample room like you describe.
I see that you have a valid theoretical arguement.
Should i be upset about motorists not passing totally in the other lane ?
Is it illegal for motorists to pass a cyclist by not going into the other lane.


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Should i be upset about motorists not passing totally in the other lane ?



Yes, but it's not going to do you much good.



freecyclist said:


> Is it illegal for motorists to pass a cyclist by not going into the other lane.




No, in much the same way that it's not illegal for cyclist to ride 3 or 4 abreast.


----------



## srw (26 Oct 2011)

User said:


> Twat? Nope - that's only four letters....



Twunt? Thick? Troop? Prole? No - I said it began with T. It's on the tip of my tonguey-tongue-tongue.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> I don't agree. The point is that cyclists are vulnerable road users who have an equal right to be on the public highway. They/We have the right to use the highway without fear of dangerous overtaking actions. I think most motorist fail to recognise that the distance between their front bumper/front wing/wing mirror and the cyclist is not the same as the distance from their left elbow to the cyclist.
> 
> As to whether it's safe 1/3 and 2/3, I believe this is where we have to deffer to the discretion of the forward road user. If, when cycling on a narrow street (either singley or in a group), it becomes clear that a safe passing point may be some distance away, I slow and move over to the far left and wave other traffic through. The decision to do this must be mine though.



Pulling over is to be commended. However.
Your riding solo - it seems that it might be ok for a car to pass 1/3 and 2/3 do you ride secondary to facilitate the following cars overtaking or do you ride primary to prevent it.
My self - i ride secondary and let the cars go past.
Mrpauls has (presumably correctly) informed me that it is not permissable to overtake like this and presumably cyclist should ride assertively to prevent overtaking (primary).
What would you do ?


----------



## jethro10 (26 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.
> 
> It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.
> 
> ...



Totally agree.
As a cyclist, I see almost every day how many cyclists can and do give cyclists a bad name.

J


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Pulling over is to be commended. However.
> Your riding solo - it seems that it might be ok for a car to pass 1/3 and 2/3 do you ride secondary to facilitate the following cars overtaking or do you ride primary to prevent it.
> My self - i ride secondary and let the cars go past.
> Mrpauls has (presumably correctly) informed me that it is not permissable to overtake like this and presumably cyclist should ride assertively to prevent overtaking (primary).
> What would you do ?




My positioning on the road changes dependant on a number of factors. On wide open roads I ride secondary, but a strong secondary, not stuck in the gutter, this strong position also deters oncoming traffic overtaking slower vehicles on their side of the road. Where there isn't enough room for a car to get past without cutting it too close I ride primary; far out enough to fully claim my lane, moving back into secondary when I deem it safe for me to do so. For the most part, this is through town where I tend to be travelling at roughly the same speed as traffic (altough this doesn't always stop cars trying to overtake and squeeze me out).


----------



## Bicycle (26 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> I'd love to know which route you take that achieves that. I suspect either you are threading your way down the back streets to avoid cars or you are being delayed by cars on the main routes at that time of the day. BICBW




Not at all. Although I was a motorcycle courier in the 80s and have a fair knowledge of london, I just cross Praed Street and Sussex Gdns, then B/Water Rd, Marble Arch, park Lane and through the park.


I stay on the road round Marble Arch, as I dislike the through-way for cyclists. Its lights seem weighted against its users, so whipping round the main junction is usually far quicker.

Of course I am slightly impeded by cars, but not in a way that makes me cross. The point I was making is that cars are faster in some parts and bicycles in others.

But to this day, Paddington to Whitehall in rush hour remains one of the most exhilarating short rides I know.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

Seems to me that, if freecyclist is genuine, he's getting upset about a situation that hardly ever occurs.

In a group of 2 or more, it's more sociable to cycle 2 abreast. If a car comes up behind, then 99.9% of cyclists would move to single file to facilitate the overtake. If an overtake is dangerous, then I hope most cyclists would stay 2 abreast to discourage a dangerous manoevre.

The vast majority of cyclists do not hold up motorists just for a laugh - we will almost always go to single file if it is safe to do so.

Our safety on the road is the number one priority.

Freecyclist, do you get similarly upset when a cyclist moves into primary because of an upcoming pinch point, or to avoid the door zone?


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes i can see that is a valid viewpoint. But i still question the desirability of having very large groups of cyclists on public roads. Problems - both real and perceived.



In my experience it's large groups of motorised vehicles that cause problems on the roads, not large groups of cyclists.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Maybe I should stop riding 7 abreast and taking potshots at drivers with my semi-automatics shotgun...


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> My positioning on the road changes dependant on a number of factors. On wide open roads I ride secondary, but a strong secondary, not stuck in the gutter, this strong position also deters oncoming traffic overtaking slower vehicles on their side of the road. Where there isn't enough room for a car to get past without cutting it too close I ride primary; far out enough to fully claim my lane, moving back into secondary when I deem it safe for me to do so. For the most part, this is through town where I tend to be travelling at roughly the same speed as traffic (altough this doesn't always stop cars trying to overtake and squeeze me out).



I accept that you are unable to give a definitive answer as it depends on a number of factors.
I can see that theoretically i should be a militant cyclist like some (not all) other forum people and single mindedly arguie the cyclists cause regardless of anything else but i cant help personally prefering a stance of accomodating and being considerate to other road users and hoping that they will do likewise .


----------



## Bicycle (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Maybe I should stop riding 7 abreast and taking potshots at drivers with my semi-automatics shotgun...




Absolutely you should. It worries me that you ever thought this sort of thing was appropriate.

Riding 7-abreast is just selfish and likely to cause an obstruction.

Use of a fire arm in a public place is very dangerous and might compromise the safety of both other road users and the general public.

You will have noted that the HC (whilst not specifically discouraging either behaviour) does not encourage this sort of thing.

Similarly, the cooking of kedgeree and the singing of little known Verdi arias are strongly discourage while riding a bicycle.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Absolutely you should. It worries me that you ever thought this sort of thing was appropriate.
> 
> Riding 7-abreast is just selfish and likely to cause an obstruction.
> 
> ...



I consider myself told.

I will also stop throwing coconut shy balls at old ladies' hats and shouting "Where's my F***CKING PRIZE?!" at them if I knock it off.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> Seems to me that, if freecyclist is genuine, he's getting upset about a situation that hardly ever occurs.
> 
> In a group of 2 or more, it's more sociable to cycle 2 abreast. If a car comes up behind, then 99.9% of cyclists would move to single file to facilitate the overtake. If an overtake is dangerous, then I hope most cyclists would stay 2 abreast to discourage a dangerous manoevre.
> 
> ...



Ooo yes ben im very upset boo hoo hoo.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Maybe I should stop riding 7 abreast and taking potshots at drivers with my semi-automatics shotgun...


hell, no. You're just what we're looking for.... http://fnrttc.blogspot.com/p/so-you-want-to-be-tail-end-charlie.html


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I accept that you are unable to give a definitive answer as it depends on a number of factors.
> I can see that theoretically i should be a militant cyclist like some (not all) other forum people and single mindedly arguie the cyclists cause regardless of anything else but i cant help personally prefering a stance of accomodating and being considerate to other road users and hoping that they will do likewise .


And I will reject both of your strawman extremes and continue to attempt to ride in an assertive but courteous manner.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Oct 2011)

I think you'll find that the HC says; you 'should' not discharge a shotgun whilst riding due to the recoil and advises that only small calibre firearms should be used whilst riding. I think RPG's are 'must' not though.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

jethro10 said:


> Totally agree.
> As a cyclist, I see almost every day how many cyclists can and do give cyclists a bad name.
> 
> J



+1
I actually find that alot of motorist go out of there way to be considerate to me while im cycling so claud may call me spineless for it i like to be considerate to motorists and that includes allowing then to go past me 1/3 and 2/3 rather than taking primary specifically to stop them.
I know its wrong but i just cant help myself.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Oct 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> I think you'll find that the HC says; you 'should' not discharge a shotgun whilst riding due to the recoil and advises that only small calibre firearms should be used whilst riding. I think RPG's are 'must' not though.



Oops, sorry I was looking at the Libyan highway code. I was wrong about the RPG's too, apparently it's allowed if you've got a former dictator in your sights.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

How is the highway code on Scimitars?


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

Round 2: Should Cargobikes be banned from the roads?


----------



## StuartG (26 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Round 2: Should Cargobikes be banned from the roads?


Only those unable to support a stable ack-ack platform. I believe Marshal Zhukov operated them 10 abreast. But that was only across minefields.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Round 2: Should Cargobikes be banned from the roads?




But where may I purchase my tootsie fruitsie ice cream?


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ooo yes ben im very upset boo hoo hoo.



Well? Answer the question, rather than being infantile. Do you consider a cyclist who moves into primary approaching a pinch point to be discourteous and inconsiderate?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588463"]
What you should do as a cyclist is control your space as much as possible. If this means riding further out from the kerb so that you've got an escape zone to your left then so be it.
[/quote]

+1.

In fact the more I do this, the less trouble I have.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

User said:


> I think you're banging your head against a brick wall there, Ben old bean...



Where's my helmet?


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> How is the highway code on Scimitars?



Only allowed if attached to wheel hubs in a 'Ben Hur' style.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Only allowed if attached to wheel hubs in a 'Ben Hur' style.



Well, I have always felt an affinity with Boudicca, so maybe I'll give it a go...


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Well, I have always felt an affinity with Boudicca, so maybe I'll give it a go...



Absolutely. We all have a right to be on the woad


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> Absolutely. We all have a right to be on the woad


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> But i still question the desirability of having very large groups of cyclists on public roads. Problems - both real and perceived.



The critical word in those sentences is public. Its not motorists' roads its public roads.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Well, I have always felt an affinity with Boudicca, so maybe I'll give it a go...



Hmmm....but if she'd been a bit more organised and not lost to a much smaller force of Romans they wouldn't have built all those roads and this thread wouldn't have started in the first place!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Hmmm....but if she'd been a bit more organised and not lost to a much smaller force of Romans they wouldn't have built all those roads and this thread wouldn't have started in the first place!



Damn Romans and their superior infrastructure!


----------



## Mad at urage (26 Oct 2011)

No time to correct properly


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588463"]
What you should do as a cyclist is control your space as much as possible. If this means riding further out from the kerb so that you've got an escape zone to your left then so be it.
[/quote]

I realise that any special interest forum is naturally going to attract its share of militants and extremists but the philosophy that you should actively prevent cars from overtaking unless their is a 100% clear opposite carriageway even when safe to do so like in my 1/3 2/3 situation is a brand of cycling fundamentalism that is quite new to me.
I am curious to know do you really put this militancy into practice or is it just harmless cyberbased bravado.
If you really cycle along in primary at the head of a line of traffic that could otherwise pass quite safely if you were in secondary , on the grounds that overtaking cars would have to dip into your carriageway then isnt that just going to piss motorists off unnecessarily and actually increase the danger of an enraged motorist driving in a way that might endanger your safety.
I dont see that it is a good idea for you , the motorist or society.


----------



## adscrim (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I dont see that it is a good idea for you , the motorist or society.




On the contrary. I think you'll find that it's the cyclist riding along in the gutter that are more likely to come to harm. Also, studies such as this oneshow that it's the motorist that are to blame in the majority of cylist/motorist 'incidents'. So riding primary, while it will certainly result in more motorist having to wait for a safe opportunity to pass, will absolutely benefit the cyclist. As there are fewer accidents, this in turn benefits motorist and society in general.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> On the contrary. I think you'll find that it's the cyclist riding along in the gutter that are more likely to come to harm. Also, studies such as this oneshow that it's the motorist that are to blame in the majority of cylist/motorist 'incidents'. So riding primary, while it will certainly result in more motorist having to wait for a safe opportunity to pass, will absolutely benefit the cyclist. As there are fewer accidents, this in turn benefits motorist and society in general.




Its a shame the motorists dont see it that way and probably never will.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

adscrim said:


> On the contrary. I think you'll find that it's the cyclist riding along in the gutter that are more likely to come to harm. Also, studies such as this oneshow that it's the motorist that are to blame in the majority of cylist/motorist 'incidents'. So riding primary, while it will certainly result in more motorist having to wait for a safe opportunity to pass, will absolutely benefit the cyclist. As there are fewer accidents, this in turn benefits motorist and society in general.



I think we'd all agree that motorists are to blame for most crashes.
So your saying that riding primary may piss motorists off but it is in actuality safer.
Maybe and on the safety grounds i agree its valid in those circumstances. There are times i can 100% see the point in riding primary.
Its just at the extreme end where the justification for riding primary and preventing overtaking is purely ideological with no safety benefit that i have a problem. 
Thats the cycling fundamentalist bit - where a cyclist adopts primary purely as part of a militant ideology with no justification through safety benefit. Like my 1/3 and 2/3 situation that i keep refering to with mrpaul.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

1588477 said:


> without wishing to come over as either militant or extremist, your position is akin to sucking up to a bully.


Are you an expert in sucking up to bullies ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are you an expert in sucking up to bullies ?



Seriously?

Why don't you just type: "I know that you are, but what am I?"


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Why don't you just type: "I know that you are, but what am I?"



Hey we all plough our own furrow.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hey we all plough our own furrow.



Thankfully, yes.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588484"]
I've not said that.


I will control the road around me as much as possible to minimise the risk of dangerous overtakes. If this means preventing cars from overtaking until it's safe to do so then I will, and that's the right thing to do.


Again, I've not said that I do.




[/quote]

Yes you did
.

freecyclist, on 26 October 2011 - 12:20:45, said: So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
car cannot overtake completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Can the car go past ?"
You replied ;
"No. 
You shouldn't overtake. "
?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes you did
> .
> 
> freecyclist, on 26 October 2011 - 12:20:45, said: So ; cyclist (solo or single file group) riding in secondary.
> ...



Sorry to wade in here. But he's said that you shouldn't try to overtake. He hasn't said he will actively try to stop you from doing so. Unless you have some form of telepathical skills that I am not party to.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588487"]
Where's the evidence of these fundamentalists? You wouldn't be pushing people into that extreme to give you more grip on your argument would you? Because that_ is_ the work of a troll.
[/quote]
Invariably ime accusing others of being a troll is just a cowardly and lazy way of trying to shut someone else up.
I will give you the benefit to presume that you dont intend to go their.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I realise that any special interest forum is naturally going to attract its share of militants and extremists but the philosophy that you should actively prevent cars from overtaking unless their is a 100% clear opposite carriageway even when safe to do so like in my 1/3 2/3 situation is a brand of cycling fundamentalism that is quite new to me.
> I am curious to know do you really put this militancy into practice or is it just harmless cyberbased bravado.
> If you really cycle along in primary at the head of a line of traffic that could otherwise pass quite safely if you were in secondary , on the grounds that overtaking cars would have to dip into your carriageway then isnt that just going to piss motorists off unnecessarily and actually increase the danger of an enraged motorist driving in a way that might endanger your safety.
> I dont see that it is a good idea for you , the motorist or society.




The only militancy on this thread appears to be coming from you. Most people disagreeing with you understand the character and etiquette of group riding and are merely pragmatists prepared to ride assertively when required - this is not extreme behaviour, but a sensible precaution borne of experience.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588493"]
Nope.

I explained to you how cars should overtake bikes.

I explained to you the good practice of controlling your road space when cycling.

You've mixed up the two and come to the wrong conclusion.



[/quote]

Ok well clearly i havnt understood what youve said so can you clarify.
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Should cyclist adopt secondary thereby allowing motorists to go past
or
Should cyclist adopt primary thereby preventing motorists from going past.


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hey we all plough our own furrow.



Yes and yours is heading downwards at a high rate of knots and you are still digging!


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

for years I cycled in the gutter thinking I was being polite and safe and wondering why I got so many close passes at pinch points and near left hooks. I then read cycle craft and realised the reason was because I wasn't controlling my space. Over the years since I read and applied the message of the book my cycling has been a lot less hairy. It seems counter intuitive that driving in the middle of the road amongst faster traffic can be safer but it absolutely is. Most of my cycling is done in secondary for courtesy's sake as I am not a quick rider. However when the need arises I switch to primary. this is done at my discretion as previous experience tells me that some drivers are not overly concerned about my presence or safety unless I make them so. I am not overly concerned about holding up a driver as it a/ keeps me alive and b/ protects them from the guilt of injuring a person. A driver may mutter when they come across you riding primary but they won't run you over unless they are complete bastards. unfortunately riding in secondary they sometimes just don't see you


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588498"]
None of the above. Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them and the car driver behind shoud wait to safely overtake.

You have trouble understanding this so this will be my only contribution to this thread.
[/quote]

Meaningless.
What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588494"]
Nope again.


Note that you have only responded to the easy part of that post...
[/quote]

Err yes.
You were insinuating that i was a troll.
Invariably accusing others of being a troll is just a cowardly and lazy way of trying to shut someone else up.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Meaningless.
> What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?



What do you want? Feet and inches?

He's saying assess the situation and apply some common sense.

Is this so beyond your ken?


----------



## Glow worm (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> What is the position that the cyclist should adopt ?



Aaaaaaargh! Re-read several contributions above from experienced cyclists patiently trying to explain to you exactly that. Honestly, if you really haven't got it yet, I would politely invite you to switch off your computer and go and do something else.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588501"]
I've answered that already in my original post. I suggest you go and read it again.
[/quote]

"Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them"
And where in the situation detailed is that.
Why wont anyone give a straight answer ???


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> "Cyclist should adopt a position so it is safe for them"
> And where in the situation detailed is that.
> Why wont anyone give a straight answer ???



Because it's about personal judgement. Sorry, but we can't equip you with that.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Glow worm said:


> Aaaaaaargh! Re-read several contributions above from experienced cyclists patiently trying to explain to you exactly that. Honestly, if you really haven't got it yet, I would politely invite you to switch off your computer and go and do something else.



Ok can you give a straight answer ???
No oncoming traffic.
Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
Should cyclist adopt secondary thereby allowing motorists to go past
or
Should cyclist adopt primary thereby preventing motorists from going past.
Straight answer anybody - where on the road should cyclist be.
None of this "where its safe nonsense" where is safe ?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> for years I cycled in the gutter thinking I was being polite and safe and wondering why I got so many close passes at pinch points and near left hooks. I then read cycle craft and realised the reason was because I wasn't controlling my space. Over the years since I read and applied the message of the book my cycling has been a lot less hairy. It seems counter intuitive that driving in the middle of the road amongst faster traffic can be safer but it absolutely is. Most of my cycling is done in secondary for courtesy's sake as I am not a quick rider. However when the need arises I switch to primary. this is done at my discretion as previous experience tells me that some drivers are not overly concerned about my presence or safety unless I make them so. I am not overly concerned about holding up a driver as it a/ keeps me alive and b/ protects them from the guilt of injuring a person. A driver may mutter when they come across you riding primary but they won't run you over unless they are complete bastards. unfortunately riding in secondary they sometimes just don't see you



I respect your opinion rowan.
Where do you think cyclists should be in mentioned scenario.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I respect your opinion rowan.
> Where do you think cyclists should be in mentioned scenario.



If they can't work it out for themselves, possibly in a secure institution of some sort for their own personal safety.

Do you require this much guidance in every aspect of your life?

"But EXACTLY HOW far away from my fingers should the blade.... ouch!"

"But EXACTLY HOW cool should I make the bath water before I - ARGHGHHGHGHGHHG!!!!!!!"


----------



## Glow worm (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok can you give a straight answer ???
> No oncoming traffic.
> Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
> Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
> ...



Its really very straightforward. The cyclist should position him/herself in the road where they feel safest and most able to control the potentially dangerous actions of motorists. Every circumstance will differ, that's why you have to use your own judgement according to each scenario - as has been pointed out numerous times by others. Your description above is meaningless because there could be any number of things to affect postioning such as central islands, buses, potholes, drain covers,peds and the like. As MTF rightly says above, if you don't feel able to use your own judgement according to each scenario, then no one can really help you.


----------



## VamP (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok can you give a straight answer ???
> No oncoming traffic.
> Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
> Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
> ...




The position you describe gives about a two foot gap between overtaking car and cyclist in robust secondary? Unsafe overtake, I wouldn't attempt it. There's lots out there that would. Clearly you're one of them.

I get several overtakes like this every ride. Every once in a while it turns nasty, when the ''No oncoming traffic'' condition you describe suddenly changes. That's where being in a strong secondary helps, as it gives you manouvering space.

This should be totally obvious to anybody who cycles regularly. I think we are collectivelly headscratching as to what it is that you are actually trying to say.


----------



## Glow worm (26 Oct 2011)

VamP said:


> This should be totally obvious to anybody who cycles regularly. I think we are collectivelly headscratching as to what it is that you are actually trying to say.


----------



## cyberknight (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> If they can't work it out for themselves, possibly in a secure institution of some sort for their own personal safety.
> 
> Do you require this much guidance in every aspect of your life?
> 
> ...



Having just scanned the 20 page thread i have to say Miss tillys posts were the ones i was looking forward to the most , certainly bought a smile to my face with every post .
Nothing else to add to the thread as others have said it all .


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

Freecyclist, you've ignored my question twice. Please answer:

What is your opinion on cyclists that take primary approaching a pinch point?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> Freecyclist, you've ignored my question twice. Please answer:
> 
> What is your opinion on cyclists that take primary approaching a pinch point?



Dude. I think you might have to explain the term "pinchpoint" and quite possibly the term "cyclist".


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Dude. I think you might have to explain the term "pinchpoint" and quite possibly the term "cyclist".



Here's a visual aid: 


View: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrOrigamist#p/u/27/Z2gehhELFZc


----------



## raindog (26 Oct 2011)

the thread from hell........


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Invariably accusing others of being a troll is just a cowardly and lazy way of trying to shut someone else up.



That's the classic troll response to being called a troll. QED.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> That's the classic troll response to being called a troll. QED.



But just HOW classic troll is it?!


----------



## User16625 (26 Oct 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You are misquoting what the highway code says. Is that to try to give some apparent validity to your erroneous point? HC rule 163 says: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". That means, if you would give a car 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you pass it, then you should give a cyclist 9 feet in which to manoeuvre when you you pass.



Your question has already been answered. No need to requote it in another way. The 9 feet (for arguments sake) that you give a car, you should also give a bicycle. As has already been said, the bicycle is much narrower so the same 9 feet of room between you and the bicycle will still leave you having to move to the right much less than you would have to with a car. 9 feet tho?! Thats the kind of space you would give a hungry polar bear if your unarmed.


----------



## Bicycle (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> How is the highway code on Scimitars?




If the Essex V6 is still in good condition and the chassis free from rot, there is little wrong with them as far as the HC is concerned.

Slightly stuck in a 70s timewarp, but in a delicious and beautiful way.

Should not be driven over the speed limit. Apart from that, they're fine.


----------



## pepecat (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok can you give a straight answer ???
> No oncoming traffic.
> Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
> Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
> ...



Up to you. 
Are there pot holes / drain covers / gravel etc in the gutter that you're trying to avoid?
Are you in the mood to pull over a bit so cars can get past and then pull back out, or do you want to potentially annoy drivers behind you and have them hoot at you?
I find cars don't generally go into the other lane 100% to overtake cyclists anyway - they are usually at least a third or a half in their own lane.

If you call primary the middle of the lane, then no, I personally wouldn't cycle in primary. I never do unless i'm approaching a junction / roundabout where i'm turning right, or need to make my presence 'known' to other drivers.


----------



## Bicycle (26 Oct 2011)

This is what happens when you move helmet threads into the margin.

But I have to admit that some of the stuff being posted on this thread is hugely entertaining.

I'm pretty sure that people don't really believe a lot of it - like a Tarrantino script, it's fun to say it but it means nothing.

Jolly good fun though!

Keep it up.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> This is what happens when you move helmet threads into the margin.
> 
> But I have to admit that some of the stuff being posted on this thread is hugely entertaining.
> 
> ...




I agree Bicycle .


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> Freecyclist, you've ignored my question twice. Please answer:
> 
> What is your opinion on cyclists that take primary approaching a pinch point?



Yes what is a pinch point .


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Dude. I think you might have to explain the term "pinchpoint" and quite possibly the term "cyclist".



Wonderful the joy some people get out of being just plain nasty.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> +1
> I actually find that alot of motorist go out of there way to be considerate to me while im cycling so claud may call me spineless for it i like to be considerate to motorists and that includes allowing then to go past me 1/3 and 2/3 rather than taking primary specifically to stop them.
> I know its wrong but i just cant help myself.



Thats because you are polite and a concientious cyclist freecyclist. I also look for ways to give way to help keep traffic moving, and move over or even stop to allow this. But when you get some cyclists telling you they will even take a very wide primary position to stop oncoming traffic from overtaking also, it goes to show how some feel they have a right to dictate other road users actions as and when they deem safe, even if this is not the case, as may be seen by a vehicle on the other side of the road, wondering why this cyclist is near the middle of the road when it has plenty of room to not be. These type would rather cause delay and annoyance instead of pulling over and just letting faster vehicles go. This mentality of cyclist is the main cause of our bad name on the road. You keep doing what you do, it gets good reactions from all motorists we may encounter. And as a personal opinion, a large number of cyclists who have been killed or injured in this type of scenario, are the ones with this same mentality. They either didnt give an inch, or blocked on purpose, and didnt factor in that not every driver is expecting what they did. After all it does look very bad mannered when a cyclist tries to delay vehicles on purpose, as this is how it looks to the average motorist. If I find myself in a situation that looks like vehicles want to get passed and the pass room is tight, ill pull over and let them go, rather than block them or make it more difficult for them on purpose. Oh and when the personal insults start showing their heads, you know the ones saying it are getting stuck for words or are getting annoyed 
Oh and hi all, long time no debate?  

And another favourite is to be called a troll by anyone who doesnt agree with what your proposing


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Wonderful the joy some people get out of being just plain nasty.



Sorry, I just have no patience with stupid people. That's plain nasty.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Thats because you are polite and a concientious cyclist freecyclist. I also look for ways to give way to help keep traffic moving, and move over or even stop to allow this. But when you get some cyclists telling you they will even take a very wide primary position to stop oncoming traffic from overtaking also, it goes to show how some feel they have a right to dictate other road users actions as and when they deem safe, even if this is not the case, as may be seen by a vehicle on the other side of the road, wondering why this cyclist is near the middle of the road when it has plenty of room to not be. These type would rather cause delay and annoyance instead of pulling over and just letting faster vehicles go. This mentality of cyclist is the main cause of our bad name on the road. You keep doing what you do, it gets good reactions from all motorists we may encounter. And as a personal opinion, a large number of cyclists who have been killed or injured in this type of scenario, are the ones with this same mentality. They either didnt give an inch, or blocked on purpose, and didnt factor in that not every driver is expecting what they did. After all it does look very bad mannered when a cyclist tries to delay vehicles on purpose, as this is how it looks to the average motorist. If I find myself in a situation that looks like vehicles want to get passed and the pass room is tight, ill pull over and let them go, rather than block them or make it more difficult for them on purpose. Oh and when the personal insults start showing their heads, you know the ones saying it are getting stuck for words or are getting annoyed
> Oh and hi all, long time no debate?



Hi thanks.
Youve restored my faith in the good nature of cyclists.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Thats because you are polite and a concientious cyclist freecyclist. I also look for ways to give way to help keep traffic moving, and move over or even stop to allow this. But when you get some cyclists telling you they will even take a very wide primary position to stop oncoming traffic from overtaking also, it goes to show how some feel they have a right to dictate other road users actions as and when they deem safe, even if this is not the case, as may be seen by a vehicle on the other side of the road, wondering why this cyclist is near the middle of the road when it has plenty of room to not be. These type would rather cause delay and annoyance instead of pulling over and just letting faster vehicles go. This mentality of cyclist is the main cause of our bad name on the road. You keep doing what you do, it gets good reactions from all motorists we may encounter. And as a personal opinion, a large number of cyclists who have been killed or injured in this type of scenario, are the ones with this same mentality. They either didnt give an inch, or blocked on purpose, and didnt factor in that not every driver is expecting what they did. After all it does look very bad mannered when a cyclist tries to delay vehicles on purpose, as this is how it looks to the average motorist. If I find myself in a situation that looks like vehicles want to get passed and the pass room is tight, ill pull over and let them go, rather than block them or make it more difficult for them on purpose. Oh and when the personal insults start showing their heads, you know the ones saying it are getting stuck for words or are getting annoyed
> Oh and hi all, long time no debate?
> 
> And another favourite is to be called a troll by anyone who doesnt agree with what your proposing




The silent majority finally rises from slumber


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Sorry, I just have no patience with stupid people. That's plain nasty.




Don t post then


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> The silent majority finally rises from slumber



Hi Lukesdad, hows things?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Thats because you are polite and a concientious cyclist freecyclist. I also look for ways to give way to help keep traffic moving, and move over or even stop to allow this. But when you get some cyclists telling you they will even take a very wide primary position to stop oncoming traffic from overtaking also, it goes to show how some feel they have a right to dictate other road users actions as and when they deem safe, even if this is not the case, as may be seen by a vehicle on the other side of the road, wondering why this cyclist is near the middle of the road when it has plenty of room to not be. These type would rather cause delay and annoyance instead of pulling over and just letting faster vehicles go. This mentality of cyclist is the main cause of our bad name on the road. You keep doing what you do, it gets good reactions from all motorists we may encounter. And as a personal opinion, a large number of cyclists who have been killed or injured in this type of scenario, are the ones with this same mentality. They either didnt give an inch, or blocked on purpose, and didnt factor in that not every driver is expecting what they did. After all it does look very bad mannered when a cyclist tries to delay vehicles on purpose, as this is how it looks to the average motorist. If I find myself in a situation that looks like vehicles want to get passed and the pass room is tight, ill pull over and let them go, rather than block them or make it more difficult for them on purpose. Oh and when the personal insults start showing their heads, you know the ones saying it are getting stuck for words or are getting annoyed
> Oh and hi all, long time no debate?
> 
> And another favourite is to be called a troll by anyone who doesnt agree with what your proposing



I wholeheartedly agree with considering other road users.

I don't agree with coming in here and getting irate with people because you can't understand the concept of using your own judgement.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Don t post then



No!  

www.passiveaggressivenotes.com


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with considering other road users.
> 
> I don't agree with coming in here and getting irate with people because you can't understand the concept of using your own judgement.



Something else you will notice freecyclist, how they try to say your something your not. Im not irate at all, just being supportive  No doubt Ill be called a troll next, because I have an opinion that doesnt agree with some others thoughts.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Something else you will notice freecyclist, how they try to say your something your not. Im not irate at all, just being supportive  No doubt Ill be called a troll next, because I have an opinion that doesnt agree with some others thoughts.




Not you!

Was referring to freecycle's repeated posts demanding an exact measurement of how far one should ride away from he pavement.

Various people answered in various tones, but he took exception to every single person, accusing everyone of "refusing to give him a straight answer", when it's pretty much a "how long is a piece of string?" situation.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

Has anyone died on this thread yet?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
I am asking with reference to the above ;
If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
Under mrpauls theoretical ideology an overtake should not be done under said conditions.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or 
enforce the no overtaking by riding primary.
And for those prevaricating about potholes and suchlike theres one 2 inch pothole about 15 yards but shoudnt be a problem , fingers crossed.
anyone got the minerals to actually offer an opinion.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> Has anyone died on this thread yet?



Oh my god, several people were lost along the wayside.

God rest their bloodied corpses.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

But think of the children. Please won't someone think of the children.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Something else you will notice freecyclist, how they try to say your something your not. Im not irate at all, just being supportive  No doubt Ill be called a troll next, because I have an opinion that doesnt agree with some others thoughts.



Yes - anyone who disagrees with tillyflop must by default be stupid and irate and be silenced by whatever nasty means necessary.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Not you!
> 
> Was referring to freecycle's repeated posts demanding an exact measurement of how far one should ride away from he pavement.
> 
> Various people answered in various tones, but he took exception to every single person, accusing everyone of "refusing to give him a straight answer", when it's pretty much a "how long is a piece of string?" situation.



Usually silly innacurate nonsense.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2011)

You still here.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
> I am asking with reference to the above ;
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> ...



How wide is the road?
Is it up or down hill?
How light is it?
How fast are you going?
What is the weather like?
Why is the car behind you behaving like?
What is the surface of the road like? (smooth, loose covering,dry, wet?)
Urban or rural location?
Any sign of debris at the side of the road?
How are you feeling?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Usually silly innacurate nonsense.






freecyclist said:


> Why wont anyone give a straight answer ???


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

@The Sperminator

I didn't ask a question (apart from the rhetorical one regarding the poster's intentions) and certainly didn't repeat a question. You need to work on your comprehension. Also, that was days ago; do try to keep up.

So correcting your text: The 9 feet (for arguments sake) that you give a car, you should also give a bicycle. As has already been said, the bicycle is much narrower so the same 9 feet of room between you and the bicycle *kerb* will still leave you having to move to the right much less than you *being much further away from the bicycle* than you would have to with *be* *from* a car.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> How wide is the road?
> Is it up or down hill?
> How light is it?
> How fast are you going?
> ...



I would ride secondary and let the traffic go past me.
Thats my opinion.
It is contrary to what mrpauls ideology prescribes the correct action to be.
My riding dosnt vary that much depending on if theres any debris on the ground to the point that i am paralysed from giving an opinion based on hyperthetical sceenario.
I wont be taking anyone to court for wrong advice.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

Very good thanks col and you ?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

Good thanks, Iv been very busy with work and things. Hence my absence.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

1588548 said:


> Yes, you are misguided and foolish at best.



Adrian - no opinions just personal attacks. 
What do people like adrian get out of forums like this other than some strange vicarious joy of attacking somebody that they presumably cant get in real life. What are you contributing adrian.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Good thanks, Iv been very busy with work and things. Hence my absence.



We've missed you.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

1588548 said:


> Yes, you are misguided and foolish at best.




......and at worst just like Adrian and the rest of the playground bullies.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Not you!
> 
> Was referring to freecycle's repeated posts demanding an exact measurement of how far one should ride away from he pavement.
> 
> Various people answered in various tones, but he took exception to every single person, accusing everyone of "refusing to give him a straight answer", when it's pretty much a "how long is a piece of string?" situation.



Ah I see, when you quoted me in your answer it was a natural mistake


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> We've missed you.



Really? thank you very much, nice of you to say


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Good thanks, Iv been very busy with work and things. Hence my absence.




Nice to have you back


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I would ride secondary and let the traffic go past me.
> Thats my opinion.
> It is contrary to what mrpauls ideology prescribes the correct action to be.
> My riding dosnt vary that much depending on if theres any debris on the ground to the point that i am paralysed from giving an opinion based on hyperthetical sceenario.
> I wont be taking anyone to court for wrong advice.



I would judge it on those things. 

If I am going slowly, then I will usually get out of the way, unless it poses a risk to me in any way.

If I am coming to the top of a steep hill, then I will pull over at the top.

If I am going at speed, especially downhill, then I wil gradually pull over, as to avoid skidding.

But if it's in the countryside, the vast majority of drivers hold back until there is more room than absolutely needed.

City driving, I will drive about a meter and a half from the kerb, so I have enough room on case of emergency.

BUT I live in London and 90%of my journey is in bus or cycle lanes, so of you live somewhere without these, I dunno.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Ah I see, when you quoted me in your answer it was a natural mistake



I can see that. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
> I am asking with reference to the above ;
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> ...




Well if they are concerned about their safety and considerate they might stop or at least pull in........ nah ! not these road warriors, they re made of sturner stuff.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
No wonder cyclists are unpopular.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
> And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
> Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
> No wonder cyclists are unpopular.




What majority ? A dozen or so on a forum of thousands. Hardly a majority is it ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
> And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
> Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
> No wonder cyclists are unpopular.



TBH, as much as anyone says otherwise, there have been very few situations I have seen where people riding 2 abreast haven't moved over when it's meant that a car (or even another cyclist can go through), as to be fair, riding with a car up your bum isn't pleasant for the driver, the cyclists or anyone else involved. It's a much a natural reflex as anything.

As I mentioned before, when you riding in a group, if there is room for a car to pass with a couple feet room, then everyone will move in timely them past.

It's not a legal requirement to do so, but the vast majority of cyclists do anyway.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Well if they are concerned about their safety and considerate they might stop or at least pull in........ nah ! not these road warriors, they re made of sturner stuff.



The thing is its safe to let the cars overtake if you ride in secondary, yeh. But the philosphy says that cars should not overtake unless they can do it 100% in the oncoming alne , so if theres an obstacle on the verge meaning any overtaking car would have to overtake part in the cyclists lane then technicLlly that should not be permitted.
Its safe but should not be permitted and therefore the cyclist should ride in primary as a matter of principle to assert the correct course ot things , which is if you cant do it 100% in oncoming lane im not letting you do it at all.
Imho madness.
Move to secondary - cars pass safely - everybodys happy.
I hope its just theroretical gusto and people like mr paul dont really cyle about with massive tailbacks of cars behind them.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Mr paul has said cars should not overtake a cyclist unless they can do it !00% in the opposite lane.
> I am asking with reference to the above ;
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> ...



You haven't said how wide the carriageway is on my side of the road. (Probably lots of other important parameters missing as well.)

Oh, and you might want to read this: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> The militant cycling defense of cycling 2 abreast goes - a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast is no more difficult to overtake that a single cyclist because with either you should overtake entirely in the opposite carriageway.
> And a single cyclist should ride in primary to prevent overtaking if 100% of the opposite carriageway is not available for overtaking. Even if overtaking would be possible if the cyclist went into secondary.
> Anyway it seems like madness to me and rather disturbing that the majority seem to be convinced by it.
> No wonder cyclists are unpopular.




I would give up on this freecyclist. There is a time to use your position for safety, and a time when moving over or stopping is the sensible thing to do for all concerned. Which I believe is the normal everyday one. But your never going to get this over to some who will use all sorts of excuses as an argument not to. In real life we dont get a full lane as we are overtaken, we get a close pass most of the time. in fact most times not as close as when we filter down queues of traffic, but then thats another debate


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> What majority ? A dozen or so on a forum of thousands. Hardly a majority is it ?



Well majority of voices heard .
Maybe the normal cyclists just keep there heads down.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Nice to have you back



Thanks Lukesdad


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> I would give up on this freecyclist. There is a time to use your position for safety, and a time when moving over or stopping is the sensible thing to do for all concerned. Which I believe is the normal everyday one. But your never going to get this over to some who will use all sorts of excuses as an argument not to. In real life we dont get a full lane as we are overtaken, we get a close pass most of the time. in fact most times not as close as when we filter down queues of traffic, but then thats another debate



Good advice.
As you say we seldom get a full lane pass so to propose cycling in primary to deliberately prevent motorists behind from passing that could safely pass if you were in secondary seems to me to be just misguided and not to be recommended.
Anyway thanks for the voice of sanity .


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well majority of voices heard .
> Maybe the normal cyclists just keep there heads down.




By jove I think you ve grasped it !


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes what is a pinch point .



You claim to be a keen cyclist, but you don't know what a pinch point is?

It's also known as a "pedestrian haven", where there is an island in the middle of the road for pedestrians to stop at when crossing.


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Thats because you are polite and a concientious cyclist freecyclist. I also look for ways to give way to help keep traffic moving, and move over or even stop to allow this. But when you get some cyclists telling you they will even take a very wide primary position to stop oncoming traffic from overtaking also, it goes to show how some feel they have a right to dictate other road users actions as and when they deem safe, even if this is not the case, as may be seen by a vehicle on the other side of the road, wondering why this cyclist is near the middle of the road when it has plenty of room to not be. These type would rather cause delay and annoyance instead of pulling over and just letting faster vehicles go. This mentality of cyclist is the main cause of our bad name on the road. You keep doing what you do, it gets good reactions from all motorists we may encounter. And as a personal opinion, a large number of cyclists who have been killed or injured in this type of scenario, are the ones with this same mentality. They either didnt give an inch, or blocked on purpose, and didnt factor in that not every driver is expecting what they did. After all it does look very bad mannered when a cyclist tries to delay vehicles on purpose, as this is how it looks to the average motorist. If I find myself in a situation that looks like vehicles want to get passed and the pass room is tight, ill pull over and let them go, rather than block them or make it more difficult for them on purpose. Oh and when the personal insults start showing their heads, you know the ones saying it are getting stuck for words or are getting annoyed
> Oh and hi all, long time no debate?
> 
> And another favourite is to be called a troll by anyone who doesnt agree with what your proposing


I don't understand why I am considered rude for not pulling over every time a car wants to pass in a dangerous place when all I'm trying to do is continue my journey. Are we really saying that might makes right? Who really is the rude one I don't try and squeeze cars out I just make sure they give me the same courtesy.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> You claim to be a keen cyclist, but you don't know what a pinch point is?
> 
> It's also known as a "pedestrian haven", where there is an island in the middle of the road for pedestrians to stop at when crossing.



Shows how much you know ! A pinch point can be any manner of things where the carriage or road narrows for a short period before widening again to its former width.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

1588580 said:


> Was the example wrong?




" Its also known as a pedestrian haven" ?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588579 said:


> My understanding, anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, is that there is an opinion that failing to get out of the way of motorised traffic is rude and gets cyclists a bad name.



You stand corrected


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

A pedestrian haven. That sounds lovely.

Are there any cake shops there?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588575 said:


> But, just in case this is not enough, we should give up more road.



If its the sensible safer thing to do, yes.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

Dont stick up for him, you can twist it anyway you like his knowledge was lacking it is one example, he thought it was the only example.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

Wow. Just wow. I didn't realise This thread has this much life left in it.


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> If its the sensible safer thing to do, yes.



I can't think of any time when it has been safer for me to dismount at a pinch point with a car bearing down on me. I have always felt it safer to go on through. Admittedly I don't do any rural riding so there may be occasions on country lanes where it is safer to do that.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Wow. Just wow. I didn't realise This thread has this much life left in it.




Ah you re playing with the big boys now TillyFlop


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I can't think of any time when it has been safer for me to dismount at a pinch point with a car bearing down on me. I have always felt it safer to go on through. Admittedly I don't do any rural riding so there may be occasions on country lanes where it is safer to do that.




No, stopping where the road is wider is the safe thing to do, hence the addition of passing places.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Ah you re playing with the big boys now TillyFlop


Ooh er, missus!


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I can't think of any time when it has been safer for me to dismount at a pinch point with a car bearing down on me. I have always felt it safer to go on through. Admittedly I don't do any rural riding so there may be occasions on country lanes where it is safer to do that.



Its unlikely stopping at a pinch point is sensible or safer.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Its unlikely stopping at a pinch point is sensible or safer.




Unless it has a red traffic light or a lollipop lady or even a Tillyflop lady


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Its unlikely stopping at a pinch point is sensible or safer.


Yes and re passing places, if I go past one and there is another vehicle, I kind of see it as a given that I should pull in, maybe even take he opportunity to enjoy a bit of tangfastics.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Unless it has a red traffic light or a lollipop lady or even a Tillyflop lady



A Tillyfloplady?! God help us all! Oh the humanity!

(all I can think of is that scene in father Ted where Dougal is put in charge of a funeral and the hearse is in the grave and there are explosions everywhere)


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Its unlikely stopping at a pinch point is sensible or safer.



does this mean it's ok to take primary there then and not rude after all?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I don't understand why I am considered rude for not pulling over every time a car wants to pass in a dangerous place when all I'm trying to do is continue my journey. Are we really saying that might makes right? Who really is the rude one I don't try and squeeze cars out I just make sure they give me the same courtesy.



I dont try and force cars to show me courtesy, its normally unwise or unsafe. Ill also not try to block a vehicle passing when it could safely if I just moved over, I dont actually see any problem with that at all.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> I dont try and force cars to show me courtesy, its normally unwise or unsafe. Ill also not try to block a vehicle passing when it could safely if I just moved over, I dont actually see any problem with that at all.



I will go in primary at a really narrow pinch point, as some drivers will try to squeeze through and hit me massive behind with their wing mirror. Not out of malice, just out of not thinking.

I have never had anyone get upset at me doing that either.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> does this mean it's ok to take primary there then and not rude after all?




You make your own judgement, and we ll let others make theirs.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> does this mean it's ok to take primary there then and not rude after all?




does what mean ?


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

The point I'm eventually making (sorry) is that if I go in primary I dont get squeezed if I go in secondary I do get squeezed. which is ruder making someone wait a couple of seconds or scaring a person half to death?


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Dont stick up for him, you can twist it anyway you like his knowledge was lacking it is one example, he thought it was the only example.



No I didn't. Pardon me for not including the words "amongst other things"
I don't see why you have to be so confrontational about it.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588602"]
If it wouldn't be a safe overtake then the cyclist should prevent it.
[/quote]

Ah so we are the police of the roads, and use our discretion to block?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Ah so we are the police of the roads, and use our discretion to block?


Not police, no.

And not blocking, but holding back at a pinch point so I don't get knocked off, yes.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> The point I'm eventually making (sorry) is that if I go in primary I dont get squeezed if I go in secondary I do get squeezed. which is ruder making someone wait a couple of seconds or scaring a person half to death?



Your quite right, there are times when road position is important. But there are also times when we should give a little for the good of eveyone.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588608 said:


> Where that is the better option yes. Why not?



The better option being for you , what if the vehicle your blocking doesnt think its the better option? And see's it completely differentally to you?


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> does what mean ?



Sorry I haven't made myself clear. (I do that a lot) If it's not safe to dismount at a pinch point ( I think that was agreed ) is it not safer to take primary through it rather than risk encouraging a risky overtake from a motor vehicle?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Not police, no.
> 
> And not blocking, but holding back at a pinch point so I don't get knocked off, yes.




This wasnt on your post, its on anothers in a different context


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> This wasnt on your post, its on anothers in a different context



Oh yeah, it was that feller with Spex on.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Sorry I haven't made myself clear. (I do that a lot) If it's not safe to dismount at a pinch point ( I think that was agreed ) is it not safer to take primary through it rather than risk encouraging a risky overtake from a motor vehicle?



If its a tight pinch point, i would have checked behind me before entering it, if i had to make a vehicle slow unreasonably Id hang back and let it go.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

I am a local DJ on W.O.L.D. Der Der Der Der Der Der Der


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> No I didn't. Pardon me for not including the words "amongst other things"
> I don't see why you have to be so confrontational about it.




I ll give you the benefit of the doubt, next time get your facts straight eh ?


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> If its a tight pinch point, i would have checked behind me before entering it, if i had to make a vehicle slow unreasonably Id hang back and let it go.



You are more of a gentlemen than me




but I am pretty sure that I would never get to work if I had to dismount or pull over every time a car wanted to pass me at rush hour.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588620"]
Control the road space around you. If a car is about to overtake in a situation which would make the overtake unsafe, then move out and prevent it.
[/quote]

That's what I was taught in my cycling lessons last year.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588614 said:


> My safety, your safety. My convenience, your convenience.



Im not trained to police other vehicles on the roads, and doubt most other cyclists are too, and Id gladly be inconvenienced if it keeps things safer than being convenient.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588619 said:


> Then you are doing all of us a disservice



Why?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588621"]
Who has said otherwise?
[/quote]

I dont know, why do you ask?


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> You claim to be a keen cyclist, but you don't know what a pinch point is?
> 
> It's also known as a "pedestrian haven", where there is an island in the middle of the road for pedestrians to stop at when crossing.



I claim to be a keen cyclist as much as you claim to be a practising homosexual invloved in a secret liason with an undisclosed member of the england world cup rugby team.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I ll give you the benefit of the doubt, next time get your facts straight eh ?



You're rather unpleasant. Welcome to ignore.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I claim to be a keen cyclist as much as you claim to be a practising homosexual invloved in a secret liason with an undisclosed member of the england world cup rugby team.



So you're arguing from a position of total ignorance then?

Still not answering the question I see.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> You are more of a gentlemen than me
> 
> 
> 
> but I am pretty sure that I would never get to work if I had to dismount or pull over every time a car wanted to pass me at rush hour.



I thought we were on about out of town roads. But thats a good point, in town we pass with inches to spare sometimes, yet a car passes within feet and they are dangerous drivers?


----------



## PK99 (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well majority of voices heard .
> Maybe the normal cyclists just keep there heads down.



The militant ones are certainly more likely to pick up the bone then continue shaking it terrier like


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> So you're arguing from a position of total ignorance then?
> 
> Still not answering the question I see.



I claim to be a keen cyclist arguing from a position of total ignorance as much as you claim to be a practising homosexual invloved in a secret liason with an undisclosed member of the england world cup rugby team.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

PK99 said:


> The militant ones are certainly more likely to pick up the bone then continue shaking it terrier like


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588628"]
Because if no-one has then someone is arguing with thin air.
[/quote]


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I claim to be a keen cyclist arguing from a position of total ignorance as much as you claim to be a practising homosexual invloved in a secret liason with an undisclosed member of the england world cup rugby team.



Wow, great addition to the thread. Do us all a favour and ditch the casual homophobia.

Are you going to answer the question?


----------



## rowan 46 (26 Oct 2011)

col said:


> I thought we were on about out of town roads. But thats a good point, in town we pass with inches to spare sometimes, yet a car passes within feet and they are dangerous drivers?



Sorry that doesn't hold for me I never filter and even if I did the difference between me going past a car at 4 mph is a lot different from a car passing me at 30


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588632 said:


> Not why, in what way?
> 
> The driver of a vehicle comes up behind you approaching a pinch point 5 times and you back off to let him go first. The next time it is me (say) and I don't know that you have taught him cyclists back off at pinpoint not does he know that I don't.



Its not a diservice to anyone, its keeping myself safe, and keeping good cyclist car relations.


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

1588639 said:


> Is this another way if saying 'yes, I am a troll"?



To be 100% honest adrian no i didnt mean it that way but looking back i can see why someone one the other side of the fence might take it that way.
If theres any sense of honour on this forum please accept that trolloing does not even enter ther equation.
OK ?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588627"]
I am. There are plenty of cycling courses which will train you in exactly that.
[/quote]

Whats this legal qualification called? And when did the government pass this to give cyclists police powers of traffic regulation?


----------



## PK99 (26 Oct 2011)

1588632 said:


> Not why, in what way?
> 
> The driver of a vehicle comes up behind you approaching a pinch point 5 times and you back off to let him go first. The next time it is me (say) and* I don't know that you have taught him cyclists back off at pinpoint not does he know that I don't.*




I take a look and signal that i am moving across the lane. 

I see cyclists making two big errors:

1 Sticking to the left in the pinch point "inviting an overtake"

2 Moving to primary with no signal


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Sorry that doesn't hold for me I never filter and even if I did the difference between me going past a car at 4 mph is a lot different from a car passing me at 30



I dont either, and your right.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> You're rather unpleasant. Welcome to ignore.



Oh dear caught out then throws a paddy


----------



## freecyclist (26 Oct 2011)

1588645 said:


> sure



Im not kidding .
Anyway dont you have to get up to go to work tomorrow ?


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2011)

GO TO BED


----------



## col (26 Oct 2011)

1588649 said:


> Adult communication.



Ah so its not a government training course. And you dont get policing powers.


----------



## Red Light (26 Oct 2011)

Well if Freecyclist is a troll he's done a very good job of setting us against each other. This thread seems to have got extremely tetchy amongst folks that normally seem to get on quite well and civilly .


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Well if Freecyclist is a troll he's done a very good job of setting us against each other. This thread seems to have got extremely tetchy amongst folks that normally seem to get on quite well and civilly .



I tried intelligent debate but people seemed more intent on petty point scoring and personal attacks so wtf cant beat them join them. 
And high in the order of petty peurile point scorers is our man himself redlight. What was it you called me to make a cheap cowardly point ?


----------



## snailracer (27 Oct 2011)

We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.

The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.

If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Oct 2011)

snailracer said:


> We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.
> 
> The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.
> 
> If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.


As I said earlier I have read the book and find my cycling much more comfortable since doing so. I have rarely had a close shave when taking primary it is mainly in secondary position I get close passes mainly I guess because most drivers who do close passes don't understand how much room a cyclist needs as a safe zone.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

snailracer said:


> We can construct (endless) theoretical arguments about where the safest position on the road is, or whether motorists are annoyed for good reason or not, in any given situation. However, no one person has cycled enough miles, seen or been involved in sufficient accidents (otherwise they'd be dead many times over ) to determine which argument wins out in real life.
> 
> The concept of "primary" position and when to occupy it is a concept explored in detail by John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, whose CV can be found here.
> 
> If anyone thinks their experience, knowledge or innate genius entitles them to speak with more authority than Mr Franklin, please step forward and declare your credentials.



Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
or 
enforce the idea that overtaking is only permissable if cars use 100% of the opposite carriageway by riding primary to prevent overtaking.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
> ...



cycling in birmingham at least chelmsley wood I have rarely ever had a car move completely into the opposite lane to overtake so I guess for me the answer is yes. But this is my decision not a drivers right. I maintain the right to move into primary should circumstances dictate. my safety comes before a car users convenience


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> cycling in birmingham at least chelmsley wood I have rarely ever had a car move completely into the opposite lane to overtake so I guess for me the answer is yes. But this is my decision not a drivers right. I maintain the right to move into primary should circumstances dictate. my safety comes before a car users convenience



yes i guess the answer for a sensible person like yourself would be yes too.
Thanks for giving an opinion and answering .
Obviously not giving up any cyclists rights to do whatever and potholes or weather conditions you would do the coomon sense thing and let the cars go past and carry on about there business , cos as you so rightly point out in the real world its rare that a car ever moves completely into the opposite lane to overtake.
Straight forward common sense answer - halleluja.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> yes i guess the answer for a sensible person like yourself would be yes too.
> Thanks for giving an opinion and answering .
> Obviously not giving up any cyclists rights to do whatever and potholes or weather conditions you would do the coomon sense thing and let the cars go past and carry on about there business , cos as you so rightly point out in the real world its rare that a car ever moves completely into the opposite lane to overtake.
> Straight forward common sense answer - halleluja.



to be fair I don't think that answer is substantially different from anything that's been said. the general conclusion is that primary is the default position for riding through hazards not riding per se I think it's been said time and again that where possible they let drivers through. The argument is when that point should be, at the drivers convenience. Or at a point where it's safe for the cyclist. The two are not always the same.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I think we'd all agree that motorists are to blame for most crashes.
> So your saying that riding primary may piss motorists off but it is in actuality safer.
> Maybe and on the safety grounds i agree its valid in those circumstances. There are times i can 100% see the point in riding primary.
> Its just at the extreme end where the justification for riding primary and preventing overtaking is purely ideological with no safety benefit that i have a problem.
> *Thats the cycling fundamentalist bit - where a cyclist adopts primary purely as part of a militant ideology with no justification through safety benefit. Like my 1/3 and 2/3 situation that i keep refering to with mrpaul.*


that's the bit that exists in your imagination


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588667"]
You allow the overtake only if It is safe. Whether the driver ends up on the other side of the road or not doesn't come into it. You've introduced your own confusion by mixing up the issues of how drivers should overtake and cyclists policing the road around them. 

You've had the correct answer several times now.
[/quote]

Ok if its safe you allow the overtake using part on both carriageways.
Should the motorists overtake ?


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok well clearly i havnt understood what youve said so can you clarify.
> No oncoming traffic.
> Parked cars encroaching onto opposite lane.
> Cars cannot overtake 100% completely in opposite lane but could comfortable overtake one third in cyclists lane and 2 thirds opposite lane.
> ...


circumstances alter cases. You take in to account the width of the road, forward visibility, speeds, and, critically, on a group ride, the length of the group (the longer the group, the less certain the overtake.) 

Some people have pointed to training, and that's not a bad thing, but I reckon this thread has probably achieved something - you'll look at the good practice of other cyclists and appreciate the merits of it.

We all come to this from different perspectives. I'm probably as confident, assertive and patient a cyclist as you'll meet. That's down to fifty years of practice, and close on forty years of assertive riding (it's fair to say I used to crash a lot, but that was mostly about going too fast, which was foolish, and, in any case, is now beyond me). 

The love of my life has been cycling for, perhaps, ten years, and has only taken to commuting in the last five or so. She is not at all assertive, and that puts her at greater risk - although that risk is diminished by the huge number of cyclists that use the same roads. When she cycles to work I usually accompany her, and act as a kind of shield - moving right when need be, signalling for two, giving car drivers the hard stare, rapping on doors when they start moving in (a commonplace on Farringdon Road) and that kind of thing. When she cycles on her own I'm like a cat on hot bricks waiting for her.....so I wish she were more like me. I wish, and I mean this sincerely, that you were more like me. You'd be better off. 

And that's the thing with this thread. It isn't about us. It's about you. Right now you don't get it. You ascribe 'militancy' to people who are simply doing the sensible thing. If you put that failure of perception aside and read what's written you'll become a better, safer cyclist.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588670"]
If the motorist can use part of the opposing land then why can't he use all of it? 

He should give a cyclist as much room as he'd give a car. If he'd move into to other lane for a car then he should for a bike. 

Now, here's the important bit. As an assertive cyclist it's not your job on the road to make a driver do what he should, but it's in your interest to insist by your actions on a safe overtake whenever possible.
[/quote]

If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
As it is safe you ride secondary to allow the cars behind to overtake.
Should the cars overtake ?


----------



## Andy84 (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> As it is safe you ride secondary to allow the cars behind to overtake.
> Should the cars overtake ?



If and when it safe to do so


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Theres nothing wrong with being homosexual ben.
> God created us in our many and varied forms.
> You are what you are.


Why are you using it a an insult, if there's nothing wrong with it?


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588674"]
It's up to them. If you want to know what the cars should do, read the Highway Code.
[/quote]

So should the cars overtake ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
> ...



I answered that question in some detail last night.


----------



## adscrim (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are will still able to offer an opinion though ????
> If you were cycling down a road with no oncoming traffic.
> Due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> I am asking what would you do - ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake.
> ...





*How to cycle safely on the road*


When you're cycling on busy roads you need to show drivers what you plan to do. Motorists usually travel faster than cyclists and may have less time react to hazards.

Try to anticipate what a driver will do and:


ride positively and decisively
look and signal before you start, stop or turn
ride well clear of the kerb - 1 metre away or in the centre of the left lane
make eye contact with drivers to let them know you have seen them
acknowledge any courtesy from drivers
ride a car-door width away from parked cars
That's the Governments advice


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> If and when it safe to do so



Yes i agree.
But mrpaul expounds the view that the answer is no .
re - page 15 of this topic and preceeding pages. 
"motorists should only overtake a solo cyclist or group of single file riders cycling in secondary by moving totally into the other lane ?"
Hence the discussion.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes i agree.
> But mrpaul expounds the view that the answer is no .
> re - page 15 of this topic and preceeding pages.
> "motorists should only overtake a solo cyclist or group of single file riders cycling in secondary by moving totally into the other lane ?"
> Hence the discussion.



In that case, can we just accept that he thinks one thing and you think another and end it?


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> circumstances alter cases. You take in to account the width of the road, forward visibility, speeds, and, critically, on a group ride, the length of the group (the longer the group, the less certain the overtake.)
> 
> Some people have pointed to training, and that's not a bad thing, but I reckon this thread has probably achieved something - you'll look at the good practice of other cyclists and appreciate the merits of it.
> 
> ...


Its about me Ok then can you give me your opinion - 
As far as overtaking goes ; cyclists riding solo or group , single file or 2 abreast makes no difference because motorists should always overtake 100% in the opposite lane.
However in the situation we are talking about where due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake. 
So if safe do you ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake 
or
enforce the idea that overtaking is only permissable if cars use 100% of the opposite carriageway by riding primary to prevent overtaking. 
(just in principal and ignoring all other factors like if there are leaves on the ground , potholes etc)


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Its about me Ok then can you give me your opinion -
> As far as overtaking goes ; cyclists riding solo or group , single file or 2 abreast makes no difference because motorists should always overtake 100% in the opposite lane.
> However in the situation we are talking about where due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> So if safe do you ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake
> ...



Dude, that's the opinion of one person on here. You are free to completely disregard it and make up your own mind on what is safe and considerate to other road users.

But you're not going to change User's mind.

You are old enough to make this call yourself.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Its about me Ok then can you give me your opinion -
> *As far as overtaking goes ; cyclists riding solo or group , single file or 2 abreast makes no difference because motorists should always overtake 100% in the opposite lane.*
> However in the situation we are talking about where due to cars parked partly on the opposite carriageway cars attempting to overtake can only utilise 2/3rds of the opposite lane , therefore they would have to dip into your (the cyclists) lane by 1/3rd to be able to overtake.
> So if safe do you ride secondary and allow the cars to overtake
> ...


You've completely missed the point, and given that it's been made before, I reckon you've decided to miss the point. There are no rules. It depends entirely on circumstances. And, to point out the obvious, the number of cyclists does make a difference, because the length of clear road required will increase if the group is long - and even that isn't about numbers, but whether there are breaks in the group, and how spread out they are. 

And you ignore road width.

Speaking for myself, I approach this pragmatically. I don't want cars trailing me for miles on end, but I definitely don't want to be squeezed, or to see riders further up the road squeezed. I make a judgement, but (and here's the thing you're missing) I have the experience and the mental strength required to make that judgement. You clearly don't.

And now, I'm afraid, I move on. There's wisdom to be found in this thread - it's up to you to avail yourself of it or not. Good luck.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588686"]
That's not what's being said. Read the thread rather than considering one thing that I have said in isolation.
[/quote]

I'd say this thread is on a hiding to nothing.


----------



## Herzog (27 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'd say this thread is on a hiding to nothing.



I thought that about 10 pages earlier.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

Herzog said:


> I thought that about 10 pages earlier.



Me too, but it's like a scab that I can't stop picking at.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588685"]
Your answer lies in the Highway Code. You've ignored me when I've told you, so read the book. Or website, it's free.
[/quote]

Ok well you told me that cars should not overtake unless they are able to do so 100% in the other carriageway so presumably this is what the highway code says and presumably you are being evasive about repeating it because it highlights how out of touch the highway code is as most people acknowledge that so long as its safe theres nothing wrong in cars using part of both lanes when overtaking a cyclist riding in secondary .
I think thats about it.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588693"]
Read my subsequent post. 

Your statement in bold is correct. Neither the HC nor I would disagree with it.

It might help if you read the document which you have a problem with before you start criticising it.
[/quote]

Ok before you confirmed that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."
Now you are saying its ok for cars to overtake using part both lanes.
Glad ive helped clarify your opinion .


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

Hey, Freecyclist, I was wondering when you were going to get around to answering my question about a cyclist moving into primary when approaching a pinch point (whatever form that pinch point takes).

It's at least the 4th time I've asked. I'd hate to come to the conclusion that you're deliberately avoiding answering.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> Hey, Freecyclist, I was wondering when you were going to get around to answering my question about a cyclist moving into primary when approaching a pinch point (whatever form that pinch point takes).
> 
> It's at least the 4th time I've asked. I'd hate to come to the conclusion that you're deliberately avoiding answering.



Hey ben remind me what a pinch point is again because last time i gave up going to answer cos of all the confusion and bickering over the agreed definition.


----------



## lukesdad (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hey ben remind me what a pinch point is again because last time i gave up going to answer cos of all the confusion and bickering over the agreed definition.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hey ben remind me what a pinch point is again because last time i gave up going to answer cos of all the confusion and bickering over the agreed definition.



Let's just call it " a place where the road narrows considerably for a couple of feet"


----------



## Bicycle (27 Oct 2011)

This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.

I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:

Contributors broadly agree that the key issues are courtesy, awareness and clear indication of intent.

Those contributors who believe that there are times when doubling up is just selfish, thoughtless or discourteous tend to be those who are also motorists. 

There is a minority of contributors who seem to take a slightly anti-motorist view and who view anyone in a car with deep suspicion. These contributors give the impression (through their prose) that they do not drive.

I quite understand the issue with group rides. I have no issue with them. They rarely hold one up for longer than a few minutes and it's lovely to see that sort of use being deriived from our road network.

What was quite surprising was to see how self-appointed 'chaingang experts' were getting quite offensively comparitive about who was and was not capable of taking the tail of a group. That sort of thing brings the level of the debate down to Year 1 of primary school. Huge fun for the reader, but it doesn't reflect well n the contributor.

I also notice in this thread a feeling amongst some that 'motorists are motorists and cyclists are cyclists' and that there is some sort of Biblical conflict there between the enlightened and the savage pagan.

It simply isn't so. Many motorists cycle and many cyclists drive. All we need to do is rub along together and treat other road users like members of our own family.

I have the sneakiest little inkling of a suspicion that one or two contributors here set out for a ride half looking for another outrage perpetrated by a wicked motorist. Really... it isn't some sort of mortal sin. Poor driving is annoying; so is poor cycling. Both can occasionally cause pain.



Drive and ride with awareness, forethought and courtesy. Life will be much jollier if you do.


----------



## Moss (27 Oct 2011)

Not safe to write on the forum or ride a bicycle on the highway! Don't really understand why cyclists disagree about a simple manouver by motorists on the UK Road systems? When it's simple : 'When passing a cyclist, do so with the utmost care and caution' : Don't be selfish, show some consideration for other road users!	Simple!


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Let's just call it " a place where the road narrows considerably for a couple of feet"



^ what she said


----------



## Dan B (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hey ben remind me what a pinch point is again because last time i gave up going to answer cos of all the confusion and bickering over the agreed definition.



While I am prepared to accept freecyclist's at his word that he is not a troll, some of his posts in this thread seem largely indistinguishable from those that a troll would make, and the above is a notable example. Consider (a) the pretended ignorance as to what a pinch point is (surely a very simple and easily guessable term), (b) the misrepresentation of earlier discussion in which people tried to explain it to him, (c) the demand for spoon feeding information which he could quite easily fond out for himself even if it wasn't obvious from context, all in the service of (d) keeping the thread active while avoiding answering the question

Really, if he _was_ trying to troll he couldn't be doing much better. It's quite bizarre that a genuine request for information should so closely resemble an ongoing and persistent wind-up attempt


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.
> 
> I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:
> 
> ...


Incidentally fyi.
I do not own a car.
I am 100% cycle / public transport dependant.
I am assertive (to a fault) when cycling.
I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Incidentally fyi.
> I do not own a car.
> I am 100% cycle / public transport dependant.
> I am assertive (to a fault) when cycling.
> I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.



If that's really what you think, then how the hell have you strung this out for 20+ pages?
No-one has suggested that cyclists should deliberately impede other road users just for the hell of it, but to prevent unsafe overtakes.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> ^ what she said



Yes take primary.
I agree with whatever your point is here ben ok as its not really what i want to discuss nor was querying. (i cant remember what point you were making tbh)


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588698"]
That's not the case, as you know.
[/quote]

Yes it is.
You (like all exponents of 2 abreast) argued that cycling 2 abreast or single file makes no difference for overtaking as motorists should only ever overtake 100% in the opposite carriageway.
This has now been shown to be totally incorrect.
So cyclist riding 2 abreast or single file does make a difference to whether motorist can overtake.
Motorists may be able to safely overtake groups of cyclists if they are in single file but not if they are 2 abreast.


----------



## Dan B (27 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.
> 
> I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:


With respect, I think it's a pattern of your own imagining.

You are assuming that people who display a "suspicion" of cars do so because they don't drive. Then you are claiming that this is because they don't drive and are viewing this issue through an "us and them" lens. This is circular reasoning

I drive. Whether I am driving or cycling, I display a "suspicion" of cars because, empirically, some car drivers are boneheads. In fact, my driving instructor told me to : he said that I should not trust other drivers' intentions and always be prepared for them to do something stupid. I think this is pretty standard advice, as I've heard many other drivers say similar. The widespread belief among drivers that they're better than average is also consonant with a mental attitude that "everyone else is an idiot"

Of course the vast majority of road users of whatever kind are sensible and predictable (I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say "courteous", but then I live in London, and the cognitive load of driving or riding in zone 1 rarely allows much overhead for pleasantries) but even if the percentage of idiots is one in a hundred it doesn't take more than ten minutes to see a hundred other road users. And that means I will continue to take primary when the road narrows and discourage unsafe overtakes through my road positioning: good drivers will understand why I'm doing it, and the bad drivers I'd rather have in a state of annoyance than in the side of my bicycle.

As far as this thread goes, at least, the "war" between cyclists and drivers is in your imagination.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.


As I gain more experience of travelling the same route, every time I have a problem in a certain place that can be ascribed to my own failure to adopt a strong road position, I resolve to change my habit and claim the lane at that point. It is interesting that I can see a time when I will be riding the whole journey in primary position. This is because in every place where I try to be courteous, I eventually get some idiotic driver taking the p155. Sometimes I will post a video of the incident on YouTube and then various people will tell me I should be riding in a stronger position to prevent this.


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes take primary.
> I agree with whatever your point is here ben ok as its not really what i want to discuss nor was querying. (i cant remember what point you were making tbh)



Finally.

So you obviously have no problem with taking primary to prevent (or at least discourage) an unsafe overtake.
That is exactly what 99% of cyclists are doing when continuing to cycle two abreast when a car comes up.

Obviously you sometimes get a selfish idiot, just as you do in all areas of life, but when they continue to cycle two abreast it's not to assert cyclist's rights, it's just because they're selfish idiots.

No-one here has promoted or defended deliberately impeding other road users progress just for the sake of it. But when your own safety is at stake it is absolutely the right thing to do to take a strong and assertive road position to discourage an unsafe overtake. Do you agree?


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> If that's really what you think, then how the hell have you strung this out for 20+ pages?
> No-one has suggested that cyclists should deliberately impede other road users just for the hell of it, but to prevent unsafe overtakes.



Ok ben - mrpaul has said that cyclists are justified in cycling 2 breast because a car overtaking is required to do so 100% in the opposite lane. If cars are required to overtake 100% in the opposite lane then this makes sense - it would make no difference to cars ability to overtake if cyclists were 5 abreast if what mrpauls says were true.
I was querying if it is true that cars should only overtake 100% in the opposite lane because that is what cyclists right to cycle 2abreast all the time is founded on.
If it is true the i can see that theoretically riding 2 abreast all the time is correct.
If it is not true then 2 abreast or single file does affect motorists ability to overtake and therefore riding single file would be recommended as it allows for other traffic to flow - obviously if safety dictates going to primary then you go to primary but that is the same for solo or single file group.
Dyu get me at all ?


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ok ben - mrpaul has said that cyclists are justified in cycling 2 breast because a car overtaking is required to do so 100% in the opposite lane. If cars are required to overtake 100% in the opposite lane then this makes sense - it would make no difference to cars ability to overtake if cyclists were 5 abreast if what mrpauls says were true.
> I was querying if it is true that cars should only overtake 100% in the opposite lane because that is what cyclists right to cycle 2abreast all the time is founded on.
> If it is true the i can see that theoretically riding 2 abreast all the time is correct.
> If it is not true then 2 abreast or single file does affect motorists ability to overtake and therefore riding single file would be recommended as it allows for other traffic to flow - obviously if safety dictates going to primary then you go to primary but that is the same for solo or single file group.
> Dyu get me at all ?



I understand what you're saying, but that's not a position that anyone has put forward, so is a total straw man. 

Mr Paul said that in some situations the overtaking vehicle should move 100% into the opposite lane, but he never said that was the case every time, in all situations, regardless of the road conditions.

In some road situations it is safest for the riders to drop into single file, in others it is safest for them to remain 2 abreast.


----------



## Bicycle (27 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> With respect, I think it's a pattern of your own imagining.
> 
> You are assuming that people who display a "suspicion" of cars do so because they don't drive. Then you are claiming that this is because they don't drive and are viewing this issue through an "us and them" lens. This is circular reasoning
> 
> ...



I take your point, but I differ:

Yes, all trainee drivers are told to be prepared for idiocy. I've recently been teaching my eldest to drive and it all came back to me. Incidentally, she is a very keen cyclist, but rides differently now that she drives.

On 'better than average' I agree with you. I have long been a DP bore about this. I regularly claim that I am a below-average driver. People say this cannot be so (they are polite) and I say "Look how many points I have" (which is often quite a few). People really are unwilling to be in or below the fiftieth centile. I have no idea why. It might be like saying I'm a lousy shag... althopugh in truth it isn't.

As to London, it's where I'm from andI ride there regularly (although I no longer live there). I find cycling in London a pleasure. An absolute pleasure. A very diifferent one from riding in the Marches where I live, but a pleasure nonetheless.

Courtesy is everywhere. Boneheadedness is rare.

As to the cyclist/driver conflict on these pages being in my head, I disagree. You and I are not a part of it, but I see plenty of circumstantial suggestion that there are contributors here who dislike drivers and tar us/them all with the same brush.


----------



## StuartG (27 Oct 2011)

Have you been at it all night? I'm afraid I dropped out nearly 20 pages ago ... and I note the discussion has not progressed (regressed?). IMHO you are all just wasting photons which can only bring forward our annihilation according to the second law of thermodynamics.

We don't understand Freecyclist. Freecyclist doesn't understand us. No resolution is possible unless, perhaps, FC were to join Del on a FNRttC or go on a club run (most welcome guests, its just a case of finding one that matches your riding speed/stamina). Then FC - you would much better understand our varied views and less likely to misconstrue them. Then your views on how runs are conducted are likely to mean more to us.

Otherwise it is easy to dismiss you as 'clueless'. I'm not trying to insult you but just make you aware of why so many have left this thread and certain others continue it for their own pleasure. If you feel you are not clueless then you need a better basis of fact to critique group riding. And think us not defensive, the bottom line is safety on the road. Unnecessarily alienating motorists will never help that. And if a leader of our group ever did that then he would soon be riding alone.

These columns are often filled with vigorous discussion on the pros and cons of the CycleCraft (primary/assertive) style of riding. We are not a simple extremist block. We are trying to find our way to the best style of riding and most of us are open to valued experience from all viewpoints. You just need to up your value if you want your viewpoint taken seriously.

Sorry if that appears condescending. I have no wish to be. Just genuinely trying to be of help to you. Take it or leave it.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> Finally.
> 
> So you obviously have no problem with taking primary to prevent (or at least discourage) an unsafe overtake.
> That is exactly what 99% of cyclists are doing when continuing to cycle two abreast when a car comes up.
> ...



Yes ben - you arnt the person i am disagreeing with and i have never had any desire to argue with you.


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes ben - you arnt the person i am disagreeing with and i have never had any desire to argue with you.



But the position I outlined above is precisely the same as has been explained by the very many other posters on this thread. 

So it looks like we are all in agreement - it's absolutely fine and the right thing to do to take primary/ride 2 abreast in order to discourage an unsafe overtake.

Can we leave it there now please?


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> I understand what you're saying, but that's not a position that anyone has put forward, so is a total straw man.
> 
> Mr Paul said that in some situations the overtaking vehicle should move 100% into the opposite lane, but he never said that was the case every time, in all situations, regardless of the road conditions.
> 
> In some road situations it is safest for the riders to drop into single file, in others it is safest for them to remain 2 abreast.



Hi Ben.
To clarify;
Page 15.
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."
I have been querying this.
I dont know this may even be what the highway code says and cyclists actually are theoretically justified in cycling round 2 abreast all the time.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Hi Ben.
> To clarify;
> Page 15.
> Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."
> ...



The only post that I can see even vaguely similar says:
*
If you couldn't overtake a car in the same space you shouldn't overtake a bike. *

It has been edited, mind.


----------



## rowan 46 (27 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.
> 
> I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:
> 
> ...


I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you. there have been claims of some sort of militant cycle republican army but no evidence. Claims laid against some camera cyclists on other threads that they look for trouble. But this post is the first I've seen in this thread of cyclists looking for trouble ( I am prepared to apologise If I have missed one I confess to not remembering every post) As to the motorists are motorists and cyclists are cyclists well it may be that 90% of the cyclists here are also motorists. But my guess is that motorists on this forum drive considerately. It's the drivers who don't cycle who give the close passes, who overtake slam on the brakes then turn left or just left hook you. I know and every cyclist knows it's not every driver but if I got 100 cyclists who had had a friend killed or seriously injured on a bike my bet is that 90 of them would have involved a motor car. we know that motorists are not the enemy but they are the cyclists biggest threat and it doesn't hurt to cycle in such a way so as to mitigate that threat. As to driving with awareness, forethought and courtesy I am all for that but that that cuts both ways. it is not courteous of cars to expect me to stop and pull over (as has been suggested) just because they wish to pass me. 
I am not a militant cyclist trying to control the highways. cars are welcome to the roads I use a car on occasions. All I ask of car drivers is they treat me with the same respect I treat them.


----------



## StuartG (27 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you


+1


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588726"]
There's nothing remotely like you claim above on page 15.

Despite this, I have continued to respond to your query, again without saying what you claim above.

Why are you consistently trying to make me say something that I don't think, just so that you can argue against it?


[/quote]

Page 13
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."


----------



## theclaud (27 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you.






StuartG said:


> +1



Me neither. On account of it not being there.


----------



## Dan B (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588726"]
Why are you consistently trying to make me say something that I don't think, just so that you can argue against it?
[/quote]

Oddly enough, that's another thing that trolls do. But I'm sure that's not the explanation here


----------



## pepecat (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588718"]

Consider-
http://maps.google.c...,44.85,,0,11.67

This inside lane was designed to be wide enough to allow what were considered at the time to be safe overtakes without leaving the lane. The jury is out on whether this is possible. But my behaviour is different here. I have little problem with safe overtakes being carried out within the lane. If I consider that an approaching car is not going to pass me safely then I will take primary. This may prevent an unsafe overtake, and also gives me the opportunity to swing to the left to get away from the car if he still tries to pass too closely.
[/quote]

Now then, User..... we all know you should be using the shared cycle/pedestrian route on the pavement here and not on the road at all.......


----------



## Arch (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. *But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.*



Not if a driver overtakes properly. That is, when there's good visibility, and no oncoming traffic. What too many drivers do is assume that it's ok to have 

cyclist - themselves in car - oncoming car

all abreast at the same time, when on the vast majority of roads, that's going to be uncomfortably close for the cyclist, and probably the oncoming driver too....

Also, if you have two cyclists, one ahead of the other, you have to allow for a longer overtake, and hence a longer gap in the oncoming traffic. Once again, many drivers seem to assume that it takes the same time to overtake two cyclists in tandem (one in front of the other) as two abreast, often meaning they cut back in uncomfortably early for the one in front...


----------



## benb (27 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]
> 
> Oddly enough, that's another thing that trolls do. But I'm sure that's not the explanation here



Just a coincidence I reckon, along with the constant use of straw-man arguments.


----------



## VamP (27 Oct 2011)

Guys, has it occured to any of you that freecyclist might be suffering from some condition, that is causing him to argue the way he does? Some forms of autism manifest themselves like this. Doggedly stating same thing over and over again, despite the thrust of dicussion having moved elsewhere.

I reckon we oughta give him the benefit of the doubt, and let this one die. It's been gone over enough.


----------



## StuartG (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588736"]
I don't think so. He's just another internetter who comes with an opinion based without knowledge, but is unwilling to consider other views that might seem a bit alien.
[/quote]
If you believe that why waste your time and Shaun's bandwidth?

I agree, let it die.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Page 13
> Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."



Sniff, Sniff.


Sniiiifffff?


Troll!


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588728"]
Oh, that post? Do stop being deceptive and quote the whole post old chap. 

As you're actively avoiding reading the HC, as it will pull the rug from under your feet, I suspect that you won't want to be quoting my post for the same reason. So I'll do it for you....



Why are you pretending that I'm saying something that I'm not just so that you can argue against it?
[/quote]
You are lying.
You did confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Sniff, Sniff.
> 
> 
> Sniiiifffff?
> ...



Thats very clever of you leaping in here to call me a troll lyb.
Reminds me of all the hyenas calling you a troll in the dog debate.
Im disappointed that you show yourself to be as cowardly as those who accused you.
What did you think - cant beat em join em eh ?


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Oct 2011)

Blimey, this is a thread just like the old days of Linf and simoncc ....


----------



## ianrauk (27 Oct 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> Blimey, this is a thread just like the old days of Linf and simoncc ....



except less entertaining


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Thats very clever of you leaping in here to call me a troll lyb.
> Reminds me of all the hyenas calling you a troll in the dog debate.
> Im disappointed that you show yourself to be as cowardly as those who accused you.
> What did you think - cant beat em join em eh ?



Nope I thought... troll!


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Nope I thought... troll!




You are as bad as the cowardly and lazy people who called you a troll.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> You are as bad as the cowardly and lazy people who called you a troll.



You obviously pay more attention to my opinion, than I did to theirs. Thank you.


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You obviously pay more attention to my opinion, than I did to theirs. Thank you.



ok


----------



## freecyclist (27 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588743"]
Lying? I quoted the whole post you silly sausage.
[/quote]

You accused me of pretending that your saying something that your not just so that i can argue against it? 
rubbish - 
I asked "Are you saying that motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)." and you said yes.
You accused me of being deceptive.
You dont take responsibility for your words.
You are a deceitful liar .


----------



## Poacher (27 Oct 2011)

freecyclist:
Buy or borrow a copy of the Highway Code and persuade a responsible adult to read and explain it to you, showing you the pictures, until _*he or she*_ is convinced that you understand it.

Then buy or borrow a copy of Cyclecraft and persuade a responsible adult to read and explain it to you, showing you the pictures, until _*he or she*_ is convinced that you understand it. If you are fortunate, the same responsible adult may be patient enough to do this, but I suspect you may have to find another one.

Please don't make any further contributions to this thread until you have completed the above.


----------



## Bicycle (27 Oct 2011)

This thread was entertaining and at times even informative.

It then got a little mean-spirited and has now become a tiny bit horrid and full of spite.

Has the time come for an Admin type to lock it out?


----------



## Poacher (27 Oct 2011)

FFS, Bicycle, my first contribution to the thread, and you come out with that? It's adequately clear that freecyclist has no more than a passing aquaintance with the HC, and none with Cyclecraft. Many of us could do with following the advice in my post...seriously. As you can tell from my post count, I don't exactly overload this forum, but occasionally I feel a response such as that is needed. Sorry if you consider that to be mean-spirited and spiteful.


----------



## Slaav (28 Oct 2011)

I have officially given up on Page 14 - God i'm bored!!!


Cant we all just play nicely? On Forums/a and on the road? Please????


----------



## snorri (28 Oct 2011)

Poacher said:


> FFS, Bicycle, my first contribution to the thread, and you come out with that?



I don't think the criticism was aimed at you poacher, the thread had been less than courteous long before you added to it. You just came in at the wrong time and got caught in the crossfire.


----------



## freecyclist (28 Oct 2011)

Poacher said:


> freecyclist:
> Buy or borrow a copy of the Highway Code and persuade a responsible adult to read and explain it to you, showing you the pictures, until _*he or she*_ is convinced that you understand it.
> 
> Then buy or borrow a copy of Cyclecraft and persuade a responsible adult to read and explain it to you, showing you the pictures, until _*he or she*_ is convinced that you understand it. If you are fortunate, the same responsible adult may be patient enough to do this, but I suspect you may have to find another one.
> ...



Sorry Poacher i leave reading the highway code to sad old bankers like you.
Please don't make any further contributions to this thread til youve got a life.


----------



## freecyclist (28 Oct 2011)

Youve said alot including motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane.
You now seem to be trying to distance yourself from this opinion by dishonest accusations and denials.


----------



## Tim Hall (28 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sorry Poacher i leave reading the highway code to sad old bankers like you.



Ah. Sub optimal response there.



> Please don't make any further contributions to this thread til youve got a life.



What about me? Can I contribute?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (28 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sorry Poacher i leave reading the highway code to sad old bankers like you.
> Please don't make any further contributions to this thread til youve got a life.



Said the man STILL arguing the same point some THREE DAYS after everyone else has given up...


----------



## Hip Priest (28 Oct 2011)

36 pages in and I don't think anybody is going to have their minds changed. Why not agree to disagree?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (28 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> 36 pages in and I don't think anybody is going to have their minds changed. Why not agree to disagree?



Oh my god - surely not!? Wouldn't the whole world implode or something?


----------



## ManiaMuse (28 Oct 2011)

I haven't bothered to read this thread.

But, in normal everyday riding/commuting...

...what's the point in riding 2 abreast when you could be drafting them and getting a free ride instead? (unless with a group obviously)


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2011)

ManiaMuse said:


> I haven't bothered to read this thread.
> 
> But, in normal everyday riding/commuting...
> 
> ...



To have a conversation perhaps?


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2011)

ManiaMuse said:


> *I haven't bothered to read this thread.*
> 
> But, in normal everyday riding/commuting...
> 
> ...what's the point in riding 2 abreast when you could be drafting them and getting a free ride instead? (unless with a group obviously)



Probably wise on balance.

But it's nice to ride side by side. Companionable. Convivial. It says something about what public space is for. We should all do more of it.


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> i leave reading the highway code to sad old bankers like you.



Your point is noted.


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Has the time come for an Admin type to lock it out?





Nooooooo
This is classic stuff for some of us from the old C+ daze ....

Thread of the year IMO.


----------



## Bicycle (28 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> But it's nice to ride side by side. Companionable. Convivial. It says something about what public space is for. We should all do more of it.




I think we should not all be doing more of it.

Public space is for many things, but the roads are (amongst other things) part of our national transport infrastructure.

There are lots of lovely places to travel side-by-side and enjoy good company or a nice chat.

I think the road network is not necessarily one of those places.

Some drivers might confuse your desire for dialogue on a single-carriageway section of the A417 with a slightly bloody-minded attitude to other road users.


----------



## totallyfixed (28 Oct 2011)

If this isn't one huge wind up then someone has serious issues, but in any case please please keep going, haven't been this entertained since Fawlty Towers, tenacity and farce in equal measures


----------



## gaz (28 Oct 2011)

Surely it is ok to ride like this, i see plenty of drivers doing it each day.


----------



## HLaB (28 Oct 2011)

Is this still going


----------



## pepecat (28 Oct 2011)

I'm going to regret this but.........



Bicycle said:


> Public space is for many things, but the roads are (amongst other things) part of our national transport infrastructure.
> 
> There are lots of lovely places to travel side-by-side and enjoy good company or a nice chat.
> 
> I think the road network is not necessarily one of those places.



(Off topic here but what other things are roads besides part of our national transport infrastructure? Or am i being thick here?)

Anyhow.... not sure of these lovely other places where one can cycle side by side. There are precious few cycle paths around the place, and those that are decent width are generally shared with pedestrians and any speed over about 8mph seems to be frowned on by those with kids / dogs / pushchairs also using the path. Plus you can't really go side by side on these paths _because_ of the other path users. 
Which i guess is the 'don't ride sidy by side on the road' argument - we can't (or shouldn't) cos of the other road users?

What's the problem with riding side by side on a wide road, or a quiet country road, or just on a normal size road? Any time i've been side by side with someone, we drop into single file when we hear a car coming up behind, let is go past, and then assume side by side-ness again. Are we really suggesting that decent cyclists kicking along at 18mph and more, and having a chat as they go (wish i could do that!) should not be on the roads side by side if it's possible to do that?


----------



## snorri (28 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> There are lots of lovely places to travel side-by-side and enjoy good company or a nice chat.
> 
> I think the road network is not necessarily one of those places.



Are you telling us that all the motor vehicles on the road are engaged on a constant stream of life saving missions?


----------



## guitarpete247 (28 Oct 2011)

How about when driving down a narrow country lane and you meet a couple walking towards you (on the correct side of the road) side by side talking. It is slightly dangerous to over take them if there is a bend ahead so what do you do? Stop and wait for them to walk past you or intimidate them into stepping off the road. 


I know that as a cyclist we are travelling in the same direction as the car but are usually slower. When driving I always slow to wait till it is safe, regarding bends and lack of clear road ahead, to pass but have often been stuck behind 2 riders on a straight road where I can see ahead but cannot get past because they refuse to drop into _line astern_. I have always moved over as a pedestrian or gone to single file if a cyclist.


----------



## Bicycle (28 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> Are you telling us that all the motor vehicles on the road are engaged on a constant stream of life saving missions?



No. Absolutely not. I'm not sure I even imply that they might be.

Indeed I'm not sure where you get the impression that was even in my thinking.

National transport infrastructure is not just about 'constant streams of life-saving missions', although I quite understand if you think it is.

It is also a means of allowing people to get about and goods to get to shops and cyclists to have a jolly ride.

I'm a keen cyclist. I was riding today in the lanes of Herefordshire with my 12-year-old son, accompanying him to a pal's house. 

We didn't ride 2-abreast. We chatted, but in a shouty way amongst the traffic and always riding in line astern. Lots of vehicles passed us. Most with ease. We presented a narrow profile to faster-moving vehicles. We had no reason to hold them up.

I rode home alone and collected him and his bike later in the car (it was 19 miles away and after dark). 

We sat 2-abreast in the car and chatted. Nobody passed us or even came close to it. Nobody wanted to. I dare say that without breaking the law nobody could have passed us if they'd wanted to. We weren't travelling more slowly than the majority of road users wanted to travel. Indeed, we wewre travelling rather faster, but we didn't feel 'held up' by slower vehicles. We were sitting (selfishly) in a car designed for seven. It is much wider than a bicycle. It also carries frame tents, surf boards, several bicycles, furniture, family groups and lots of garden waste. 

I often cycle in London on business. There, my bicycle is significantly faster than a car. In truth, that's why I take it there on the train. It is practically a road rocket in London. There are people there who travel 2-abreast in motor vehicles. They are not doing it because they feel like a chat and aren't concerned about other road users. They do it because they are in a vehicle designed to take up most of a carriageway.

And they are driving on carriageways designed largely for vehicles like theirs.

There are times when cyclists riding 2-abreast are needlessly holding up faster vehicles when courtesy might suggest they move in and let them pass. In a car that's not an option.

It's not all about 'It's my right so I'll do it'.

Sometimes it's about all rubbing along together and just doing what is couteous, thoughtful and decent.


----------



## Bicycle (28 Oct 2011)

1588778 said:


> I can see how it can seem this way but it ain't necessarily so.




I agree. Not necessarily so, but as I said in the snippet you quote: 'largely'.

Camber favours the wider vehicle in the middle of the carriageway. In heavy rain the standing water collects largely towards the outer edge.

Curves in faster roads are designed to be safe for vehicles with two or more axles to negotiate at speed.

Roundabouts likewise.

Road surfaces are designed for the wear associated with motor vehicles.

ShellGrip (which I was cycling over today on precipitous Herefordshire hills) is designed for motor vehicles. It offers little in the way of enhanced grip to a road bike on 20-section tyres.

Of course bicycles are included in the thinking of road designers (and more today than 30 years ago) but our road network is designed _largely_ for motor vehicles.

If anyone wants to believe that cyclists figure large in the thinking of road-network designers, take a look at UK cycle lanes..... Or rather don't.


----------



## snorri (29 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sometimes it's about all rubbing along together and just doing what is couteous, thoughtful and decent.



Only sometimes?


----------



## freecyclist (29 Oct 2011)

If the attitudes shown in this topic are replicated by cyclists riding 2 abreast on the road then i doubt they will show the levels of consideration to motorists that i would hope they would. For some it seems the legal right to ride 2 abreast and the need to not be seen to be giving any concession to motorists is a recepie for pig ignorant selfishness.
The same selfish cyclists glorying in preventing cars from overtaking by their assertive riding will no doubt in the next breath be complaining about getting intimidated and close passed by the very drivers that they deliberately antagonise.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I agree. Not necessarily so, but as I said in the snippet you quote: 'largely'.
> 
> Camber favours the wider vehicle in the middle of the carriageway. In heavy rain the standing water collects largely towards the outer edge.
> 
> ...



Christ this is like pedalling through treacle. If design already attempts to marginalize cyclists, to render them invisible, this is yet another factor we must address by riding assertively. Making ourselves seen where the road invites motorists to disregard us, claiming spaces and surfaces that suit us, and so on.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588784"]
Jesus would ride a bike.
[/quote]

Christ on a bike?


----------



## briantrumpet (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588784"]
Jesus would ride a bike.[/quote]
But would he wear a helmet?

Sorry, wrong thread.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588786"]
That's the one.
[/quote]

Not this one, then?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I agree. Not necessarily so, but as I said in the snippet you quote: 'largely'.
> 
> Camber favours the wider vehicle in the middle of the carriageway. In heavy rain the standing water collects largely towards the outer edge.
> 
> ...


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fTTF2QIHDCM



or, as the excellent Mr. Welles put it - 'the faster we are carried the less time we have to spare'. If Jenny Jones' dream of a 20mph zone stretching from Brighton to Inverness comes about, the streets will be returned to human beings, whose minds will not be subtly (or not so subtly) altered. Of coure this entire discussion would lapse and thirty something pages worth of pixels would have to find a task equally worthy of their brightness, but you can't have everything in life.


----------



## srw (29 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Not this one, then?



He has his own jersey:



jesus bike jersey by bikingthings, on Flickr

And a club: http://www.ibelieveracingteam.com/cyclingteam.html


----------



## PK99 (29 Oct 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sometimes it's about all rubbing along together and just doing what is couteous, thoughtful and decent.



+1


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (29 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Not this one, then?



If you show the same lack of respect and consideration to motorists as you do the other forum members religeous sensibilities then i can see why you might come across as inconsiderate and selfish.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> If you show the same lack of respect and consideration to motorists as you do the other forum members religeous sensibilities then i can see why you might come across as inconsiderate and selfish.



Come again?


----------



## benb (29 Oct 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> If you show the same lack of respect and consideration to motorists as you do the other forum members religeous sensibilities then i can see why you might come across as inconsiderate and selfish.



I think even a Christian would have to be very eager to take offence to find that statute offensive. Especially as it's most likely sold by a Christian organisation.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> I think even a Christian would have to be very eager to take offence to find that statute offensive. Especially as it's most likely sold by a Christian organisation.



Catholicshopper.com. Where you can also get these:


----------



## ianrauk (29 Oct 2011)

Holy rubber bands Batman!


----------



## srw (29 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Catholicshopper.com. Where you can also get these:


And this:








> Medieval legend says that Count Ghisallo was travelling near the village of Magréglio when he was attacked by highway bandits. Spotting a image of the Virgin Mary in a roadside shrine, he broke away from his attackers and ran to it. There he took refuge, pled for Our Lady's protection - and was miraculously saved from the robbers. As the story spread, the Madonna del Ghisallo became known as patroness of local travellers. In more recent times, cyclists would often stop to rest and pray at the chapel, which is a local landmark, and is at the top of a steep hill. After World War II, Father Ermelindo Vigano, pastor at the shrine, proposed Ghisallo as the site of an Italian shrine for bicyclists, and she was given as patroness of cyclists on 13 October 1949 by Pope Pius XII. The chapel has become equal part religious shrine, part cycling museum, with artifacts and photos from the sport. There is an eternal flame that burns there in memory of the cyclists of are no longer with us, and services each Christmas Eve and the Feast of All Souls commemorate them. Patron saint of bicyclists and cyclists.



Do you suppose Fr Ermelindo would have supported riding two abreast?


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588666"]
Yes, it's government-linked, and yes you do. It would help you if you knew what policing means.
[/quote]

I think you knew what I meant  But you had to make a point of it anyway didnt you. Ill rephrase, cyclists are not the police, we have no powers like the police, no matter how many cycling profficiancy lessons you go on. 
Try being polite, and here is a real radical thought, give way instead of digging your heels in, its safer all round.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> If the attitudes shown in this topic are replicated by cyclists riding 2 abreast on the road then i doubt they will show the levels of consideration to motorists that i would hope they would. For some it seems the legal right to ride 2 abreast and the need to not be seen to be giving any concession to motorists is a recepie for pig ignorant selfishness.
> The same selfish cyclists glorying in preventing cars from overtaking by their assertive riding will no doubt in the next breath be complaining about getting intimidated and close passed by the very drivers that they deliberately antagonise.



99% of the people on this thread have said they would move over so I don't know where you got this idea from exactly.

The Top Gear forum is over there >>>>>>>

Todaloo
X


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588806"]
I know exactly what you mean. And you're wrong. It has nothing at all to do with any powers that the police have. It's about controlling the space around you for your own safety, whether this means giving way or preventing a dangerous overtake. 

Get some cycle training, read some books then come and gave another go. I suspect it's because you don't gave a grasp of the issue that you're pushing those you don't understand into an extreme position that they don't occupy.
[/quote]

Im not having a go, Im suggesting my attitude while cycling is safer and less prone to bad reaction from drivers than yours. 

And I lost what you meant after you said "I suspect you dont gave .... " I wont even answer your get training dig, as its obviously a go at getting a reaction, but then I should expect it from you shouldnt i.  

Its the preventing an overtake bit I have issues with, most of the time, it seems, that actually causes more problems than it doesnt.


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> 99% of the people on this thread have said they would move over so I don't know where you got this idea from exactly.
> 
> The Top Gear forum is over there >>>>>>>
> 
> ...



Where ? I like top gear


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Where ? I like top gear


 










*top gear forum may not exist


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588809"]
it's not a dig. It's advice. And the correct advice is for a cyclist to police the space around him, for the safety of himself and other cyclists. It's very easy to do politely, it doesn't cause me any hassle, it increases my safety and it gives cyclists more respect on the road when drivers see that they know what view are doing.
[/quote]

Why would you think I need cycling training? And I agree with everything else you say here.


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588812"]
So you're now saying that cyclists should control the road around them? If you are, what was all that about police powers about?
[/quote]

But I should add, as it seems you want a (another) great debate  As I said earlier in this thread, there are times for primary, and then there are times to give. I think the dissagreements occur on when to give. Now what makes you think I need cycle training?


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

Still thinking?


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Christ on a bike?



Note the early use of spd sandals ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2011)

Though I appreciate there are other deities who might cycle ....


----------



## col (29 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588815"]
I dunno col. You've lost me now with this legal powers stuff, which you now seem to be distancing yourself from.
[/quote]

Ah your old trick of not answering the question but asking a question eh  . Well I meant that you seem to come across as someone who feels they have the power to stop, block or effect other vehicles if you felt you needed to, even though your not trained or qualified to, as your judgement could be wrong. This comes across as a bit too ott for a member of the general public to me.
Now why was it you think I need cycle training?


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2011)

Bugger, I'm in trouble


----------



## pepecat (29 Oct 2011)

If it's a blind bend, or coming up to the brow of a hill, which are both dangerous overtakes anyway and shouldn't be done by drivers regardless of whether cyclists are in front of them or not, why can't a cyclist ride in primary to make sure a dangerous over take isn't done?

I have seen drivers overtake (other cars) on blind bends AND coming up to brows of hills and have cringed watching them, expecting to see an accident in front of my eyes. If a car tries a dangerous overtake, finds it's not going to work, and pulls back in, the potential is they could hit the very cyclist(s) they're trying to overtake. What's the problem with the cyclist preventing the move in the first place?


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

pepecat said:


> If it's a blind bend, or coming up to the brow of a hill, which are both dangerous overtakes anyway and shouldn't be done by drivers regardless of whether cyclists are in front of them or not, why can't a cyclist ride in primary to make sure a dangerous over take isn't done?
> 
> I have seen drivers overtake (other cars) on blind bends AND coming up to brows of hills and have cringed watching them, expecting to see an accident in front of my eyes. If a car tries a dangerous overtake, finds it's not going to work, and pulls back in, the potential is they could hit the very cyclist(s) they're trying to overtake. What's the problem with the cyclist preventing the move in the first place?


As far as I understand none at all. That's the purpose of primary position to get you noticed and forestall dangerous moves by other road users. Like Mr Paul I find I get less hassle from drivers if I ride assertively and for courtesy's sake wave a thankyou as I pull back into secondary to let them pass. 9/10 drivers usually aknowledge which leads me to assume they understand what I have done and don't mind.


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588820"]
No trick. I just can't answer your question unless I understand what you're saying. You were suggesting the above earlier, in which case I think there's learning room for you. Then you seemed to change your tune a bit, which threw me.

Do you not realise that you yourself stop, block and "effect" other vehicles every time you ride on the road? As you are entitled to, and as you should. 

The confusing bit is that what you do think (reading between the lines) isn't as black and white as your statement above, which you also made a few nights ago.


[/quote]

Mmmm I see your point, but it isnt really difficult to see my point. I always make myself aware of whats on the road, that also means whats behind me.(Im sure most do) And this is where I think you and others might dissagree, if im approaching a danger spot for example pinch/ blind brow or bend, the list goes on, and Im aware of vehicles approaching quickly from behind, Ill hang back and let them go if there isnt enough time for me to clear that danger point before the vehicles reach me. I would rather do this than annoy or get a close pass on purpose from an impatient motorist, or even a possible accident as they try to pass when oncoming traffic could appear. Yes I know what your going to say, they shouldnt be overtaking if its risky, well they do and always will. Thats the reality, so Ill avoid this and dont mind my journey being lengthened by a couple of minutes because of this. There are loads of instances which would make me give way, hang back, move over for similar reasons, but I think you get the gist. You seem to think I need more training because Im carefull and dont mind giving to motorists, I dont agree with that, but then you knew I wouldnt didnt you. 
If I was to hold my line , or position , and even block approaching vehicles from passing me when I think it might be dangerous , then I believe I would put myself and others at more risk, because an angry/ annoyed/ impatient driver can be more erratic and dangerous, as they try to squeeze passed this cyclist who seems to be acting awkwardly, as most motorists dont see things in the same way as you.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588792 said:


> You are still completely missing the point. Close passes are a byproduct of the staying out of the way mentality. Asserting our right legitimately to use the road is the answer. As however you have stated that bothering to read the HC is not for you it is not surprising that you are ignorant of best road behaviour.



I agree passes closer than designated by the highway code may be a product of the considerate staying out of the way mentality.I dont expect cars to overtake completely in the opposite lane , a meter or 2 is fine with me.
Asserting our right legitimately to deliberately stop cars overtaking to enforce cyclists right to a highway code pass is what angers motorists and can lead to intimidation and far worse danger to cyclists than being considerate.
If you need a little book to tell you best road behaviour then that says it all about you r2d2.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> 99% of the people on this thread have said they would move over so I don't know where you got this idea from exactly.
> 
> The Top Gear forum is over there >>>>>>>
> 
> ...



Are you saying 99% of people agree with me then ?
Are you saying 99% of people would ride single file in secondary where safe to do so if it facilitated cars overtaking ?
Cos all im hearing from 99% is; the highway code says it ok, cyclists rights , its legal so therefore its ok, "the general rule is two abreast", no concessions to motorists et al.
Most wont even give a straight answer - like i asked you before and you came out with a list of variables - 
are there leaves on the road
is it uphill or downhill
What color lipstick am i wearing.
Irrespective of other variables is your inclination , where safe , to ride single file in secondary if it allows cars to overtake ?
Considerate cyclist answers - yes of course.
Inconsiderate cyclist answers - no cyclists rights , no concessions et al or more likely prevaricates and wont give a straight answer.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> As far as I understand none at all. That's the purpose of primary position to get you noticed and forestall dangerous moves by other road users. Like Mr Paul I find I get less hassle from drivers if I ride assertively and for courtesy's sake wave a thankyou as I pull back into secondary to let them pass. 9/10 drivers usually aknowledge which leads me to assume they understand what I have done and don't mind.



Noones disputing any of this.
What is in dispute is if "the general rule is two abreast".
My own opinion is that cyclists should ride single file whenever sodoing facilitates safe overtaking that would otherwise not be possible 2 abreast.
If you want a natter go and sit in the pub.


----------



## Manonabike (30 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Are you allowed to ride side-by-side on roads?
> 
> Seen a lot of group cycling going on and they seem to ride in pairs. *Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey). *
> 
> ...



Am I wrong to think you don't actually like cyclists on the road? 

I give cyclists same or more respect on the road than I give any motor vehicle and I don't find a bunch of cyclists annoying at all. What I do find annoying though is cyclists riding in the dark without lights. I nearly run over a stupid cyclist once, it was raining, dark and she was going like it was midday on a bright and sunny day on a busy road. Coming from the opposite direction and just as I'm turning into a road I see the cyclist at the very last second!!!! That annoyed it.


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Asserting our right legitimately to deliberately stop cars overtaking to enforce cyclists right to a highway code pass is what angers motorists and can lead to intimidation and far worse danger to cyclists than being considerate.



For someone that professes not to drive, you seem to be claiming an awful lot of knowledge about what its like to be driver and what drivers think.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are you saying 99% of people agree with me then ?
> Are you saying 99% of people would ride single file in secondary where safe to do so if it facilitated cars overtaking ?
> Cos all im hearing from 99% is; the highway code says it ok, cyclists rights , its legal so therefore its ok, "the general rule is two abreast", no concessions to motorists et al.
> Most wont even give a straight answer - like i asked you before and you came out with a list of variables -
> ...



A handful of people said they wouldn't move over, the rest said they would.

I gave a list of variables, then I gave an extremely detailed answer saying that yes I move over unless there is a safety risk in doing so, which you ignored and are still ignoring, which leads me to believe the only reason you are here is for a fight of some kind.


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2011)

col said:


> if im approaching a danger spot for example pinch/ blind brow or bend, the list goes on, and Im aware of vehicles approaching quickly from behind, Ill hang back and let them go if there isnt enough time for me to clear that danger point before the vehicles reach me. I would rather do this than annoy or get a close pass on purpose from an impatient motorist,



You must be causing great confusion to others by altering your speed at random, pulling in to the kerb for no apparent reason, giving way when you have priority. 

It sounds as if being a little more assertive (NOT aggressive)would improve your progress on the road and help other road users to share the road with you in safety.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I would judge it on those things.
> 
> If I am going slowly, then I will usually get out of the way, unless it poses a risk to me in any way.
> 
> ...



You're welcome


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> What color lipstick am i wearing.



I don't know, sweetie, what *colour* (FTFY) lipstick _are_ you wearing?


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> You're welcome



I missed the above post you quote.
It seems that your inclination is to be considerate and pull over and allow others to pass you where safety considerations allow.
I am countering those who hold that the "the general rule is two abreast" with the justification that highway code says its ok, cyclists rights , its legal so therefore its ok, cyclists shouldnt make any concessions to motorists et al.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I missed the above post you quote.
> It seems that your inclination is to be considerate and pull over and allow others to pass you where safety considerations allow.
> I am countering those who hold that the "the general rule is two abreast" with the justification that highway code says its ok, cyclists rights , its legal so therefore its ok, cyclists shouldnt make any concessions to motorists et al.



Everyone should make concessions to everyone on a road. It's a public highway, not a war.

I do ride side by side in the countryside, but generally, you only see a car every now and then, so just pull in as necessary and everyone is happy.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> For someone that professes not to drive, you seem to be claiming an awful lot of knowledge about what its like to be driver and what drivers think.



Totally avoiding the issue as allways.
Redlight - its official you are a complete irrelevance.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Everyone should make concessions to everyone on a road. It's a public highway, not a war.



Magnifico.
Ill put you down as a convert.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Magnifico.
> Ill put you down as a convert.



Convert? I always thought this.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Convert? I always thought this.



Whatever . 
Can i now redirect my efforts into rehabilitating some of the forums other less considerate members , like r2d2.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

"Whatever." What an enthralling response.

Yes, you do that and be sure to write it all down in your special little book.

You obviously have a higher purpose than the rest of us mortals.

Are you writing a comedy sketch of some sort?


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Whatever .
> Can i now redirect my efforts into *rehabilitating* some of the forums other less considerate members , like r2d2.



?????


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

To go back to the op and group rides doubling up being 1 illegal, 2 unsafe and 3 inconsiderate
1 it's not illegal the highway code clearly says do not cycle *more than 2 abreast*
2 it's not unsafe as it's easier to see a group of cyclists riding 2 abreast than to to see them all line astern.
3 it's not inconsiderate as it makes them easier to pass, simple maths. To get past 1 cyclist requires a pass where the driver is exposed for aprox 3m plus the distance required to make the pass driving past a line of say 12 cyclists that becomes 36m plus. whearas passing a doubled up group that distance is halved to 18m+ thus halving the drivers risk and making it easier to pass as he doesn't have to wait for such a large gap to appear to enable the pass. I would argue that in a group ride that makes it more considerate to ride 2 abreast.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> To go back to the op and group rides doubling up being 1 illegal, 2 unsafe and 3 inconsiderate
> 1 it's not illegal the highway code clearly says do not cycle *more than 2 abreast*
> 2 it's not unsafe as it's easier to see a group of cyclists riding 2 abreast than to to see them all line astern.
> 3 it's not inconsiderate as it makes them easier to pass, simple maths. To get past 1 cyclist requires a pass where the driver is exposed for aprox 3m plus the distance required to make the pass driving past a line of say 12 cyclists that becomes 36m plus. whearas passing a doubled up group that distance is halved to 18m+ thus halving the drivers risk and making it easier to pass as he doesn't have to wait for such a large gap to appear to enable the pass. I would argue that in a group ride that makes it more considerate to ride 2 abreast.



We appreciate your efforts. But I think it's time to let this one fly the nest. Or at least attempt to ...


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> We appreciate your efforts. *But I think it's time to let this one fly the nest.* Or at least attempt to ...




But only in single file as to not upset any other air space users...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> But only in single file as to not upset any other air space users...


----------



## Hip Priest (30 Oct 2011)

42 pages! Over a nothing issue. Seriously, I only ever see cyclists riding two abreast on country roads, and country folk tend not to give a toss about being 'held up' for 5 seconds.


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> 42 pages! Over a nothing issue. Seriously, I only ever see cyclists riding two abreast on country roads, and country folk tend not to give a toss about being 'held up' for 5 seconds.



If you look at this place most of the big threads are about nothing. I think human beings find it easier to get riled over nothing than they do about something


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

1588850 said:


> A nothing issue? It is about our moral right to exist on the road and whether or not we should bow down before Mr Toad.



that may be true for about half this thread but some posts are not so edifying


----------



## theclaud (30 Oct 2011)

ianrauk said:


> But only in single file as to not upset any other air space users...


----------



## theclaud (30 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588853"]
1 Read the Highway Code 
2 Name those who claim this 'general rule' of which you speak.
[/quote]

I'd have gone for
1 Read the Highway Code
2 Put a sock in it, for Christ's sake, you tedious troll.
But then you're nicer than I am.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588843 said:


> I told him that he was misguided and foolish at best. Out of all the things people have said to him on this thread, this one caused a dummy spit.



I sense you are disappointed that i didnt spit my dummy out at your provocation r2d2 but did at redlight.
Get real , nobody could take anything you say that seriously.


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I sense you are disappointed that i didnt spit my dummy out at your provocation r2d2 but did at redlight.
> Get real , nobody could take anything you say that seriously.



Oops I have.... is that bad then?


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> I'd have gone for
> 1 Read the Highway Code
> 2 Put a sock in it, for Christ's sake, you tedious troll.
> But then you're nicer than I am.



You're the one who loudly advocates commanding the road and not making concessions to motorists and in the next breath whineing pathetically about being intimidated by them.
You work it out.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> To go back to the op and group rides doubling up being 1 illegal, 2 unsafe and 3 inconsiderate
> 1 it's not illegal the highway code clearly says do not cycle *more than 2 abreast*
> 2 it's not unsafe as it's easier to see a group of cyclists riding 2 abreast than to to see them all line astern.
> 3 it's not inconsiderate as it makes them easier to pass, simple maths. To get past 1 cyclist requires a pass where the driver is exposed for aprox 3m plus the distance required to make the pass driving past a line of say 12 cyclists that becomes 36m plus. whearas passing a doubled up group that distance is halved to 18m+ thus halving the drivers risk and making it easier to pass as he doesn't have to wait for such a large gap to appear to enable the pass. I would argue that in a group ride that makes it more considerate to ride 2 abreast.



I agree its not illegal.
In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast. 
Simples.
Furthermore i would regard it as advisable if cycing in large groups were discouraged on public roads. There is not benefit to be gained for anyone from cycing in large groups and there are many associated problems including safety considerations, public relations and public nuisance.
Id say max of 4 to 8 would be acceptable on public roads.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Whatever .
> Can i now redirect my efforts into rehabilitating some of the forums other less considerate members , like r2d2.



Patronising much?

I can't see anyone who is actually saying what you claim to be decrying. I see a lot of you shadow boxing , whilst wearing earplugs.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I agree its not illegal.
> In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
> In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
> In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast.
> ...



So you're advising that all cycling clubs should shut down and that sportives should be banned?

I think the organisers of the TDF might have something to say about that...


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I agree its not illegal.
> In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
> In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
> In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast.
> ...



Blimey,

_"Sorry old mate, you are not allowed to ride with us today as the max cycle number Nazi's have said we can't have more then 8 friends on the road and you're the 9th, but tell you what, just ride 1 foot behind us and we can say you are not with us"_

Quite pathetic your statement is, isn't it.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> So you're advising that all cycling clubs should shut down and that sportives should be banned?
> 
> I think the organisers of the TDF might have something to say about that...



Noted , agreed and edited.
Public roads.
Closed road properly organised events are fine .


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Noted , agreed and edited.
> Public roads.



Sportives ARE HELD on public roads, and the roads are rarely closed to traffic.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588862 said:


> Revise your perception to your heart's content, it matters not. You are a sad and self deluding individual who brings nothing of any value to the party whilst scorning useful advice from people who really do know better than you.
> As I say, anytime you have a useful contribution to make.



Whoops - there you go getting upset and throwing your dolly out of your pram again.
Can i suggest you go back to doing the other thing you do such a lot of on the internet and let the adults have a sensible discussion without your moronic distractions.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Sportives ARE HELD on public roads, and the roads are rarely closed to traffic.



Good point. Sportives should of course be allowed providing the proper organisation and management.


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

I appreciate you have a point about courteous cycling as in it's desirable but you now seem to have gone past that to suggesting that roads are for cars and all other forms of transport are allowed only on the motorists sufferance. it's an odd stand to take on a cycle forum and I think that's why so many are getting het up. Unless restrictions are in place roads are for all imo.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Good point. Sportives should of course be allowed providing the proper organisation and management.



Cycling clubs are generally organised and I know when CC goes out as a group we're very accomodating to other road users. It's not like we line up and do the hokey cokey across the road.

So wouldn't it be better to just educate people about responsible road use via say some sort of printed booklet, (let's call it a code for now) rather than creating more pretty unenforcable rules about numbers of cyclists allowed in one cycling party? And by using the road, it is assumed by law enforcement officers that all road users have read and agreed to the laws, bylaws and advice given in it?


----------



## pepecat (30 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> *Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey).
> *



You overtake on blind bends??? Seriously??


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I appreciate you have a point about courteous cycling as in it's desirable but you now seem to have gone past that to suggesting that roads are for cars and all other forms of transport are allowed only on the motorists sufferance. it's an odd stand to take on a cycle forum and I think that's why so many are getting het up. Unless restrictions are in place roads are for all imo.



Glad we find common ground on the courteous cycling idea.
Re the restrictions - you are quite entiltled to disagree.
I would in the same way discourage convoys of caravans for example, or any relatively slow moving traffic.
If 10 riders turn up why dont we go out in 2 groups of 5 or 4 + 6 for the sake of pairs. Just a thought.


----------



## pepecat (30 Oct 2011)

You _sure_ you don't drive?.......


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Glad we find common ground on the courteous cycling idea.
> Re the restrictions - you are quite entiltled to disagree.
> I would in the same way discourage convoys of caravans for example, or any relatively slow moving traffic.
> If 10 riders turn up why dont we go out in 2 groups of 5 or 4 + 6 for the sake of pairs. Just a thought.



Or how about in city's where queues of slow moving traffic clog up everything at rush hour why not ban the car? No I don't think thats a good idea to ban queues it seems to infringe on too many peoples freedoms


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Cycling clubs are generally organised and I know when CC goes out as a group we're very accomodating to other road users. It's not like we line up and do the hokey cokey across the road.
> 
> So wouldn't it be better to just educate people about responsible road use via say some sort of printed booklet, (let's call it a code for now) rather than creating more pretty unenforcable rules about numbers of cyclists allowed in one cycling party? And by using the road, it is assumed by law enforcement officers that all road users have read and agreed to the laws, bylaws and advice given in it?



Yes im sure the majority of cyclists are ok and the majority of clubs are ok.
However there are exceptions as is manifestly evident from some of the militant viewpoints expressed in this very topic.
My principal concern is that these inconsiderate cyclists tarnish the reputation of all us good cyclists and you and i have to pay the cost of motorists antipathy.
Re - the group problem phenomenom , it is not a huge problem but we should be sensitive to the potentiality for problems , real and perceived.
https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Or how about in city's where queues of slow moving traffic clog up everything at rush hour why not ban the car? No I don't think thats a good idea to ban queues it seems to infringe on too many peoples freedoms


I'm all for banning non business and public transport vehicles from London city centre, as they hold up buses and delivery vehicles.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Or how about in city's where queues of slow moving traffic clog up everything at rush hour why not ban the car? No I don't think thats a good idea to ban queues it seems to infringe on too many peoples freedoms



I 100% agree we should discourage the car is such situations - as indeed we have in london with the conjestion charge. More space for cyclists.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes im sure the majority of cyclists are ok and the majority of clubs are ok.
> However there are exceptions as is manifestly evident from some of the militant viewpoints expressed in this very topic.
> My principal concern is that these inconsiderate cyclists tarnish the reputation of all us good cyclists and you and i have to pay the cost of motorists antipathy.
> Re - the group problem phenomenom , it is not a huge problem but we should be sensitive to the potentiality for problems , real and perceived.
> https://www.cyclechat.net/



But there are always going to be exceptions in every aspect of life. For women, see TOWIE, for men, see footballers. However, I think the vast majority of drivers have the wherewithal to understand that we are individuals, with an individual thought process.


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'm all for banning non business and public transport vehicles from London city centre, as they hold up buses and delivery vehicles.



I am not sure we should go down the route of banning things that inconvenience us who knows where that would lead to?


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

pepecat said:


> You _sure_ you don't drive?.......



Yes - im sure and ive the thighs to prove it..


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2011)

I take it that freecyclist wont be joining any Cycle Chat or FNRttC organised rides anytime soon?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I am not sure we should go down the route of banning things that inconvenience us who knows where that would lead to?



My reasons aren't inconvenience, my reasons are environmental ones. It would also encourage use of public transport, reducing the cost for everyone.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Glad we find common ground on the courteous cycling idea.
> Re the restrictions - you are quite entiltled to disagree.
> I would in the same way discourage convoys of caravans for example, or any relatively slow moving traffic.
> If 10 riders turn up why dont we go out in 2 groups of 5 or 4 + 6 for the sake of pairs. Just a thought.



You ARE Mr Toad ICMFP!

Beep Beep!


----------



## rowan 46 (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> My reasons aren't inconvenience, my reasons are environmental ones. It would also encourage use of public transport, reducing the cost for everyone.



It's a fair point but my guess is if everybody was using public transport they would put the cost up to make more money it's the nature of capitalism to want to make more profit.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It's a fair point but my guess is if everybody was using public transport they would put the cost up to make more money it's the nature of capitalism to want to make more profit.


Ah, this is in my evil, communist dictatorship though


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588887 said:


> I reckon that this is someone we know. The phrase "thighs to prove it" did make me think sockpuppet and walnutwhips but then I thought no, Davy couldn't keep it up so long.



Really Adrian i dont think the forum want to hear about how long you and your "friend" davy can keep it up together.
Better you slope of quietly and get on with that internet voodoo that youdo so well. (or should that be often)


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'm all for banning non business and public transport vehicles from London city centre, as they hold up buses and delivery vehicles.



And the cyclists.


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes im sure the majority of cyclists are ok and the majority of clubs are ok.
> However there are exceptions as is manifestly evident from some of the militant viewpoints expressed in this very topic.
> My principal concern is that these inconsiderate cyclists tarnish the reputation of all us good cyclists and you and i have to pay the cost of motorists antipathy.



I think I can count on the fingers of one hand without taking my gloves off the number of times this year as a driver I have come across cyclists cycling two abreast let alone who delayed me at all. Quite how that frequency of occurrence is going to turn the motoring masses against cyclists is beyond me.


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> You ARE Mr Toad ICMFP!
> 
> Beep Beep!



Nah, hates cyclists, hates caravans.....its none other than JC himself.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> But there are always going to be exceptions in every aspect of life. For women, see TOWIE, for men, see footballers. However, I think the vast majority of drivers have the wherewithal to understand that we are individuals, with an individual thought process.



Yes tilly but the point is that where undesireable behaviour does exist within our cycling fraterntiy we should condemn it not act as apologists for it.
Lets not leave it to chance to hope that drivers give us the benefit of the doubt that we are one of the good cyclists - lets do what we can to deter bad cycling and not regard condemning bad cycling as spineless and making concessions to motorists cos it isnt. (im not saying you do this tilly but some on this forum do seem to)


----------



## Origamist (30 Oct 2011)

Holy moly - THREE ABREAST over the bridge: 

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=48146


----------



## ianrauk (30 Oct 2011)

Origamist said:


> Holy moly - THREE ABREAST over the bridge:
> 
> http://www.britishpa...rd.php?id=48146



In Gods name... why? It just goes to show that all cyclists through the ages have shown scant regard for the fellow road using motor vehicle.


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

Its their right, and by golly gee they are going to do it no matter what


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588894 said:


> Any chance of an observation or reply on this? Anything at all, from your usual standard upwards would do as a start.



ok adrian - i will give you the benefit of the doubt and answer.
Re Dell as you refer to him - i have questioned his stance as stated on page 3 "The general rule is two abreast". 
I would hope the sportives are well organised and appropriately supervised. If i am wrong and we are contemplating permitting a freeforall of uncontrolled cycling hooliganism on the roads then i would have to reconsider my position. Are you saying that i have wrongly given sportives to much credit.
My default position is to embrace sportives and group rides but i advocate considerate riding where the interests of other road users is also accomodated . Imho inconsistent with "The general rule is two abreast".
(please no more of the playground bullying from now on - your better than that)


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588901 said:


> What bullying? I haven't done any bullying.  More to the point, how do you know that I am better than that?



FTFY
Benefit of the doubt.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588902 said:


> My observation would be a tendency for some to get a little overexcited and carried away with themselves on sportives, to the extent that they represent a danger to themselves and others.



If this is on public roads open to traffic as normal that would be a bit concerning.


----------



## Andy84 (30 Oct 2011)

Freecyclist, what are your thoughts on pavement cyclists?


----------



## ManiaMuse (30 Oct 2011)

gaz said:


> Surely it is ok to ride like this, i see plenty of drivers doing it each day.



I saw someone doing that once in black tie and looking a bit drunk.

I was just waiting for him to fall off as I was walking on the other side of the road which he duly did in comical fashion. I ran across to make sure he was alright which he was fortunately, although he looked very embarassed and ended up pushing the bikes home. 

Probably hurt in the morning.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

Andy84 said:


> Freecyclist, what are your thoughts on pavement cyclists?



So long as its done ok i have no problem with it. 
Where its done that causes a problem then its wrong but i dont condemn it perse just because the highway code tells me its wrong.
Personally as a rule i use the road but i woudnt exclude using the pavement if i had good cause and could do so without causing inconvenience or distress to pedestrians.
Why do you ask ?


----------



## Andy84 (30 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588911"]
I don't understand what the problem is with Dell's post. If there is no traffic around then what's wrong with 2-abreast? It would be daft to make single-file the default just in case there's a car way off in the distance.

Cycle in your preferred way, and then respond to any traffic appropriately when it should arrive.
[/quote]

And if its a night ride, then there are significantly less cars that may arrive, so less cars to be annoyed about our "undesirable behaviour" - we should be like gods to Freecyclist!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> So long as its done ok i have no problem with it.
> Where its done that causes a problem then its wrong but i dont condemn it perse just because the highway code tells me its wrong.
> Personally as a rule i use the road but i woudnt exclude using the pavement if i had good cause and could do so without causing inconvenience or distress to pedestrians.
> Why do you ask ?



It's illegal.

I'm not condemning you by saying this, just giving you a heads up that if you get caught (by some one who is bothered by it) you will get a fine.


----------



## Red Light (30 Oct 2011)

Odd how FC condemns legal cycling that is specifically accepted in the Highway Code but finds illegal cycling to be acceptable.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> It's illegal.



But doesn't inconvience Mr Toad!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Oct 2011)

1588920 said:


> Oh I don't know. Running him down with a velocipede whilst he was crossing the pavement from the motor to his bank* might inconvenience him to an extent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But Mr Toad is only Mr Toad when behind the wheel.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> It's illegal.
> 
> I'm not condemning you by saying this, just giving you a heads up that if you get caught (by some one who is bothered by it) you will get a fine.


----------



## freecyclist (30 Oct 2011)

1588913 said:


> I'm sorry to say that any benefit of your doubt doesn't have much value.




Dont you ever get tired of being completely tedious r2d2.


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> It's illegal.
> 
> I'm not condemning you by saying this, just giving you a heads up that if you get caught (by some one who is bothered by it) you will get a fine.



Iv spoken to a number of police men about this, it depends on the circumstances. If your a possible danger to padestrians then maybe, if not probabaly not. So I would happily use the pavement if I felt I needed to, if there were padestrians about i would dismount, no padestrians then no dismount.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (30 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Iv spoken to a number of police men about this, it depends on the circumstances. If your a possible danger to padestrians then maybe, if not probabaly not. So I would happily use the pavement if I felt I needed to, if there were padestrians about i would dismount, no padestrians then no dismount.



IMHO and IME the very last people you ever want to ask if you want to know about the law is plod. It's illegal, full stop*. It may depend on the circumstances if individual plod will nick you for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal whatever the circumstances.


With the usual caveats of not being a footpath, next to road , under age of criminal responsibility etc etc...


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> IMHO and IME the very last people you ever want to ask if you want to know about the law is plod. It's illegal, full stop*. It may depend on the circumstances if individual plod will nick you for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal whatever the circumstances.
> 
> 
> With the usual caveats of not being a footpath, next to road , under age of criminal responsibility etc etc...



Well if i felt the need to use a path due to conditions on the road, then Id break the law  

In fact I told my son when he first started cycling to school, if he ever felt unsafe to use the path, and if there are people on it get off too.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (30 Oct 2011)

col said:


> Well if i felt the need to use a path due to conditions on the road, then Id break the law
> 
> In fact I told my son when he first started cycling to school, if he ever felt unsafe to use the path, and if there are people on it get off too.



Breakin the law! Breakin the law!


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

1588930 said:


> Not of you were to get off and walk on said path.



If there was no one on the path I would


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

1588932 said:


> Have you got that the right way around?



Yes, if there was no one on the path, then I would cycle on it, so would be breaking the law. Thats if I felt the need to go on it in the first place.


----------



## col (30 Oct 2011)

Not if he was around though.


----------



## benb (30 Oct 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Dont you ever get tired of being completely tedious r2d2.


----------



## Emmanuel Obikwelu (1 Nov 2011)

1588796 said:


> Emanuel please explain, preferably in 200 words or less, how a plastic Jesus playing Footie is related to any religion.



Jesus , otherwise known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of the new testament and reveered by christians as the Son of God incarnate.


----------



## Hip Priest (1 Nov 2011)

I don't know why anyone would be offended by a plastic jesus playing footy, but Adrian's question was still pretty daft. How is it related to any religion? Well, it's JESUS.


----------



## Hip Priest (1 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588939"]As he's a man of the people I suspect that if he was here now he'd be a regular down the park.
[/quote]

Jesus is present in the legs of Luis Suarez. Sadly, the devil is in there somewhere as well.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Nov 2011)

Jesus would be a goal keeper wouldn't he?

Jesus saves and all that...

Sorry I'll get my coat..


----------



## Noodley (1 Nov 2011)

I rode 3 abreast on Sunday...naughty boy!


----------



## ianrauk (1 Nov 2011)

Noodley said:


> I rode 3 abreast on Sunday...naughty boy!



tsk tsk.. Noodley, provocative.
Next you are probably going to tell us that 2 of your buddies were council workers.


----------



## theclaud (1 Nov 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> Jesus , otherwise known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of the new testament and reveered by christians as the Son of God incarnate.



Well, you learn something every day round here, that's for sure...


----------



## freecyclist (1 Nov 2011)

1588937 said:


> Haven't you got one that goes all the way to 11?


Same could be said about your iq r2d2.


----------



## benb (1 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Same could be said about your iq r2d2.



That's rather unnecessary and offensive.


----------



## snailracer (1 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Jesus is present in the legs of *Luis Suarez*. Sadly, the devil is in there somewhere as well.


He claims to have the True Hand of God  

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/uruguay-and-the-real-hand-of-god/


----------



## Fnaar (1 Nov 2011)

Emmanuel Obikwelu said:


> Jesus , otherwise known as Jesus Christ or *Jesus of Nazareth* is the central figure of the new testament and reveered by christians as the Son of God incarnate.



...unlike "Cheeses of Nazareth", which is an Israeli dairy goods company.


----------



## lukesdad (1 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> It's illegal.
> 
> I'm not condemning you by saying this, just giving you a heads up that if you get caught (by some one who is bothered by it) you will get a fine.




Not strictly so, a number of constableries have relaxed enforcement of riding on the pavement.


----------



## benb (1 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Not strictly so, a number of constableries have relaxed enforcement of riding on the pavement.



True, in that they have guidance on when to seek prosecution (i.e. when a cyclist is cycling too fast and endangering pedestrians) but it's still illegal.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2011)

In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw (former) Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (1 Nov 2011)

User said:


> God has a sense of humour - after all, She created Belgium!



Bloody good place for fighting wars Belguim. It's been Europe's battlefield of choice for at least 300 yrs!


----------



## Bicycle (1 Nov 2011)

...and now gives a home to SHAPE.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> tsk tsk.. Noodley, provocative.
> Next you are probably going to tell us that 2 of your buddies were *council worker*s.



Isnt that an oxymoron ?


----------



## lukesdad (1 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> True, in that they have guidance on when to seek prosecution (i.e. when a cyclist is cycling too fast and endangering pedestrians) but it's still illegal.




It is illegal, I was refferring to the fine in my post I did n t make myself clear.


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

Credit to the moderators for allowing this thread to run despite the disruptive intentions of r2d2 and mrpaul. I am reassured that sense has prevailed and that the vast majority of forumers seem to think that we should Be considerate to other road users and where safe allow cars to overtake by riding in secondary single file. Clearly the militant philosophy that 2abreast is justified unquestioningly soley on the basis of legality and that making concessions to motorists is sign of spineless weakness are a small but vocal minority.
Us good cyclists have a duty to speak up lest these deluded fundamentalists are mistakenly taken as being representative of all of us.
In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.


----------



## srw (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Credit to the moderators for allowing this thread to run despite the disruptive intentions of r2d2 and mrpaul. I am reassured that sense has prevailed and that the vast majority of forumers seem to think that we should Be considerate to other road users and where safe allow cars to overtake by riding in secondary single file. Clearly the militant philosophy that 2abreast is justified unquestioningly soley on the basis of legality and that making concessions to motorists is sign of spineless weakness are a small but vocal minority.
> Us good cyclists have a duty to speak up lest these deluded fundamentalists are mistakenly taken as being representative of all of us.
> In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.



You really haven't been reading the thread, have you?


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Credit to the moderators for allowing this thread to run despite the disruptive intentions of r2d2 and mrpaul. I am reassured that sense has prevailed and that the vast majority of forumers seem to think that we should Be considerate to other road users and where safe allow cars to overtake by riding in secondary single file. Clearly the militant philosophy that 2abreast is justified unquestioningly soley on the basis of legality and that making concessions to motorists is sign of spineless weakness are a small but vocal minority.
> Us good cyclists have a duty to speak up lest these deluded fundamentalists are mistakenly taken as being representative of all of us.
> In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , *i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged *and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.



You are completely bonkers. You do not speak for anybody but yourself.

And please stop referring to another member of the site as r2d2, it's very childish and quite pathetic.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Credit to the moderators for allowing this thread to run despite the disruptive intentions of r2d2 and mrpaul. I am reassured that sense has prevailed and that the vast majority of forumers seem to think that we should Be considerate to other road users and where safe allow cars to overtake by riding in secondary single file. Clearly the militant philosophy that 2abreast is justified unquestioningly soley on the basis of legality and that making concessions to motorists is sign of spineless weakness are a small but vocal minority.
> Us good cyclists have a duty to speak up lest these deluded fundamentalists are mistakenly taken as being representative of all of us.
> In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.




I think you may need new glasses


----------



## pepecat (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.



How small?

The Dartmoor Classic (sportive on open roads in June) starts people in batches of approx 100. With over 2000 entries, they'd be there all day if they were to start in smaller groups. Sometimes it's just not possible.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588962"]
And you would be wrong.
[/quote]


You cannot Know that, as the vast majority have not aired a view and nor are they likely to.


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> You cannot Know that, as the mast majority have not aired a view and nor are they likely to.



C'mon Mark, the guys statement is bonkers.


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

pepecat said:


> How small?
> 
> The Dartmoor Classic (sportive on open roads in June) starts people in batches of approx 100. With over 2000 entries, they'd be there all day if they were to start in smaller groups. Sometimes it's just not possible.



Good points.
I was thinking 6 to 8 for normal (non event) type road groups with no special supervision or additional safety provision.
I see your point and my point is just a common sense based one on what we from a standpoint of best practice should be recommending.
I think the sportive like you refer to are great and should be embraced and encouraged.
If the organisers can make it work and its aok then thats fine , if there are any saftey concerns to cyclists taking part then , i dont know the road or area but would closing the road to public traffic be at all possible.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> C'mon Mark, the guys statement is bonkers.



I think you d be quite surprised how many CCers would privately agree with a lot of his sentiments Ian, not all of them maybe , but as has gone before, anybody who thinks differently is treated as a loon. Hence we will never know as normal folk dont like to subject themselves to ridicule. Personally Im not bothered.... and Im sure you re not either, but if people are really interested in what the less vocal part of CC think the verbal bullying needs to stop.


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I think you d be quite surprised how many CCers would privately agree with a lot of his sentiments Ian, not all of them maybe , but as has gone before, anybody who thinks differently is treated as a loon. Hence we will never know as normal folk dont like to subject themselves to ridicule. Personally Im not bothered.... and Im sure you re not either, but if people are really interested in what the less vocal part of CC think the verbal bullying needs to stop.



I'n not talking about verbal bullying Mark. That's another conversation. 

They guy is a loon. If he honestly thinks that the majority of people on a cycling forum would agree with that nonsense statement he came out with then he deserves the loon tag.
This is a Cycling forum after all.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

I've found this thread entertaining and thought-provoking. There has been a little borderline trollery - but aimed I think to amuse rather than perturb.

With my motorist's hat on I see things broadly as follows:

1. Group races on the roads of England and Wales: I treat them as mid-journey entertainment - like seeing a rare car or a buzzard swooping low. It doesn't wind me up even if I'm in a hurry. In my experience these events are well run, with marshals at junctions and plenty of signs on verges. Well worth throttling back for and somehow it's a privilege to have a fleeting view of a 'mini-peloton'.

2. Group rides and 'chain gangs'. There are plenty in this area. Most are fine. Insofar as they slow one up it's not an issue. It's nice to know that people care enough about their pursuits to go out in groups and put some effort in. They generally use routes where passing is possible every few hundred yards and they move at a decent speed. One or two have wound me up a little, but on the whole they are just another interesting sight on my way somewhere. 

3. Parents riding 'slightly behind and slightly outside' a child on a major road. This isn't really 2-abreast and I have no issue with it. It's what I did when my children were learning to ride on fast A-roads and I think it makes sense. I wish more people would unleash their offspring on faster roads. I regret the great fear of child cycling that many parents display.

4. Noddy-headed dawdlers having a nice, gentle ride and a chat in the lanes, 2-abreast. They continue 2-abreast despite build-up of traffic. To me, these are not unlike the motley groups of teenager who walk in a line across the pavement to Greggs and make others step out of their path. They are inconsiderate or at best ignorant of the needs of others.

5. Two or more 'lycra missiles' on posh rides having a training ride and chatting 2-abreast while they ease off. Unlike the chain gangs and group races, these types could easily make themselves easy to pass but do not. There is a sense of entitlement about that sort of behaviour that irritates many drivers. 

Essentially, the one who irk are those who could choose to get in line but who stay as they are and let others wait.

I think I feel like that with my cyclist's hat on too.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> 4. *Noddy-headed dawdlers* having a nice, gentle ride and a chat in the lanes, 2-abreast. They continue 2-abreast despite build-up of traffic. To me, these are not unlike the motley groups of teenager who walk in a line across the pavement to Greggs and make others step out of their path. They are inconsiderate or at best ignorant of the needs of others.
> 
> 5. Two or more* 'lycra missiles' on posh rides* having a training ride and chatting 2-abreast while they ease off. Unlike the chain gangs and group races, these types could easily make themselves easy to pass but do not. There is a sense of entitlement about that sort of behaviour that irritates many drivers.
> 
> ...



Sense of entitlement? Did you write that with no intentional irony? All you give us here are caricatures that betray your essential conviction that cyclists are less entitled to the road space they are using than motorists.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588972"]
He's claimed that he's sure of a statement. That's wrong. Set up a poll if you like.
[/quote]


So have you. Tell me Mr P what is the highest reply rate to a poll on here. Probably 25% dont know what we re on about 50 % dont care and 24.9 % are just laughing, you don t get it do you ? Just because you are one of the most vocal on here does not make you the majority.


----------



## DerbyMerc (2 Nov 2011)

The times I'll agree with singling out are if it's genuinely holding up traffic - by that I mean a line starting to form behind us not a cars having to ease off the accelerator while they wait for a safe place to pass. Some roads that means never going 2 abreast but in general I prefer 2 abreast and I don't feel any guilt about it even if it annoys some motorists. 

The exception to singling out would be in a chain gang when I'm sorry but we've chosen the widest most suitable roads we can and they'll just have to wait (or occasionally force their way past while sounding the horn and gesticulating at us). 

I'm sure that's all been said in the preceeding 50 pages but I've only really logged on as BikeRadar is down and haven't read back.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Sense of entitlement? Did you write that with no intentional irony? All you give us here are caricatures that betray your essential conviction that cyclists are less entitled to the road space they are using than motorists.



No irony. I'm a keen cyclist.

Everyone is entitled to use the road. I'm just back from a very windy and chilly blast myself; woolly hat down over ears and nose going very pink.

I can see how you see caricatures in my fairly generalised view of different types of 2-abreast cycling, but they are reasonable accurate and representative of the riding where I live.

The sense of entitlement I refer to is that of someone who feels entitled to delay others, when moving across and tucking in as a courtesy would be easy and quick.

I do not and (and by my actions cannot) believe that cyclists are less entitled to raoad space than motorists.

I've re-read the entry that prompted your response and see no such 'essential conviction' in it. From my biased perspective as its author it looks rather rosily pro-cyclist.

If there is an essential conviction, it is that courtesy should be shown to fellow road users. It's a family joke that I always lower a window to wave thanks when a tractor pulls in for a line of cars I'm in. Even in howling gales and sleet. I notice that almost no other drivers do this. 

I'm often the cause of a small traffic tailback when I'm cycling in twisty lanes, but I can't make my bicycle any narrower. I feel perfectly entitled to be there.


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> No irony. I'm a keen cyclist.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to use the road. I'm just back from a very windy and chilly blast myself; woolly hat down over ears and nose going very pink.
> 
> ...




The voice of reason  , I'm with you.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> The voice of reason  , I'm with you.



Well, you would be, wouldn't you?

Bicyclist - I don't dispute for a moment that you are a "keen cyclist", and I don't wish to put you in the same box as that muppet freecyclist, but your caricatures are wilfully missing the point. A sense of entitlement is what leads motorists to view cyclists as being in their way in the first place. I simply say to you that it is not their way, but everybody's way. It is the assumption that a motorist's desire to pass overrides any and all of the reasons (not always obvious to motorists) that cyclists might have for doubling up at a particular moment that leads to the characterisation of people as "noddy-headed dawdlers" or "lycra missiles on posh rides" - they are simply people using the road in a different way to you. I think you've also made another assumption, which is this: that people who advocate the right to claim road space unapologetically spend their entire cycling lives ostentatiously demonstrating the principle, rather than participating in the give-and-take and compromise of everyday life. The point is to know that when it matters, you can stand your ground with confidence.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Well, you would be, wouldn't you?
> 
> Bicyclist - I don't dispute for a moment that you are a "keen cyclist", and I don't wish to put you in the same box as that muppet freecyclist, but your caricatures are wilfully missing the point. A sense of entitlement is what leads motorists to view cyclists as being in their way in the first place. I simply say to you that it is not their way, but everybody's way. It is the assumption that a motorist's desire to pass overrides any and all of the reasons (not always obvious to motorists) that cyclists might have for doubling up at a particular moment that leads to the characterisation of people as "noddy-headed dawdlers" or "lycra missiles on posh rides" - they are simply people using the road in a different way to you. I think you've also made another assumption, which is this: that people who advocate the right to claim road space unapologetically spend their entire cycling lives ostentatiously demonstrating the principle, rather than participating in the give-and-take and compromise of everyday life. The point is to know that when it matters, you can stand your ground with confidence.




That would be an assumption from a cyclists who doesn t drive then


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> That would be an assumption from a cyclists who doesn t drive then



Where did you get the idea that I don't drive? I don't drive any more than I can help it, but that isn't the same thing.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

what else I made an assumption


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588979"]
No I haven't. A huge assumption has been made and presented as a fact. To say that it's wrong to do this is undeniably correct.
[/quote]


Well it certainly did nt read like that. It read his assumption was wrong, not that it was wrong to make the assumption in the first place


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> what else I made an assumption



 _De rigueur_ round these parts...


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588982"]
Oh, and you'll be better to read what I and others are saying rather than taking any notice of what freecycle claims is being said, because he's also wrong with that.
[/quote]


Another assumption Mr P ?


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> - they are simply people using the road in a different way to you -



They are indeed.

Similarly, groups of youths who spread out across the pavement and make others step into the gutter are simply people using the pavement in a different way to me. That they are showing extraordinary thoughtlessness is not the point.

Motorists who take the centre lane on an almost empty Motorway, making me cross two lanes to pass them are just people using the road in a different way to me. That they ignore Motorway etiquette (not to mention the rules) is a side issue.

That the groups I criticised in my otherwise stirringly pro-cyclist post are cyclists is neither here nor there.

I have nothing at all against noddy-headed dawdlers or lycra missiles on posh rides. I shall be in the former group myself in not too many years. I was, sadly, never in the latter.

What irks me (and I apologise for what I thought were amusing but generalised characterisations) is that there are those who seem blithely unaware of the wishes of other road users.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> They are indeed.
> 
> Similarly, groups of youths who spread out across the pavement and make others step into the gutter are simply people using the pavement in a different way to me. That they are showing extraordinary thoughtlessness is not the point.
> 
> ...




Don t start me off about the CTC otherwise it ll go to 100 pages


----------



## Hip Priest (2 Nov 2011)

I think if everyone had Bicycle's attitude, the roads would be a nicer place. If you treat the roads as a warzone, you'll find conflict.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I think if everyone had Bicycle's attitude, the roads would be a nicer place. If you treat the roads as a warzone, you'll find conflict.




Same goes for cycling forums


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Where did you get the idea that I don't drive? I don't drive any more than I can help it, but that isn't the same thing.




This is a genuine question.

Do you think that a person who drives more often will have more sympathy with other motorists as opposed to someone such as yourself who drives as little as they need to?


----------



## Dan B (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> They are indeed.
> 
> Similarly, groups of youths who spread out across the pavement and make others step into the gutter are simply people using the pavement in a different way to me.


Right, and all the doddle-headed people walking down Oxford Street between shops on a Saturday afternoon meandering about and getting in the way so that I have to barge through them on my run from Waterstones to Selfridges. No thought at all for other people


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I think if everyone had Bicycle's attitude, the roads would be a nicer place. If you treat the roads as a warzone, you'll find conflict.



There we go with the caricatures again. So there is Bicyclist's Attitude, and there is War Zone?

I disagree profoundly, anyway. I think that when it comes to everyone getting along nicely in the world as it is, then Mr Paul probably has as reasonable an attitude as one might hope to find on the road. And when it comes to transformation, I think that if everyone had Adrian's attitude, or Dellzeqq's, then we might go some way to breaking the stranglehold of the ideology of transportation on our environments and our imaginations.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> *This is a genuine question.*
> 
> Do you think that a person who drives more often will have more sympathy with other motorists as opposed to someone such as yourself who drives as little as they need to?



It speaks volumes that you need to preface it as such...


Yes, I do think that, although it's not quite that simple. I haven't always been a cyclist, and there was a time when I enjoyed driving. I am a much better driver now that I have come to dislike it. Driving stunts the imagination, and the flip side of your question is obvious. I have a lot of sympathy with (elective) motorists in the same way that I have with turkeys who vote for Christmas.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588996"]
And even after clarification you continued to misunderstand...
[/quote]

......and will continue to do so untill it becomes clear you know what your talking about let alone anybody else.


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Credit to the moderators for allowing this thread to run despite the disruptive intentions of r2d2 and mrpaul. I am reassured that sense has prevailed and that the vast majority of forumers seem to think that we should Be considerate to other road users and where safe allow cars to overtake by riding in secondary single file. Clearly the militant philosophy that 2abreast is justified unquestioningly soley on the basis of legality and that making concessions to motorists is sign of spineless weakness are a small but vocal minority.
> Us good cyclists have a duty to speak up lest these deluded fundamentalists are mistakenly taken as being representative of all of us.
> In the same way , and in the absence of any arguement in favour of large groups of cyclists , i am sure that the majority of forumers also agree with me that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged and where numbers are high organisers should have the consideration and a sufficent sense of responsibility to stagger the total into smaller groups.



What is wrong with you? Why do you insist on arguing against a position that no-one is putting forward?

No-one has said they would continue to ride 2 abreast, deliberately holding up traffic, if it was safe to single up and let the car(s) through. Almost everyone has said that they would stay in 2 abreast to prevent an unsafe overtake, and that in many cases it's easier to overtake cyclists 2 abreast than single file. Stop it with your ridiculous straw man arguments please.

And I very much doubt whether the majority of forummers would agree that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged. Seeing as the majority of problems are caused by motorised traffic, we should be discouraging large groups of that instead.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1588995"]
No. You're commenting on a view which I haven't said I hold.
[/quote]


You held a view on what I was, or not reading. Make your mind up.


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> It speaks volumes that you need to preface it as such...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think that, although it's not quite that simple. I haven't always been a cyclist, and there was a time when I enjoyed driving. I am a much better driver now that I have come to dislike it. Driving stunts the imagination, and the flip side of your question is obvious. I have a lot of sympathy with (elective) motorists in the same way that I have with turkeys who vote for Christmas.




I cant win with you.

I preface my question as previously you have questioned the intention of my posts. Unfortunately you interpret this prefacing as an admission of previously doing exactley what you have accused me of.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I cant win with you.
> 
> I preface my question as previously you have questioned the intention of my posts. Unfortunately you interpret this prefacing as an admission of previously doing exactley what you have accused me of.



Relax, Monty - it was just a gentle dig, and hardly unwarranted. I've answered the question, have I not?


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Yes, I do think that, although it's not quite that simple. I haven't always been a cyclist, and there was a time when I enjoyed driving. I am a much better driver now that I have come to dislike it. Driving stunts the imagination, and the flip side of your question is obvious. I have a lot of sympathy with (elective) motorists in the same way that I have with turkeys who vote for Christmas.




The above response may identify where we differ. 

I am a keen cyclist, as you are. I am also a keen motorist. I'm sorry you dislike driving and I'm not sure why you think it stunts the imagination. 

Unlike you, I have 'always been a cyclist'. I've cycled since I was old enough to balance a bicycle. I've ridden for 40+ years and I love it. I've driven for 30+ years and love it just as much.

I thoroughly enjoy driving and I also find it makes myriad tasks and responsibilities easier. I could probably keep up with my family's pursuits with only one car, but life with no cars at all would mean stopping so many activities that life would become quite different. We'd also see rather less of in-laws and grandparents...

I confess that I do not begin to understand your Christmas analogy. Turkeys who vote for Christmas (if we assume complete knowledge) are behaving suicidally. 

Although I'm far from the best driver, I'm not sure the act of driving is quite akin to suicide. My family might take issue with that statement...


----------



## Christopher (2 Nov 2011)

I'm absolutely amazed at the Clarkson-like attitudes of some of the posters to this thread that I at least thought were primarily cyclists who drove, rather than motorists who sometimes ride a bicycle. I mean posters who are otherwise reasonable, not the fc troll.


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

Christopher said:


> I'm absolutely amazed at the Clarkson-like attitudes of some of the posters to this thread that I at least thought were primarily cyclists who drove, rather than motorists who sometimes ride a bicycle. I mean posters who are otherwise reasonable, not the fc troll.




why do you differentiate between the two?


----------



## Christopher (2 Nov 2011)

Because there's a world of difference between the attitudes displayed in Bicycle's rather offensive (to me) post a couple of pages back, listing various cycling stereotypes*, and theclaud's responses to that post. 

*posted at 0950 today - can't say them number as I cannot see it on this old browser (IE6!). And no I haven't flagged it.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

Christopher said:


> Because there's a world of difference between the attitudes displayed in Bicycle's rather offensive (to me) post a couple of pages back, listing various cycling stereotypes*, and theclaud's responses to that post.
> 
> *posted at 0950 today - can't say them number as I cannot see it on this old browser (IE6!). And no I haven't flagged it.



I'm sorry if my earlier post caused offence. I thought it was largely very pro-cyclist. 

I even admitted that I'll shortly be a *noddy-headed dawdler* myself and admitted that I've never had the speed to be a *lycra missile on a posh ride*.

I imagine these were the phrases you found rather offensive. It's not the nodding, the dawdling or the lycra I object to. it's inconsiderate riding.

I fell into cheap stereotypes in a failed attempt to paint a picture. This doesn't make me some sort of baddie.

Some of my best friends are cyclists.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The above response may identify where we differ.
> 
> I am a keen cyclist, as you are. I am also a keen motorist. I'm sorry you dislike driving and I'm not sure why you think it stunts the imagination.
> 
> ...



Actually I didn't put it terribly well. It's not driving in itself I dislike - as someone who rather likes going too fast, there is an imaginary realm in which the pleasure of driving still makes sense to me - it is the participation in a largely antisocial activity, the experience of individualism in action, that I don't enjoy. Much as one might be unable to enjoy the pleasure of a private beach in the knowledge that the locals are fenced out. The car as an instrument of liberation is a fantasy. 

As for turkeys and Christmas, I give you these wise words, more eloquent than mine:

_The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. Addicted to being carried along, he has lost control over the physical, social, and psychic powers that reside in man’s feet. The passenger has come to identify territory with the untouchable landscape through which he is rushed. He has become impotent to establish his domain, mark it with his imprint, and assert his sovereignty over it. He has lost confidence in his power to admit others into his presence and to share space consciously with them. He can no longer face the remote by himself. Left on his own, he feels immobile. _

_ The habitual passenger must adopt a new set of beliefs and expectations if he is to feel secure in the strange world where both liaisons and loneliness are products of conveyance. To “gather” for him means to be brought together by vehicles. He comes to believe that political power grows out of the capacity of a transportation system, and in its absence is the result of access to the television screen. He takes freedom of movement to be the same as one’s claim on propulsion. He believes that the level of democratic process correlates to the power of transportation and communications systems. He has lost faith in the political power of the feet and of the tongue. As a result, what he wants is not more liberty as a citizen but better service as a client. He does not insist on his freedom to move and to speak to people but on his claim to be shipped and to be informed by media. He wants a better product rather than freedom from servitude to it. *It is vital that he come to see that the acceleration he demands is self-defeating, and that it must result in a further decline of equity, leisure, and autonomy*_.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I'm sorry if my earlier post caused offence. I thought it was largely very pro-cyclist.
> 
> I even admitted that I'll shortly be a *noddy-headed dawdler* myself and admitted that I've never had the speed to be a *lycra missile on a posh ride*.
> 
> ...




But!

The phrase "Some of my best friends are ... "must always be followed by "but"


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Actually I didn't put it terribly well. It's not driving in itself I dislike - as someone who rather likes going too fast, there is an imaginary realm in which the pleasure of driving still makes sense to me - it is the participation in a largely antisocial activity, the experience of individualism in action, that I don't enjoy. Much as one might be unable to enjoy the pleasure of a private beach in the knowledge that the locals are fenced out. The car as an instrument of liberation is a fantasy.
> 
> As for turkeys and Christmas, I give you these wise words, more eloquent than mine:
> 
> ...




Okay, I admit it. I havent got a clue what that means.


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I'n not talking about verbal bullying Mark. That's another conversation.
> 
> They guy is a loon. If he honestly thinks that the majority of people on a cycling forum would agree with that nonsense statement he came out with then he deserves the loon tag.
> *This is a Cycling forum after all.*



And there is the mentality that judges it acceptable to bully and label as loony anyone who has the temerity to question the prevailing extreme pro cycling view . Crawl back under your stone ian with the other knuckle draggers and come out again when youre willing to let other people express their views.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

Christopher said:


> I'm absolutely amazed at the Clarkson-like attitudes of some of the posters to this thread that I at least thought were primarily cyclists who drove, rather than motorists who sometimes ride a bicycle. I mean posters who are otherwise reasonable, not the fc troll.




I see by reading across a number of your posts that I am your named & shamed poster boy for *'Clarkson-like attitudes'*.

I draw no distinction between cyclists who drive and motorists who sometimes ride a bicycle. I confess to being not entirely sure what the distinction is. 

Is there a difference? I see myself as pretty neutral. 

The pantomime character Clarkson assumes in his broadcasts and columns is that of a rabid, fossil-fuel-eating, anti-cyclist cyclone. I do not see that as neutral.

I am grateful that you graciously admit that i am 'otherwise reasonable', but I'd love to know which part of my posts you find unreasonable, anti-cyclist or Clarksonesque.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> But!
> 
> The phrase "Some of my best friends are ... "must always be followed by "but"




... but some of them are fugitives from the ICTY. There are no members common to both groups.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> And there is the mentality that judges it acceptable to bully and label as loony anyone who has the temerity to question the prevailing extreme pro cycling view . Crawl back under your stone ian with the other knuckle draggers and come out again when youre willing to let other people express their views.



He's let you express your views, and come to an opinion, that you are a loon. I also think that you are a loon, am I allowed to express my opinion, or is it only opinions that support you ( from others who may be loons) that you will allow?


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> And there is the mentality that judges it acceptable to bully and label as loony anyone who has the temerity to question the prevailing extreme pro cycling view . Crawl back under your stone ian with the other knuckle draggers and come out again when youre willing to let other people express their views.



We have let you express your views, and no-one has tried to stop you.


----------



## Christopher (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle, the attitude I mean is in the post I referred to previously. I have just re-read it. From my POV you seem to be saying that 'cyclists on the road are alright as long as I don't get held up too much'. That impatience and (misplaced) sense of entitlement to drive on the roads is very Clarkson. And so is stereotyping other groups of people. Although of course you are a long way short of Mr Tight Jeans. To be fair there are a few other posters on this thread who do the same.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Actually I didn't put it terribly well. It's not driving in itself I dislike - as someone who rather likes going too fast, there is an imaginary realm in which the pleasure of driving still makes sense to me - it is the participation in a largely antisocial activity, the experience of individualism in action, that I don't enjoy. Much as one might be unable to enjoy the pleasure of a private beach in the knowledge that the locals are fenced out. The car as an instrument of liberation is a fantasy.
> 
> As for turkeys and Christmas, I give you these words, more eloquent than mine: (Edited out of reply to make room)
> 
> ...


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> And there is the mentality that judges it acceptable to bully and label as loony anyone who has the temerity to question the prevailing extreme pro cycling view . Crawl back under your stone ian with the other knuckle draggers and come out again when youre willing to let other people express their views.



Nope, you are a loon. Nowhere have I said you are not allowed to have or express your you own views. Please try harder.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> We have let you express your views, and no-one has tried to stop you.




In a nutshell me thinks. " We have let you express your views " FFS !!!!


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> In a nutshell me thinks. " We have let you express your views " FFS !!!!



What? He was complaining that he hadn't been allowed to express his views. He's wrong.
I wasn't implying that I or anyone had the power or the right to prevent anyone from expressing their views, so calm down.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

I thought I was on your ignore list ? After all you did make a rather public statement to the fact.


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I thought I was on your ignore list ? After all you did make a rather public statement to the fact.



True, but I sometimes expand your hidden posts to see if you've said anything interesting.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Nov 2011)

I'm going to read the whole of this thread the next time I get caught in a traffic jam on the M25. Meanwhile, my 0€02 worth is that I have never been substantially delayed by cyclists while driving. In fact, I believe my car journeys would have been slower if only a small proportion of those cyclists had chosen to drive instead. However, if motorised transport were restricted to driving in one lane only on dual carriageways, my cycling journeys would be a lot quicker and safer.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'm going to read the whole of this thread the next time I get caught in a traffic jam on the M25. Meanwhile, my 0€02 worth is that I have never been substantially delayed by cyclists while driving. In fact, I believe my car journeys would have been slower if only a small proportion of those cyclists had chosen to drive instead. However, if motorised transport were restricted to driving in one lane only on dual carriageways, my cycling journeys would be a lot quicker and safer.




I like your point about cyclists improving traffic flow by not being in cars. I'll use that one in future discussions.

I dislike your suggestion about closing one lane of dual-carriageways to cars. It would inconvenience me and I just couldn't live with that.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Okay, I admit it. I havent got a clue what that means.



You could always try reading it again...


----------



## DonnyDarko (2 Nov 2011)

Wow this thread got a bit huge! 

I'll have to read it all when I have a bit more time.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'm going to read the whole of this thread the next time I get caught in a traffic jam on the M25. Meanwhile, my 0€02 worth is that I have never been substantially delayed by cyclists while driving. In fact, I believe my car journeys would have been slower if only a small proportion of those cyclists had chosen to drive instead. *However, if motorised transport were restricted to driving in one lane only on dual carriageways*, my cycling journeys would be a lot quicker and safer.



That reminds me, obliquely, of Alan Storkey's visionary coach transport system, described by George Monbiot here. Of course, it wouldn't work so well if coaches had to pull over every time a car wished to get past...


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> What is wrong with you? Why do you insist on arguing against a position that no-one is putting forward?
> 
> No-one has said they would continue to ride 2 abreast, deliberately holding up traffic, if it was safe to single up and let the car(s) through. Almost everyone has said that they would stay in 2 abreast to prevent an unsafe overtake, and that in many cases it's easier to overtake cyclists 2 abreast than single file. Stop it with your ridiculous straw man arguments please.
> 
> And I very much doubt whether the majority of forummers would agree that large groups of cyclists should be discouraged. Seeing as the majority of problems are caused by motorised traffic, we should be discouraging large groups of that instead.



To polarise the arguement for the sake of clarity - there are 2 opinions.
1 - cyclists should be proactively considerate to other road users and allow motoritsts to pass whevener reasonable safety permitting.
2 - The "Claud" ideology ; cyclists should not make concessions to motorists as cyclists have rights and the spineless conceeding of ground to motorists will only serve to reinforce the motorists sense of entirlement over cyclists. (claud will in the next breath be whining about getting intimidated by the very same motorists she has just deliberately antagonised - duh) This is the militant option.
The latter regards the former as kow towing to motorists.
The former regards the later as selfish individuals giving cyclists in general a bad name.


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> To polarise the arguement for the sake of clarity - there are 2 opinions.
> 1 - cyclists should be proactively considerate to other road users and allow motoritsts to pass whevener reasonable safety permitting.
> 2 - The "Claud" ideology ; cyclists should not make concessions to motorists as cyclists have rights and the spineless conceeding of ground to motorists will only serve to reinforce the motorists sense of entirlement over cyclists. (claud will in the next breath be whining about getting intimidated by the very same motorists she has just deliberately antagonised - duh) This is the militant option.
> The latter regards the former as kow towing to motorists.
> The former regards the later as selfish individuals giving cyclists in general a bad name.



You're deliberately misrepresenting Claud's position. He has said he will single up if it is safe and practical to do so.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting, quote mining, and straw-manning?


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> First, thanks for admitting you didn't put it as well as you'd wanted to.
> 
> As to the wise words by another's pen: This is all very well, but it rather pre-supposes that *the subject does not also enjoy walking and cycling*.
> 
> ...



Eh? It's not a portrait of a real person - it is a description of the corrosive effects of transportation on the imagination, and on the configuration of social space. And anyway, I can assure you that, buzzards and old boots notwithstanding, you are exhibiting more than a few of symptoms of the malaise.

I think you are talking about individuality, not individualism.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Eh? It's not a portrait of a real person - it is a description of the corrosive effects of transportation on the imagination, and on the configuration of social space. And anyway, I can assure you that, buzzards and old boots notwithstanding, you are exhibiting more than a few of symptoms of the malaise.
> 
> I think you are talking about individuality, not individualism.



Ummm... I realise it's not the portrait of a real person. It is clearly (and explicitly) the projection of a series of effects on a fictional 'habitual passenger'. I meant not that your author was not writing specifically about me (which would be absurd), but that I did not feel I was subject to what you refer to as the corrosive effects of transport.

If I display symptoms, I will do my best to ignore them as I quite enjoy enjoying what I enjoy. I feel terribly guilty now about being a keen motorist, but I will try to assume some sort of imagined sack cloth as I drive from now on.

I might add that if you were to spend 20 minutes blatting up and down the country lanes in my wife's delightful 1960 roadster, you might again thrill to the sin of internal combustion and chirping tyres. If it is corrosive, it is deliciously corrosive. Like a good Armagnac. 

On your last point, I am not talking about individuality. If I were I would use that word. I find the way I use my bicycle far closer to individualism than the way I use my car. It is all about me and what I want, when i want it. I drive largely to benefit others. I dropped in a mention of picking up hitchers in the next sentence, but you may not have noticed it. That is not the whole picture, but it suggests I know my -isms from my -alities.

Really, I was talking about considerate use of the highways. Some other bugger introduced philosophy when I had my back turned.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Good points.
> I was thinking 6 to 8 for normal (non event) type road groups with no special supervision or additional safety provision.
> I see your point and my point is just a common sense based one on what we from a standpoint of best practice should be recommending.
> I think the sportive like you refer to are great and should be embraced and encouraged.
> If the organisers can make it work and its aok then thats fine , if there are any saftey concerns to cyclists taking part then , i dont know the road or area but would closing the road to public traffic be at all possible.


barking! Utterly, utterly mad

I'm just waiting to be told that CS7 should be closed.......


----------



## Dave Davenport (2 Nov 2011)

Blinking heck, I can't believe this posts still running and that anyone thinks it's even worth trying to reason with someone who thinks cyclists shouldn't be in groups of more than eight, in case it causes a motorist to get to their destination three minutes later than they would have.

Freecycle is a berk who's going to carry on spouting the same crap for however long this post continues (IMO).


----------



## VamP (2 Nov 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Blinking heck, I can't believe this posts still running and that anyone thinks it's even worth trying to reason with someone who thinks cyclists shouldn't be in groups of more than eight, in case it causes a motorist to get to their destination three minutes later than they would have.
> 
> Freecycle is a berk who's going to carry on spouting the same crap for however long this post continues (IMO).



See, FC is clearly either a loon or a wind-up merchant, but some of the secondary discussions on here are quite wide ranging and interesting. I keep popping back in to catch up, though I have long since given up trying to reason with FC.


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Actually I didn't put it terribly well. It's not driving in itself I dislike - as someone who rather likes going too fast, there is an imaginary realm in which the pleasure of driving still makes sense to me - it is the participation in a largely antisocial activity, the experience of individualism in action, that I don't enjoy. Much as one might be unable to enjoy the pleasure of a private beach in the knowledge that the locals are fenced out. The car as an instrument of liberation is a fantasy.



Driving a car in western Europe isn't really membership of an exclusive club, get a grip on reality. 




theclaud said:


> As for turkeys and Christmas, I give you these wise words, more eloquent than mine:
> 
> _The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. Addicted to being carried along, he has lost control over the physical, social, and psychic powers that reside in man’s feet. The passenger has come to identify territory with the untouchable landscape through which he is rushed. He has become impotent to establish his domain, mark it with his imprint, and assert his sovereignty over it. He has lost confidence in his power to admit others into his presence and to share space consciously with them. He can no longer face the remote by himself. Left on his own, he feels immobile. _
> 
> _ The habitual passenger must adopt a new set of beliefs and expectations if he is to feel secure in the strange world where both liaisons and loneliness are products of conveyance. To “gather” for him means to be brought together by vehicles. He comes to believe that political power grows out of the capacity of a transportation system, and in its absence is the result of access to the television screen. He takes freedom of movement to be the same as one’s claim on propulsion. He believes that the level of democratic process correlates to the power of transportation and communications systems. He has lost faith in the political power of the feet and of the tongue. As a result, what he wants is not more liberty as a citizen but better service as a client. He does not insist on his freedom to move and to speak to people but on his claim to be shipped and to be informed by media. He wants a better product rather than freedom from servitude to it. It is vital that he come to see that the acceleration he demands is self-defeating, and that it must result in a further decline of equity, leisure, and autonomy_.




That reads more like a reason for not having high speed trains


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Ummm... I realise it's not the portrait of a real person. It is clearly (and explicitly) the projection of a series of effects on a fictional 'habitual passenger'. I meant not that your author was not writing specifically about me (which would be absurd), but that *I did not feel I was subject to what you refer to as the corrosive effects of transport.*
> 
> If I display symptoms, I will do my best to ignore them as I quite enjoy enjoying what I enjoy. I feel terribly guilty now about being a keen motorist, but I will try to assume some sort of imagined sack cloth as I drive from now on.
> 
> ...



And how exactly do you imagine you will escape them, since you presumably inhabit the same world as the rest of us?

I'm not going to be "blatting" up and down country lanes in any kind of motor vehicle. Any driver who blats anywhere, however charming their vehicle, is a menace.

If that's what you say you meant, then fair enough, but I find it odd that a vehicle that imposes few demands and restrictions on others and expands the horizons of door-to-door transport would be described as individualistic, while one that shapes our entire society according to its demands and requires that everything get out of its way is seen as somehow convivial. The only things that cars facilitate are the things they have rendered necessary in the first place.

I did notice the bit about hitchhikers, which is all very heartening, but if I'm honest I have to admit to finding the self-portraits of the Look How Polite A Road User I Am And Wouldn't It Be Great If Everyone Were Like Me element a bit tiresome by now. It's the implication that everyone else is behaving inconsiderately that is irritating. Not to mention wrong.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> Driving a car in western Europe isn't really membership of an exclusive club, get a grip on reality.
> 
> 
> That reads more like a reason for not having high speed trains



It is about all forms of high-speed transportation, but especially the private car. The speed is the thing.

I chose the example deliberately, as it is reminiscent of something from Andre Gorz, to the effect that _everyone _can no more enjoy the benefits of a private car than they can a private beach house. You're right to say that's it's no longer a very exclusive club. And of course that is diminishing its value to the individual, because the fantasy of liberation depends on exclusivity. Hence the getting-out-of-the-way-thing that this thread is about. Put another way, if a few people riding side-by-side is sufficient to frustrate the purpose of motor vehicles, then they were probably a shoot idea in the first place.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> And how exactly do you imagine you will escape them, since you presumably inhabit the same world as the rest of us?
> 
> I'm not going to be "blatting" up and down country lanes in any kind of motor vehicle. Any driver who blats anywhere, however charming their vehicle, is a menace.
> 
> ...



Blimey!

1. I'm not trying to escape what I don't see as corrosive. I quite enjoy living in the early 21st Century in Western Europe.

2. The only way to drive a 1960 roadster is to blat. It makes about 55 bhp and has low gearing, so it does 70mph flat out. we normally drive it at 50, which is scary enough. It is not even a menace to insects. It is also very beautiful and has a lovely exhaust note. Utterly, utterly lovely. 

3. I do see what you say about motor vehicles shaping our society, although I quite like the environment they've shaped. This computer was delivered in a lorry. As were the slates on my roof, the food in my fridge.. indeed the fridge itself. My children were delivered in a bed. Almost everything else in a lorry. Eschew the vehicle and you need stout leather on your soles.

4. I certainly don't consider myself particularly polite on the road. I put these things in to defend both myself and motorists in general against real or implied charges of being petrol-fuelled misery-bringers. In truth there has not been a week for about twenty years when I've had fewer than three points on my license. Sometimes it is more. My family laugh openly at my driving. 

5. I absolutely don't think that everyone else is behaving inconsiderately. I don't imply it. In the post you first took exception to, I wrote very positively about racers, chaingangs, parents training children and others. I write often on this forum that I think the majority of road users are skilled, courteous and thoughtful. So any implication that everyone else is behaving inconsiderately would be very wrong, as you say. And any inference that I'd been thinking that way would be wide of the mark. It's all there in black and white. 

6. However, I do think that dawdling cyclists who ride 2-abreast when they could easily tuck in and passing is tricky are not showing a massive amount of consideration for other road users. I also have an issue with lycra missiles on posh wheels who double up to chat between pieces of work if that doubling up inconveniences other road users. These are the points you first baulked at and I am constant in my views.


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> It is about all forms of high-speed transportation, but especially the private car. The speed is the thing.
> 
> I chose the example deliberately, as it is reminiscent of something from Andre Gorz, to the effect that _everyone _can no more enjoy the benefits of a private car than they can a private beach house. You're right to say that's it's no longer a very exclusive club. And of course that is diminishing its value to the individual, because the fantasy of liberation depends on exclusivity. Hence the getting-out-of-the-way-thing that this thread is about. Put another way, if a few people riding side-by-side is sufficient to frustrate the purpose of motor vehicles, then they were probably a shoot idea in the first place.



To me you lose all sense when you talk of the fantasy of liberation, it's nothing more than a pretty good way of getting from A to B (unless you're now going to tell me that you're impressed by certain cars as a babe magnet), and depending where your A and B are, it can also be a lot of fun, I've never seen the purpose of a motor vehicle frustrated, just a few sad wound up drivers over the years.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> *To me you lose all sense when you talk of the fantasy of liberation*, it's nothing more than a pretty good way of getting from A to B (unless you're now going to tell me that you're impressed by certain cars as a babe magnet), and depending where your A and B are, it can also be a lot of fun, I've never seen the purpose of a motor vehicle frustrated, just a few sad wound up drivers over the years.



That's because you're extremely prosaic. A quick browse of car ads over the years should give you a clue.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> To polarise the arguement for the sake of clarity - there are 2 opinions.



There seems to be some spelling mistake in the above

To polarise the argument in the hope of creating a divisions that don't really exist.

There we go, I corrected it for you!

You were wrong about the two opinions, there are many more than two.


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> There seems to be some spelling mistake in the above
> 
> To polarise the argument in the hope of creating a divisions that don't really exist.
> 
> ...



And as far as I can tell, no-one holds the second one.
I haven't seen a single post, not even by Claud, suggesting that they would deliberately hold up other road users just for the hell of it.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

A car like a bicycle is a tool, a method to get from A to B. They can t think and they don t have personalities. Im afraid if you think they do, or give them stupid names, its time to pay the shrink a visit.


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> That's because you're extremely prosaic. A quick browse of car ads over the years should give you a clue.



Most of us don't take ads to seriously, I think they're just for the dull who lack imagination, and want interest free credit.


----------



## Dan B (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> To me you lose all sense when you talk of the fantasy of liberation, it's nothing more than a pretty good way of getting from A to B


Maybe to you. To many drivers it's an extension of their personal space - accidentally knock their wing mirror and they'll react more violently than if you accidentally spill their pint


----------



## benb (2 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> Maybe to you. To many drivers it's an extension of their personal space - accidentally knock their wing mirror and they'll react more violently than if you accidentally spill their pint



Sometimes you can do both at once.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> Maybe to you. To many drivers it's an extension of their personal space - accidentally knock their wing mirror and they'll react more violently than if you accidentally spill their pint




Which seems to be less space than some cyclists want


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> To me you lose all sense when you talk of* the fantasy of liberation*, it's nothing more than a pretty good way of getting from A to B (unless you're now going to tell me that you're impressed by certain cars as a babe magnet), and depending where your A and B are, it can also be a lot of fun, I've never seen the purpose of a motor vehicle frustrated, just a few sad wound up drivers over the years.


I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be self-evident that a culture based on 'freedom of movement' sees going from place to place, unhindered, as liberating. Heckamighty - the number one reason why very many of us cycle is for the sense of freedom. And it's a fantasy, because changing the scenery doesn't (often) make you free, you're racking up bills and damage every time you get in the car, and the exercise of your freedom very often curtails the freedom of the cars behind. These muppets stuck in a traffic jam in Tooting High Street, a traffic jam that is pretty much the same as the one they went through the day before, are clawing their way to an imaginary freedom. 

What's so difficult about that?

(I'm biased, but it does seem to me odd that people who are so very intent on moving at a fast pace then confine themselves to a tin box and sit in traffic)


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> 6. However, I do think that dawdling cyclists who ride 2-abreast when they could easily tuck in and passing is tricky are not showing a massive amount of consideration for other road users. I also have an issue with lycra missiles on posh wheels who double up to chat between pieces of work if that doubling up inconveniences other road users. These are the points you first baulked at and I am constant in my views.


If it's safe, and not putting people out overmuch, doubling up is sociable, and therefore adds to the fund of human enjoyment. 

Driving a car is a choice*. There can be no presumption that everything that is slower than you should get out of the way.

I rather like being thought of as a lycra missile. Thankyou

(*personally I'm very quick to get out of the way of commercial vehicles - not just because they consume so much fuel when dawdling, but because the person behind the wheel has a job to do)


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> That's because you're extremely prosaic. A quick browse of car ads over the years should give you a clue.



You really did just write that another member of the forum was extremely prosaic, didn't you? Crikey! You really did!

My favourite car ad: A schoolboy standing by the grille of a Giulietta saloon (1980s?) and grinning from ear to ear.

The tagline? Just one short sentence: "_My dad's got an Alfa Romeo_". They didn't sell, but I loved the ad. I drive a Vauxhall, which probably means I hate my children. And my wife. Probably the cat too.

Car marketing is just like that used for frozen peas or kitchen paper. I think everyone really knows that the imagery of car ads is largely BS. That's how marketing works. I find it quite beguiling anf sometimes very funny.

If honesty worked in marketing, the ads for high-end bicycle gear would say:

"Want to impress your friends and can't be bothered to lose weight? These extremely expensive pedals, seat posts and bottle cages were built with you in mind. Save up to 100 grammes on the weight of your bike and have another pie!"

Do cycle-part ads look like that?

A quick browse of bike ads over the years should give you a clue.

Really, Claud, there is nothing wrong with quite liking cars and driving. It doesn't suddenly render me a control-freak, tarmac-owning road hog.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be self-evident that a culture based on 'freedom of movement' sees going from place to place, unhindered, as liberating. Heckamighty - the number one reason why very many of us cycle is for the sense of freedom. And it's a fantasy, because changing the scenery doesn't (often) make you free, you're racking up bills and damage every time you get in the car, and the exercise of your freedom very often curtails the freedom of the cars behind. These muppets stuck in a traffic jam in Tooting High Street, a traffic jam that is pretty much the same as the one they went through the day before, are clawing their way to an imaginary freedom.
> 
> What's so difficult about that?
> 
> (I'm biased, but it does seem to me odd that people who are so very intent on moving at a fast pace then confine themselves to a tin box and sit in traffic)




This is not why I cycle on the road, its why I mtb.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> If it's safe, and not putting people out overmuch, doubling up is sociable, and therefore adds to the fund of human enjoyment.
> 
> Driving a car is a choice*. There can be no presumption that everything that is slower than you should get out of the way.
> 
> ...



Doubling up sociable and safe ? A slight contradiction would nt you say ? Chatting and controlling a moving vehicle at the same time.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> This is not why I cycle on the road, its why I mtb.


fair do's. If mud's your thing...........but, yes, if I had the skill and the nerve I'd probably be falling off hills as well. 

Suffice to say that there are times when I'm trundling along the her maj's highway thinking myself beyond all cares. Now - I can imagine a person driving a 1960s sportscar down the Autostrada del Sol, hood down, tweed cap affixed to head with double sided tape, the love of his or her life in the passenger seat and a case of the local vintage in the boot, feeling as free as a bird. Sadly most motorists experience more frustration than freedom.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Doubling up sociable and safe ? A slight contradiction would nt you say ? Chatting and controlling a moving vehicle at the same time.


it is both sociable and safe. Yes.

And group rides are safe. Why do you think the broker only charges the CTC a fiver for 3rd party insurance when a claim can run to millions?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2011)

You may well feel the highway an appropriate place to discuss the meaning of life, I and others would tend to disagree. Cycling is deemed safe in any form hence the low premium, numbers has nothing to do with it. 

I have been in group rides club social CC etc. where so much chatting has been going on calls have been missed turnings missed and someone on here actually so busy chatting went off with another group.

You need your wits about you when cycling hence I actually prefer to ride solo. Maybe this is where some of us differ, I ride for the sake of riding its my thing and allways has been, I dont ride to be sociable all though on occaisions this can be a biproduct which I can also enjoy.

Im afraid most cyclists I encounter on the road lack the skillset to be there even when concentrating 100 % let alone riding along gossiping.


----------



## Hip Priest (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Suffice to say that there are times when I'm trundling along the her maj's highway thinking myself beyond all cares. Now - I can imagine a person driving a 1960s sportscar down the Autostrada del Sol, hood down, tweed cap affixed to head with double sided tape, the love of his or her life in the passenger seat and a case of the local vintage in the boot, feeling as free as a bird. Sadly most motorists experience more frustration than freedom.



I've always loved the romance of motoring, and the open road. But like you say, unless you're some sort of international playboy blasting down to the south of France in a Ferrari, such thrills don't exist. 

It's why I've fallen out of love with cars and motoring, and now find more interest in cycling.

Riding at speed through empty country lanes at dawn feels gives me the feeling of freedom I'd always failed to attain whilst driving. And it poses minimal risk to others and the environment.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I've always loved the romance of motoring, and the open road. But like you say, unless you're some sort of international playboy blasting down to the south of France in a Ferrari, such thrills don't exist.
> 
> It's why I've fallen out of love with cars and motoring, and now find more interest in cycling.
> 
> *Riding at speed through empty country lanes at dawn feels gives me the feeling of freedom I'd always failed to attain whilst driving. And it poses minimal risk to others and the environment.*


exactly. The wind in your hair (or not, as the case may be).

I don't go in cars much, but I was driven to Swansea a couple of weeks ago, and, for all the wonders of the M4 (and the wonderful company) it was a tiresome thing - although less tiresome for me than for the driver. There's simply no comparison with a bike ride. And doing it with a friend is twice the fun!


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> exactly. The wind in your hair (or not, as the case may be).
> 
> I don't go in cars much, but I was driven to Swansea a couple of weeks ago, and, for all the wonders of the M4 (and the wonderful company) it was a tiresome thing - although less tiresome for me than for the driver. There's simply no comparison with a bike ride. And doing it with a friend is twice the fun!




My father says that he doesnt enjoy driving and it gives him no pleasure.

I keep telling him that is because he has a sh*t car, if he got something better he might enjoy it more.

I bought a cheap supermarket bike when I sarted cycling, there is no comparison to my new Specialised its far more enjoyable.


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be self-evident that a culture based on 'freedom of movement' sees going from place to place, unhindered, as liberating. Heckamighty - the number one reason why very many of us cycle is for the sense of freedom. And it's a fantasy, because changing the scenery doesn't (often) make you free, you're racking up bills and damage every time you get in the car, and the exercise of your freedom very often curtails the freedom of the cars behind. These muppets stuck in a traffic jam in Tooting High Street, a traffic jam that is pretty much the same as the one they went through the day before, are clawing their way to an imaginary freedom.
> 
> What's so difficult about that?
> 
> (I'm biased, but it does seem to me odd that people who are so very intent on moving at a fast pace then confine themselves to a tin box and sit in traffic)



If I was after a fantasy of liberation, and I thought I could get it from driving a car or riding my bike, I doubt Tooting High Street would be first choice place to start my fantasy, perhaps I have a different view based on where I live, where every journey is usually very enjoyable.


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> If I was after a fantasy of liberation, and I thought I could get it from driving a car or riding my bike, I doubt Tooting High Street would be first choice place to start my fantasy, perhaps I have a different view based on where I live, where every journey is usually very enjoyable.




Driving can be an absolute delight on a clear day in your part of the world.


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> And as far as I can tell, no-one holds the second one.
> I haven't seen a single post, not *even* by Claud, suggesting that they would deliberately hold up other road users just for the hell of it.



ROFL


----------



## StuartG (2 Nov 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I've always loved the romance of motoring, and the open road. But like you say, unless you're some sort of international playboy blasting down to the south of France in a Ferrari, such thrills don't exist.


No Ferrari needed. At 17 and having passed my test an A30 van was sufficient to turn me from a spotted youth to the most desirable lad in the lower sixth. I cast my cycle aside and (pre drink/drive laws) would take young ladies to a country pub or three and maybe visit an odd lay-by on the way home. Driving was a joy, the freedom was a joy.

However as the rest of my peer group acquired motors my special attraction to ladies waned. As more of the nation acquired motors the availability of unhindered open road waned. Driving gradually evolved from a pleasure to a drag. Except most people are still living in the past - a past the car industry either evokes or turns the cockpit into an air conditioned entertainment centre with knobs - anything to hide the reality of what's outside.

That's why I returned to the bike. I still have a car or two for when they are really needed. But that's not often and getting less often. Which is good for other motorists and cyclists alike.

So I do sympathise with Claud. And worry about some here who don't appear to be terribly rational about their affliction. Oh dear, am I really EXTREME too?


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> fair do's. If mud's your thing...........but, yes, if I had the skill and the nerve I'd probably be falling off hills as well.
> 
> Suffice to say that there are times when I'm trundling along the her maj's highway thinking myself beyond all cares. Now - I can imagine a person driving a 1960s sportscar down the Autostrada del Sol, hood down, tweed cap affixed to head with double sided tape, the love of his or her life in the passenger seat and a case of the local vintage in the boot, feeling as free as a bird. *Sadly most motorists experience more frustration than freedom.
> 
> *



You can do, just need to know where to go.


----------



## freecyclist (2 Nov 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Blinking heck, I can't believe this posts still running and that anyone thinks it's even worth trying to reason with someone who thinks cyclists shouldn't be in groups of more than eight, in case it causes a motorist to get to their destination three minutes later than they would have.
> 
> Freecycle is a berk who's going to carry on spouting the same crap for however long this post continues (IMO).



To be fair you never tried reasoning with FC.
You were clearly in the closed minded intolerant dinosaur camp from the beginning.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> You really did just write that another member of the forum was extremely prosaic, didn't you? Crikey! You really did!



Yup. I reckon Giles can handle it...


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> To be fair you never tried reasoning with FC.



Then he can congratulate himself on not wasting his time on the futile...


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Driving can be an absolute delight on a clear day in your part of the world.



Oh yes, I've had much pleasure discovering so many great roads since I moved here.


----------



## Andy84 (2 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Doubling up sociable and safe ? A slight contradiction would nt you say ? Chatting and controlling a moving vehicle at the same time.



Next time I'm in a car, I'll ensure that the driver doesn't talk to me!


----------



## montyboy (2 Nov 2011)

Andy84 said:


> Next time I'm in a car, I'll ensure that the driver doesn't talk to me!




What if you were chatting to a guy in the car alongside you?


----------



## GilesM (2 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Yup. I reckon Giles can handle it...



I think I'll get by, although I did need a dictionary.


----------



## 400bhp (2 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> Oh yes, I've had much pleasure discovering so many great roads since I moved here.



I've never been to that part of the world but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have sold my car if I lived there. Actually I would have and probably bought something like an e30 M3-love them cars.

Can't we all just get on.

Cars aren't evil

Riding 2 abreast isn't anti capitalist.

Night turns into day etc.


----------



## Bicycle (2 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> I've never been to that part of the world but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have sold my car if I lived there. Actually I would have and probably bought something like an e30 M3-love them cars.
> 
> Can't we all just get on.
> 
> ...




Night turns into day? Night turns into day!

How can you say that? 

Have you read not a word of the past fifty-something pages of this thread?

Only a complete car-hating, anti-bike, fascist, misanthropic knuckle-dragger would ever EVER make such an absurd statement.

That mindset is so completely typical of people who misguidedly believe that (insert your opinion here).

I just knew it wouldn't be long before some turnip actually admitted to believing this trash spread by the myopic and biased mass media.

(I think I might miss the old helmet threads too much  )

PS. E30 M3s..... Clean lines, no fancy stuff, no ESP, Carbon or TC.


----------



## 400bhp (2 Nov 2011)

Probably the best road car ever built.


----------



## Noodley (2 Nov 2011)

4 abreast this evening...I'm pure nuts me!!


----------



## 400bhp (2 Nov 2011)

Tsk

Bet you're one of THEM who is camped out at the front of St Pauls.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2011)

Noodley said:


> 4 abreast this evening...I'm pure nuts me!!


I'm sure I've got that on DVD ....


----------



## totallyfixed (2 Nov 2011)

Hi there Freecyclist, I implied some not very nice things about you near the beginning of this thread and for that I apologise. I would therefore like to invite you to my forum ride so you can explain in greater detail your theory of doubling up, we can talk about it as we trundle along






The vast majority of cyclist deaths caused by another vehicle have involved lone riders. As far as I am aware I can only remember 2 incidents of group cyclists in a fatal collision and both of these involved a car travelling in the opposite direction.

100 pages at least.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Nope, you are a loon. Nowhere have I said you are not allowed to have or express your you own views. Please try harder.




How does my opinion supporting considerate riding and dividing overly large groups of cyclists into smaller groups justify you saying that i am mentally ill.
Seems to me like the cowardly bullies way of stifling an opinion he doesnt agree with.


----------



## lukesdad (3 Nov 2011)

Andy84 said:


> Next time I'm in a car, I'll ensure that the driver doesn't talk to me!




You wouldnt of seen the signs on buses and coaches, concerning talking to a driver while the vehicle is moving then ?


----------



## GilesM (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> I've never been to that part of the world but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have sold my car if I lived there. Actually I would have and probably bought something like an e30 M3-love them cars.
> 
> Can't we all just get on.
> 
> ...



To be honest, cars like the M3 are a bit more than is really needed on many of the roads around here, huge high end power isn't required, small light and nimble, and the ability to safely overtake the 30 to 50mph cars. Also a car that doesn't make people think arrogant tosser is a great help on many of the quiet roads here which are quite narrow, and require the car in front to allow you to pass, not sure that the M3 will give the right impression.



400bhp said:


> Can't we all just get on.
> 
> Cars aren't evil
> 
> ...



Exactly, there's enough room for us all, the trick is to enjoy the journey whatever is happening, and never feel as though you have to make a point to another road user, whatever vehicle you are using.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> To be honest, cars like the M3 are a bit more than is really needed on many of the roads around here, huge high end power isn't required, small light and nimble, and the ability to safely overtake the 30 to 50mph cars. Also a car that doesn't make people think arrogant tosser is a great help on many of the quiet roads here which are quite narrow, and require the car in front to allow you to pass, not sure that the M3 will give the right impression.




Sorry, I just put my nerd hat on...

The e30 M3 mentioned in the thread is not the current model with its massive power, many exhausts, mile-wide tyres and crazy gizzmology.

It's the mid-80s version that had under 200 bhp and was really just a small, boxy-looking 2-door saloon. It was a little bit shouty and 'trading floor' when new, but that was 25 years ago. It now looks quite sedate and understated. Like a retired athlete who still exercises.

It weighed very little and was terribly good at going round corners. It wouldn't even be noticed my 99% of people on a normal High Street and lives in that happy hinterland of being 'too new to be seen as a classic'.

If it were a bicycle, it would be an lovely 80s Colnago with a 7-gear groupset. Unnoticed by most and bringing a smile to the eyes of a few.

Actually, I think I quite like this Nerd hat. I might leave it on.


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> blah blah blah blah etc
> 
> If it were a bicycle, it would be an lovely 80s Colnago with a 7-gear groupset.
> 
> blah blah blah



No it wouldn't. Comparing a Bratwurst Munching Wankmobile to a Colnago? Have you completely lost your mind??


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sorry, I just put my nerd hat on...
> 
> The e30 M3 mentioned in the thread is not the current model with its massive power, many exhausts, mile-wide tyres and crazy gizzmology.
> 
> ...



It's nice to see some cyclists that like their cars too


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> No it wouldn't. Comparing a Bratwurst Munching Wankmobile to a Colnago? Have you completely lost your mind??



Why has he lost his mind?


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> Why has he lost his mind?



Comparing an oldish Beemer to a an 80s Colnago, is like comparing a Trabant to Pegoretti.


----------



## GilesM (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sorry, I just put my nerd hat on...
> 
> The e30 M3 mentioned in the thread is not the current model with its massive power, many exhausts, mile-wide tyres and crazy gizzmology.
> 
> ...



Ah, that sounds like fun, however I do prefer British sportscars.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> No it wouldn't. Comparing a Bratwurst Munching Wankmobile to a Colnago? Have you completely lost your mind??


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> No it wouldn't. Comparing a Bratwurst Munching Wankmobile to a Colnago? Have you completely lost your mind??




Not a car enthusiast then?


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> Ah, that sounds like fun, however I do prefer British sportscars.



Triangle shaped TVR's?

BTW Giles/Bicycle etc, check out youtube for Patrick Snijers in the Isle of Man TT.

Utterly awesome driving.


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Not a car enthusiast then?



I bloody loves cars! 

I just hate beemers.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

I did too.

Then I bought an M5

Then I bought an e30 325 and turned it into a track/race car.

Mind changed 

Some of the race prepped e30 M3's are absolutely stunning. 


OMFG - thread tangent


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> I bloody loves cars!
> 
> I just hate beemers.




Whats your poison ?


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> It's nice to see some cyclists that like their cars too



In the interests of balance, I find driving a tiresome chore, and cars tedious money sinks that some people expect me to give a sh*t about solely because I posess a Y chromosome. 

Couldn't manage without ours, but I begrudge every wasted minute I spend in it, and every pound poured into the damned thing. Thank god we don't have to engage in the daily parking wars along our street (by virtue of only having one car, and keeping it on the drive, both of which seem to be alien concepts to many households nearby).


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

That's fine John 

No need for , we are  of that.


----------



## GilesM (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> Triangle shaped TVR's?



Definately not. I prefer things to look good.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> Definately not. I prefer things to look good.




As good as this?


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> That's fine John



In the interests of greater understanding, and so forth 

FWIW, I find enthusiasts are (mostly) pretty pleasant to share the road with, largely because they give a sh*t about how they drive, and take a degree of pride in it.

EDIT: Too many mostlys. Like Newt out of off of Aliens. Mostly.


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Whats your poison ?



Where to start?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> How does my opinion supporting considerate riding and dividing overly large groups of cyclists into smaller groups justify you saying that i am mentally ill.
> Seems to me like the cowardly bullies way of stifling an opinion he doesnt agree with.




Good try, change of topic whilst rehashing previous posts through your own filter, 9/10 !

Not biting ,sorry!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Good points.
> I was thinking 6 to 8 for normal (non event) type road groups with no special supervision or additional safety provision.
> I see your point and my point is just a common sense based one on what we from a standpoint of best practice should be recommending.
> I think the sportive like you refer to are great and should be embraced and encouraged.
> If the organisers can make it work and its aok then thats fine , if there are any saftey concerns to cyclists taking part then , i dont know the road or area but would closing the road to public traffic be at all possible.



I personally think that closing all the roads would infuriate drivers a thousand times more than having to overtake some cyclists.


----------



## GilesM (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> As good as this?



That does look good.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

GilesM said:


> That does look good.



Get a room, you two.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> This is a genuine question.
> 
> Do you think that a person who drives more often will have more sympathy with other motorists as opposed to someone such as yourself who drives as little as they need to?



I don't drive AT ALL (Banned on medical grounds, before you ask, my licence was clean and always has been. I hated driving as I found it scary!) and I understand pulling in when safe so people can get passed.

We can all assume that drivers and non-drivers will think in a certain way about this issue. And we'd be wrong. You don't need to be a driver to have empathy with a driver and consider their needs as well as your own.

Sorry, I just hate the idea that all non-drivers on bikes are road-hogging bastards!


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589111"]
You've never met any Scooby club members then?
[/quote]

Bollo is a recovering Scooby enthusiast. He still has white knuckle moments, but he's generally managed to get on with his life.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I rather like being thought of as a lycra missile. Thankyou




You're welcome.

When I coined the phrase it was with some poignancy that I realised I did not qualify for the description.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Get a room, you two.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Doubling up sociable and safe ? A slight contradiction would nt you say ? Chatting and controlling a moving vehicle at the same time.




What? People chat whilst driving all the time....


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I personally think that closing all the roads would infuriate drivers a thousand times more than having to overtake some cyclists.



Fair point . In not averse to upsetting motorists perse , ie - with good cause - if the only way to hold a sportive and be able to reasonably assure the safety of cyclists (and motorists) would be to close the road for a short while then i would wiegh up all the pros and cons and make an informed decision. May be feasible subject to alternative routes for traffic, particularly on a road like bodmin that im guessing if closed for a couple of hours isnt going to bring the country any closer to economic collapse than it allready is.
(I am averse to upsetting motoristsnunecessarily just for some misguided militany cycling ideology)
Thinking about it if these sportives are 100 miles long then that would mean closing alot of roads so if might not be feasible unless it is a circuitous route like round bodmin moor.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


>


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I don't drive AT ALL (Banned on medical grounds, before you ask, my licence was clean and always has been. I hated driving as I found it scary!) and I understand pulling in when safe so people can get passed.
> 
> We can all assume that drivers and non-drivers will think in a certain way about this issue. And we'd be wrong. You don't need to be a driver to have empathy with a driver and consider their needs as well as your own.
> 
> Sorry, I just hate the idea that all non-drivers on bikes are road-hogging bastards!




That wasnt really what I was getting at. I was wondering if motorists would have more sympathy with cyclists if they had to get on a bike and see what it was like for themselves as well as vice versa.

For example I tow a large trailer quite a lot and you would be amazed how many people will pull into the gap in between my vehicle and the one in front of me as I approach a junction or a line of stationary traffic. Although it may seem that I am leaving quite a large gap, I need this space as my stopping distance is much increased due to the added weight and once or twice I have had to work quite hard to prevent myself running into the back of them. Also when moving out to the centre of the road, left indicator on to negotiate a tight corner has lead to some bright sparks deciding to try and pass me on the inside leaving us both stationary with nowhere to go. 

I am sure that all road users have their own difficulties peculiar to their own mode of transport that might be quite so apparent to others.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Nov 2011)

this is better.......


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Not a car enthusiast then?



I quite like cars, but BMW M-series cars are, well...an estate agent's car....(unless they work for Foxtons, in which case it's a BMW mini!)


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I personally think that closing all the roads would infuriate drivers a thousand times more than having to overtake some cyclists.




I think that you are right.

Many motorists would i am sure raise the point of how much they pay in road tax and why they would expect to have the first priority to use them.


----------



## rich p (3 Nov 2011)

Useful if your tyred.





dellzeqq said:


> this is better.......


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Fair point . In not averse to upsetting motorists perse , ie - with good cause - if the only way to hold a sportive and be able to reasonably assure the safety of cyclists (and motorists) would be to close the road for a short while then i would wiegh up all the pros and cons and make an informed decision. May be feasible subject to alternative routes for traffic, particularly on a road like bodmin that im guessing if closed for a couple of hours isnt going to bring the country any closer to economic collapse than it allready is.
> (I am averse to upsetting motoristsnunecessarily just for some misguided militany cycling ideology)
> Thinking about it if these sportives are 100 miles long then that would mean closing alot of roads so if might not be feasible unless it is a circuitous route like round bodmin moor.



Well, sportives like the London nightrider would prove tricky in that instance.


----------



## GilesM (3 Nov 2011)

rich p said:


> Useful if your tyred.



Could be bad for skid marks though.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Well, sportives like the London nightrider would prove tricky in that instance.



Quite - it would be the responsibility of the organisers to provide adequate supervision and stewarding to guarantee (afap) safety in that case.
My initial main point as you may remember was that large groups of cyclists on public roads with no special supervisions to deal with potential safety , public nuisance etc concerns , might be well advised to split into smaller groups.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> For example I tow a large trailer quite a lot and you would be amazed how many people will pull into the gap in between my vehicle and the one in front of me as I approach a junction or a line of stationary traffic. Although it may seem that I am leaving quite a large gap, I need this space as my stopping distance is much increased due to the added weight



And yet this is hugely obvious to anyone with half the sense they were born with.

I've never driven a vehicle with any sort of trailer, but I'd be careful to leave any such vehicle a good stopping distance, on account of observing properly, and having a rudimentary understanding of momentum and so forth. 

I think the problem isn't that people don't understand, it's that most of the time, they don't care, they don't observe properly, and they don't actively try to percieve hazards ahead. And largely, it all works out all right. You'll either compensate for their idiocy or a situation in which it would cause a problem doesn't arise, so the behaviour self reinforces.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Quite - it would be the responsibility of the organisers to provide adequate supervision and stewarding to guarantee (afap) safety in that case.
> My initial main point as you may remember was that large groups of cyclists on public roads with no special supervisions to deal with potential safety , public nuisance etc concerns , might be well advised to split into smaller groups.



I do have to ask - what about commuters who are not in one group, but end up being so because they are all trying to get to work for 9am?


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> That wasnt really what I was getting at. I was wondering if motorists would have more sympathy with cyclists if they had to get on a bike and see what it was like for themselves as well as vice versa.
> 
> For example I tow a large trailer quite a lot and you would be amazed how many people will pull into the gap in between my vehicle and the one in front of me as I approach a junction or a line of stationary traffic. Although it may seem that I am leaving quite a large gap, I need this space as my stopping distance is much increased due to the added weight and once or twice I have had to work quite hard to prevent myself running into the back of them. Also when moving out to the centre of the road, left indicator on to negotiate a tight corner has lead to some bright sparks deciding to try and pass me on the inside leaving us both stationary with nowhere to go.
> 
> I am sure that all road users have their own difficulties peculiar to their own mode of transport that might be quite so apparent to others.



I do not think myself a particularly skilled driver, cyclist or motorcyclist. But I am in no doubt that my skill and awareness in each of the three pursuits would be even poorer without the many thousands of miles I've spent enjoying the other two.

I've never towed a trailer, but I bet I'd be more considerate towards towing vehicles if I had.

As to the lovely cars question:

Is anything more effortlessly stylish than a Chapron DS?

Is anything more alluringly, pointlessly, weirdly jolie-laide than the prototypical blind alley that was the Citroen M35?

Is anything cuter than a early Fiat 850 Spyder (the model with faired-in lights)?

Is any modern-era supercar more subtle than a 288 GTO?

Has there ever been anything as lovely as the Bimota DB1, even though it isn't a car?

Was anything so resolutely unfussy ever as pretty as a Lancia Aurelia B20?

The correct answer to each of the above is "Of course not!"

Each of the above, if a bicycle, would be a very nice one indeed. Maybe not the M35....


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Quite - it would be the responsibility of the organisers to provide adequate supervision and stewarding to guarantee (afap) safety in that case.
> My initial main point as you may remember was that large groups of cyclists on public roads with no special supervisions to deal with potential safety , public nuisance etc concerns , *might be well advised to split into smaller groups.*



Club rides already do this. They will often have different paced rides at different times and/or routes for different levels of ability. 

Have you ever ridden in a group? 

You seem to be quite militant on this issue.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I do not think myself a particularly skilled driver, cyclist or motorcyclist. But I am in no doubt that my skill and awareness in each of the three pursuits would be even poorer without the many thousands of miles I've spent enjoying the other two.
> 
> I've never towed a trailer, but I bet I'd be more considerate towards towing vehicles if I had.
> 
> ...




You are of course a man with sublime taste sir!


----------



## srw (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Is anything more effortlessly stylish than a Chapron DS?
> 
> Is anything more alluringly, pointlessly, weirdly jolie-laide than the prototypical blind alley that was the Citroen M35?
> 
> ...



Anyone else never heard of any of those?


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I do have to ask - what about commuters who are not in one group, but end up being so because they are all trying to get to work for 9am?



Unfortunately (or fortunately) we cannot really do anything about random groups of individuals. I dont think these randon individuals have the same tendency to ride along 2abreast nattering either.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> You are of course a man with sublime taste sir!



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Car appreciation forum

If you don't stop, I'll start waxing lyrical about my collection of Arabia Moomin mugs....I kid you not!


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

srw said:


> Anyone else never heard of any of those?



Not a clue and I used to read Top Gear mag as a spotty youth.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I quite like cars, but BMW M-series cars are, well...an estate agent's car....(unless they work for Foxtons, in which case it's a BMW mini!)



Ah, now I see you aren't an enthusiast 

The "M-series" cars will be the "M sport" versions - utterly pointless sheep in sheeps clothing cars.

Estate Agents wouldn't but proper versions.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589111"]
You've never met any Scooby club members then?
[/quote]

It's a shame-those cars used to be driven by enthusiasts. And they are good cars too. These days they are mostly driven by knuckle draggers. 

At most of the trackdays I used to attend the first off would be a ScobbyEvo variant.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589138"]
Perhaps this is the solution then. If all roads are marked up like this then there won't be any cyclists getting in the way of drivers. And vice versa. And cyclists could quite happily ride _n_ abreast without annoying any poor drivers.
[/quote]

Yes-but, what about those cyclists that wish to go faster than the n-abreast group.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> It's a shame-those cars used to be driven by enthusiasts. And they are good cars too. These days they are mostly driven by knuckle draggers.



Bloke around the corner from me has the one with all the gold stuff on it (the WRX?) and a very shiny Audi TT. 

He's a nice bloke, fwiw, always lets on to me (he's usually parking up as I get home - he uses his drive too...)


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I think that you are right.
> 
> Many motorists would i am sure raise the point of how much they pay in *road tax* and why they would expect to have the first priority to use them.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

Quote: "Perhaps this is the solution then. If all roads are marked up like this then there won't be any cyclists getting in the way of drivers. And vice versa. And cyclists could quite happily ride _n_ abreast without annoying any poor drivers."


Indeed, but what about the *noddy-headed dawdlers* who bunch up for a chat and hold back the keener riders who want to ride at a reasonable pace?

Cripes!!

Is there such a thing as _deja ecrit_?


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> For example I tow a large trailer quite a lot and you would be amazed how many people will pull into the gap in between my vehicle and the one in front of me as I approach a junction or a line of stationary traffic. Although it may seem that I am leaving quite a large gap, I need this space as my stopping distance is much increased due to the added weight and once or twice I have had to work quite hard to prevent myself running into the back of them. Also when moving out to the centre of the road, left indicator on to negotiate a tight corner has lead to some bright sparks deciding to try and pass me on the inside leaving us both stationary with nowhere to go.



Totally. Don't get me started as this a pet hate of mine.

I tow a horse trailer a lot, and not only is your braking distance longer due to the weight of the trailer, you simply CANNOT brake sharply unless you want to turn your beloved LARGE animal into sausage.

The percentage of people who simple fail to grasp that possibility, and think simply of the fortuitous gap that has appeared for them to dive into.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589144"]
That's not a point though. It's an opinion based on a misunderstanding.
[/quote]


And what in your view is the misunderstanding?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> Ah, now I see you aren't an enthusiast
> 
> The "M-series" cars will be the "M sport" versions - utterly pointless sheep in sheeps clothing cars.
> 
> Estate Agents wouldn't but proper versions.




I'm not an enthusiast. I used to work in insurance and I know that the m-series is the most expensive non-performance car to insure.

And that most insurers won't cover a BMW that has had the M-series kit added to it.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> It's a shame-those cars used to be driven by enthusiasts. And they are good cars too. These days they are mostly driven by knuckle draggers.
> 
> At most of the trackdays I used to attend the first off would be a ScobbyEvo variant.



Closely followed by a Skyline


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> And that most insurers won't cover a BMW that has had the M-series kit added to it.



Now that's just bollox...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> Now that's just bollox...



At the intermediary I used to work at, as soon as you added that, the system went mental!

To be fair, most of the underwriters we worked with wouldn't insure _any_ mods apart from alloy wheels.

BTW, this is not to say I agree with them. I hated that job, because it basically consisted of charging people as much money for as much minutiae as humanly possible.


----------



## snorri (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Many motorists would i am sure raise the point of how much they pay in road tax and why they would expect to have the first priority to use them.


Only these motorists keen to prove they have a good sense of fun and humour would make such claims.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'm not an enthusiast. I used to work in insurance and I know that the m-series is the most expensive non-performance car to insure.
> 
> And that most insurers won't cover a BMW that has had the M-series kit added to it.




M series kits are not added, its a model variation and accounts for about half of the production run.

My company has about 120 company vehicles many of which a m series 3's and they are no more expensive to insure than the alternative models 

Perhaps you are thinking of the m3 m5 etc, which are indeed in the higher and specialist insurance bracket because of cost and performance but usually because they get nicked!


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Fair point . In not averse to upsetting motorists perse , ie - with good cause - if the only way to hold a sportive and be able to reasonably assure the safety of cyclists (and motorists) would be to close the road for a short while then i would wiegh up all the pros and cons and make an informed decision. May be feasible subject to alternative routes for traffic, particularly on a road like bodmin that im guessing if closed for a couple of hours isnt going to bring the country any closer to economic collapse than it allready is.
> (I am averse to upsetting motoristsnunecessarily just for some misguided militany cycling ideology)
> Thinking about it if these sportives are 100 miles long then that would mean closing alot of roads so if might not be feasible unless it is a circuitous route like round bodmin moor.



You really have no idea, do you?


Closing roads for a Sportive  just try to visualize the costs involved. Even Fred Whitton, arguably the best placed sportive for road closures (due to it's popularity, and dangerous nature of some of the descents) has failed to make any inroads into that particular area. 

Most actual races are held on open roads, closing roads in the UK is a major, major undertaking. Surrey Classic this year is a great example of what we're talking about. Thousands of people involved.

Obviously sportives aren't races, but a lot of participants treat them thus, and the standard of riding is often shocking. I guarantee any Sunday group ride is far far better behaved and organised than pretty much any sportive. Should sportives be banned? Absolutely not.

Should you get out more, and maybe sample that cornerstone of British cycling, the Sunday club ride, before casting stones? Absolutely yes.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> You really have no idea, do you?
> 
> 
> *Most actual races are held on open roads, closing roads in the UK is a major, major undertaking. Surrey Classic this year is a great example of what we're talking about. Thousands of people involved.*Obviously sportives aren't races, but a lot of participants treat them thus, and the standard of riding is often shocking.
> ...



Indeed and look how it was reported: 

*Olympic bike race causes mass traffic jams in London *
http://www.tntmagazine.com/tnt-toda...-race-causes-mass-traffic-jams-in-london.aspx

Freecyclist should be careful what he wishes for, if he does not want to upset and inconvenience motorists...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> M series kits are not added, its a model variation and accounts for about half of the production run.
> 
> My company has about 120 company vehicles many of which a m series 3's and they are no more expensive to insure than the alternative models
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of the m3 m5 etc, which are indeed in the higher and specialist insurance bracket because of cost and performance but usually because they get nicked!



They can be added as a modification to a none m-series car.

http://vehicles.vivastreet.co.uk/car-parts+kilmarnock-ka1/bmw-3-e30-m3-wide-bodykit/21465677


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> M series kits are not added, its a model variation and accounts for about half of the production run.
> 
> My company has about 120 company vehicles many of which a m series 3's and they are no more expensive to insure than the alternative models
> 
> Perhaps you are thinking of the m3 m5 etc, which are indeed in the higher and specialist insurance bracket because of cost and performance but usually because they get nicked!



I warned you Monty! It's Moomin time...

If anyone has the two mugs on the top tier and wants to sell them, let me know.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I warned you Monty! It's Moomin time...
> 
> If anyone has the two mugs on the top tier and wants to sell them, let me know.



I want your mugs!


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589152"]
Several misunderstandings in fact.


There's no such thing as Road Tax
VED doesn't pay for the roads
Powered vehicles do not have priority on roads, regardless of what they have to pay to be able to operate the machinery. In reality, it's pretty much the case that big must give way to small - most vulnerable takes proirity.


[/quote]


I think there is such a thing, Road Tax, Road Fund License, VED call it what you will but we know the item to which we refer.

Road tax doesnt pay for the roads but it was originally intented to and it is only more latterly that politicians have transformend it into the cash cow that it is. Perhaps if it was we would have better quality and safer roads than we currently enjoy.

I didnt suggest that powered vehicles had or should have a priority. I merely said that some would feel that those who were directly contributing toward the cost of the road network shouldnt be excluded from its use by those not directly contributing.

My own view is that it would be a mistake to close the roads for such an event and properly managed there really should be too much of a problem and only minor inconvinience.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I warned you Monty! It's Moomin time...
> 
> If anyone has the two mugs on the top tier and wants to sell them, let me know.



It has to be said "you have a cracking set of mugs"


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I didnt suggest that powered vehicles had or should have a priority. I merely said that some would feel that those who were directly contributing toward the cost of the road network shouldnt be excluded from its use by those not directly contributing.



Nobody is "directly contributing" though, given that the whole lot goes into the general taxation pot.

Indeed, it's likely that a cyclist could pay more into that (and thus, one could assume, more towards the upkeep of the roads) than many motorists, given the relative demographics of the two groups in the UK.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I warned you Monty! It's Moomin time...



Is it a Moomin thing specifically, or do you like Tove Jansson generally? If the latter, you should look at his work for "The Hobbit", which is delightful, if you've not already seen it.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I warned you Monty! It's Moomin time...



Lovely collection. It must be unique.

The Swimming Moomin one (second left, bottom row) is particularly good.

If that mug were a car, I think it would be a 1966 Abarth 500 (595 Esse Esse) with Alquatti heads.

What do you think, paper folder?

Maybe a late-model R5 Turbo2 Maxi? 

There's something about it that says quirkiness and chateau-bottled quality in a small, innocuous-looking bottle.

Maybe an R8 Gordini with the racing stripes removed? 

Now if the R8 gordini were a bicycle it would be a.... Oops!


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Nobody is "directly contributing" though, given that the whole lot goes into the general taxation pot.
> 
> Indeed, it's likely that a cyclist could pay more into that (and thus, one could assume, more towards the upkeep of the roads) than many motorists, given the relative demographics of the two groups in the UK.



Or more accurately, all tax payers directly contribute to the roads, even people who don't drive or cycle.

It's basically the flip side of someone who objects to their taxes paying for schools on the basis that they don't have children.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Lovely collection. It must be unique.
> 
> The Swimming Moomin one (second left, bottom row) is particularly good.
> 
> ...



Now, is there really any difference between collecting art, cars or mugs?

If we like something and have an appreciation for it what is the problem?

I would not criticise paper folder for having a vulgar lifestyle for her collection?


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Nobody is "directly contributing" though, given that the whole lot goes into the general taxation pot.
> 
> Indeed, it's likely that a cyclist could pay more into that (and thus, one could assume, more towards the upkeep of the roads) than many motorists, given the relative demographics of the two groups in the UK.




Do the demographics prove that?

Are cyclists generally higher tax payers, if that is the case I think that would suprise many (probably me included)

I dont know the answer to that question.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2011)

I am quite happy to pay the same amount of 'road tax' for my bike as what the following cars have to pay to be on the road.


Alfa Romeo	MiTo	1.3 JTM-2 85PS Sprint 
Audi	A1	1.6 TDI SE, Sport, S Line 
Audi	A3	1.6 TDI 105PS Start/Stop 99 
BMW	New 1 Series	116D Efficient Dynamics 
Chrysler	Ypsilon	0.9T Twin Air 
Citroen	C-Zero	49kw 
Citroen	C3	1.4 HDi 70PS VT 
Citroen	C3	1.6 e-HDi 67PS Airdream VTR+ 93g 
Citroen	C3	1.6 e-HDi 88PS Airdream VTR+, Exclusive 
Citroen	C3	1.6 e-HDi 90PS Airdream+ 
Citroen	New C4	1.6 e-HDi 110PS Airdream EGS6 VTR+ 
Citroen	DS3	1.6 e-HDi 90PS Airdream Dstyle 95g 
Citroen	DS3	1.6 e-HDi 90PS Airdream Dstyle, Dstyle Plus 
Fiat	500	0.9T Twin Air Pop, Sport, Lounge, By Gucci Start/Stop 
Fiat	500C	0.9T Twin Air Pop, Lounge Start/Stop 
Fiat	Punto Evo	1.3 Dynamic, Dynamic Eco Start/Stop 
Ford	Fiesta	1.6 TDCi ECOnetic 
Hyundai	New i10	1.0i Blue 
Kia	New Picanto	1.0i 1, 1Air, 2 
Kia	New Picanto	1.25i 2 Ecodynamics 
Kia	New Rio	1.1CRDi 1 Ecodynamics 
Kia	New Rio	1.1CRDi 1 Air Ecodynamics 
Kia	New Rio	1.1CRDi 2 Ecodynamics 
Lexus	CT200h	1.8 Hybrid SE-I, SE-L, SE-L Premier 
Mini	One	1.6D Base, Pepper/Media/Sport Pack 
Mini	Cooper	1.6D Base, Pepper Pack, Media Pack, Chilli Pack, Sport Pack 
Mitsubishi	i	MiEV 
Nissan	Leaf	EV 
Nissan	Micra	1.2 S/C DIG-S 
Peugeot	207	1.6 HDi Oxygo, Oxygo+ 92PS 
Peugeot	New 308	1.6 e-HDi SR98 112PS 
Peugeot	iOn	330v 
Peugeot	3008	2.0 HDi FAP 200PS HYbrid 99kg 4WD 
Renault	Clio	1.5 dCi Expression Eco 88PS 
Seat	Ibiza	1.2 TDI 75PS SE Copa Ecomotive 
Seat	Ibiza Estate	1.2 TDI 75PS SE Copa Ecomotive 
Seat	Leon	1.6 TDI 105PS SE Copa Ecomotive 
Skoda	Fabia	1.2 TDI CR 75PS Greenline II 
Skoda	Fabia Estate	1.2 TDI CR 75PS Greenline II 
Skoda	Octavia	1.6 TDI CR Greenline II 
Smart	fortwo coupé	Electric Drive 
Smart	fortwo coupé	0.8 cdi Pulse, Passion 
Smart	fortwo coupé	1.0 mhd Pulse, Passion 
Smart	fortwo cabrio	0.8 cdi Pulse, Passion 
Smart	fortwo cabrio	1.0 mhd Pulse, Passion 
Toyota	Auris	1.8 VVT-i HSD 89g/km T4 
Toyota	Auris	1.8 VVT-i HSD 93g/km T4, T-Spirit 
Toyota	iQ	1.0i VVT-i Base, 2 
Toyota	Prius	1.8 VVT-i T3, T4, T Spirit 
Vauxhall	Corsa	1.3 CDTi 95PS ecoFLEX S, Exclusiv Start/Stop 
Vauxhall	Corsa	1.3 CDTi 95PS ecoFLEX S(AC), Exclusiv (AC) Start/Stop 
Vauxhall	Ampera	16-kwh 149PS 
Volkswagen	Up	1.0i 60PS Take Up, Move Up, High Up 
Volkswagen	Golf 1.6 TDI 105PS Bluemotion Start/Stop 
Volkswagen	Polo	1.2 TDI 75PS Bluemotion 
Volvo	C30	1.6D DRIVe SE, SE Lux Start/Stop 
Volvo	S40	1.6D DRIVe SE, SE Lux Start/Stop 
Volvo	V50	1.6D DRIVe SE, SE Lux Start/Stop


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Now, is there really any difference between collecting art, cars or mugs?
> 
> If we like something and have an appreciation for it what is the problem?
> 
> I would not criticise paper folder for having a vulgar lifestyle for her collection?



I like collecting empty food wrappers - or so my coat pockets would have me believe!


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Or more accurately, all tax payers directly contribute to the roads, even people who don't drive or cycle.
> 
> It's basically the flip side of someone who objects to their taxes paying for schools on the basis that they don't have children.




Its probably just that you dont pay extra tax if you have kids but you do if you have a vehicle on the road.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I am quite happy to pay the same amount of 'road tax' for my bike as what the following cars have to pay to be on the road.
> 
> 
> Alfa Romeo	MiTo	1.3 JTM-2 85PS Sprint
> ...


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> I am quite happy to pay the same amount of 'road tax' for my bike as what the following cars have to pay to be on the road.
> 
> 
> Alfa Romeo MiTo 1.3 JTM-2 85PS Sprint
> ...




Very good point.

Why do they get out of paying, cant be equitable?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Very good point.
> 
> Why do they get out of paying, cant be equitable?



So the Uk can turn up at the G20 summit and say "Look we're encouraging the reduction of carbon emissions by encouraging the use of these environmentally friendly cars! Although we may not actually provide the infrastructure to make them work, not to mention that electric vehicles are well out of most people's budgets."


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Is it a Moomin thing specifically, or do you like Tove Jansson generally? If the latter, you should look at his work for "The Hobbit", which is delightful, if you've not already seen it.



I've liked a lot of her work, but I can't recall the Hobbit stuff, I'll check it out though. 

It's interesting how the Moomin's came about - from a debate about Kant, believe it or not...


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Its probably just that you dont pay extra tax if you have kids but you do if you have a vehicle on the road.



And lorry drivers pay more VED than car drivers, but I haven't noticed car drivers falling over themselves to clear out of the way to defer to the higher tax payer.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> So the Uk can turn up at the G20 summit and say "Look we're encouraging the reduction of carbon emissions by encouraging the use of these environmentally friendly cars! Although we may not actually provide the infrastructure to make them work, not to mention that electric vehicles are well out of most people's budgets."



Has got be usage based, surely.


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> And lorry drivers pay more VED than car drivers, but I haven't noticed car drivers falling over themselves to clear out of the way to defer to the higher tax payer.



I like what you did there.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Has got be usage based, surely.



Sorry, thick moment here , what has?


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> You really have no idea, do you?
> 
> 
> Closing roads for a Sportive  just try to visualize the costs involved. Even Fred Whitton, arguably the best placed sportive for road closures (due to it's popularity, and dangerous nature of some of the descents) has failed to make any inroads into that particular area.
> ...



Well lets put it like this ; i know as much about sportives as you do about being polite and conducting a evenly tempered debate.
Despite your abrasive manner you give an interesting perspective on sportives that confirms what r2d2 previously said and raises the dilema of allowing potentially dangerous activities on public roads. My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well lets put it like this ; i know as much about sportives as you do about being polite and conducting a evenly tempered debate.
> Despite your abrasive manner you give an interesting perspective on sportives that confirms what r2d2 previously said and raises the dilema of allowing potentially dangerous activities on public roads. My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake.



That is exactly what happens at the start of a sportive, but short of following around each and every cyclist with a taser, what more can they do?


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> And lorry drivers pay more VED than car drivers, but I haven't noticed car drivers falling over themselves to clear out of the way to defer to the higher tax payer.




i think we already agreed that the amount paid doesnt give you priority.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> That is exactly what happens at the start of a sportive, but short of following around each and every cyclist with a taser, what more can they do?




Taser eh? Now lets explore this one a bit further!


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Lovely collection. It must be unique.
> 
> The Swimming Moomin one (second left, bottom row) is particularly good.



That's the 2006 Summer special edition "The Dive". They tend to go for around 60/70 quid. 

If I've inspired you on the Moomin front, Bicycle the Fazer mug (top tier, orange, to the right as you look) has been sold for 1800 Euros! Usually they go for a bit less than that though...

One day I will appear on the Antiques Roadshow, dressed as the Stinky...


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> They can be added as a modification to a none m-series car.
> 
> http://vehicles.viva...odykit/21465677



No dispute there. I even agree that some insurance companies struggle with insuring modifications. Nonetheless, there is an enormous market out there for insuring modified cars, and owners really do not struggle to get their cars insured. FWIW, I have had a number of modifications to my cars over the years, usually suspension and brake related, and while I had to inform my insurance company of this fact, the actual insurance cost was unchanged.

M cars are genuine performance cars, built by a separate division of BMW. M badged cars are run of the mill BMWs that have some M parts installed (often just the badges) in a marketing ploy to increase their attractiveness (to estate agents by your account). Seeing as both are OEM I actually think that only the very worst of insurance companies would struggle with them specifically. The likes of Alpina and AC Schnitzer a bit more difficult, but still no real issues.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> i think we already agreed that the amount paid doesnt give you priority.



So by what possible argument could a motorist claim that their payment of VED gives them more rights on the road than a cyclist?


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well lets put it like this ; i know as much about sportives as you do about being polite and conducting a evenly tempered debate.
> Despite your abrasive manner you give an interesting perspective on sportives that confirms what r2d2 previously said and raises the dilema of *allowing potentially dangerous activities on public roads*. My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake.



If you're against dangerous activities on the roads, you should be campaigning for a reduction in car use, as there is no suggestion that large groups of cyclists are dangerous.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> M cars are genuine performance cars, built by a separate division of BMW. M badged cars are run of the mill BMWs that have some M parts installed (often just the badges) in a marketing ploy to increase their attractiveness (to estate agents by your account).



How would an estate agent phrase that?

"The panache and allure of the M-Series, with a more compact and bijou engine"


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> So by what possible argument could a motorist claim that their payment of VED gives them more rights on the road than a cyclist?




I believe that the suggestion was that motorists should not be excluded from using the road at the expense of the cyclist as they have paid to use it.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> That is exactly what happens at the start of a sportive, but short of following around each and every cyclist with a taser, what more can they do?



That might not be such a bad idea . Make the 2abreast dawdlers at the back annoyoiing everybody put a proper shift in.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well lets put it like this ; i know as much about sportives as you do about being polite and conducting a evenly tempered debate.
> Despite your abrasive manner you give an interesting perspective on sportives that confirms what r2d2 previously said and raises the dilema of allowing potentially dangerous activities on public roads. My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake.



 

I am only being abrasive because you are an idiot. Normally I'd give you the benefit of doubt, but you have proven your mettle over 60 odd pages  

I am, however, very glad that YOU are inclined to ALLOW sportives. Please attend a sportive near you, I am sure the participants will be only too keen to hear your ADVICE.  

Do you actually know what a bicycle looks like? I have doubts.

Chapeau on your abililty to stick five adjectives in a row ahead of a verb though. That adds a wicked visual image of drooling spittle over your keyboard as you type.


----------



## mickle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I believe that the suggestion was that motorists should not be excluded from using the road at the expense of the cyclist as *they have paid to use it*.



Pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and people moving livestock have _rights_ to use the roads. 

Drivers of motor vehicles, however many hoops they are required to jump through (driving licence, MOT etc) and however much they spend (VED, insurance, alloys etc) never end up with _rights_, merely _permission_.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> How would an estate agent phrase that?
> 
> "The panache and allure of the M-Series, with a more compact and bijou engine"




Tidy


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> That's the 2006 Summer special edition "The Dive". They tend to go for around 60/70 quid.
> 
> If I've inspired you on the Moomin front, Bicycle the Fazer mug (top tier, orange, to the right as you look) has been sold for 1800 Euros! Usually they go for a bit less than that though...
> 
> One day I will appear on the Antiques Roadshow, dressed as the Stinky...




Damn it!

You didn't bite on the car-comparison hook!!

I do like the mugs, though.

Meanwhile, all around us the thunder of a road-tax debate shakes the hills and chokes us with cordite fumes.

And in its midst the crack of the sniper's gun as some still engage with the well-hidden doubling-up issue.

If this thread were a car, it would be a 1978 M-B 350 SE with a touch too much rust around the bottoms of the windows:

Somehow worthy of some admiration, but hardly a classic in the true sense and getting a little tired now.

I'm imagining it is that ubiquitous metallic mid blue and with poorly fitted covers over non-leather seats.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Damn it!
> 
> You didn't bite on the car-comparison hook!!
> 
> ...



I was sure it was going to be metallic brown with chromed wheelarches.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Damn it!
> 
> You didn't bite on the car-comparison hook!!
> 
> ...



I also like the mugs  

On the thread/car analogy front, I am however thinking of an Austin Allegro...


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I believe that the suggestion was that motorists should not be excluded from using the road at the expense of the cyclist as they have paid to use it.



OK, that makes more sense. And I certainly wouldn't be in favour of closing roads willy-nilly just for a sportive.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> Chapeau on your abililty to stick five adjectives in a row ahead of a verb though. That adds a wicked visual image of drooling spittle over your keyboard as you type.





VamP, in truth the adjective cluster preceded a gerund rather than a verb.

Had the gerund been a verb, the words qualifying it would have toi have been adverbs.

But is was not. It was a gerund and therefore, technically, a noun.

The phrase in question copied below, with added punctuation:


"arrogant, inconsiderate, militant, unnecessary, two-abreast cycling" 

If that phrase were a car, it would be a 1977 Datsun 100A Cherry. A rusty one.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I was sure it was going to be metallic brown with chromed wheelarches.



Yes.

Yours is the better colour.

I'd forgotten about Mercedes-Benz Dogshit Brown.

You win.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589201"]
And that's the misunderstanding.
[/quote]

Well if the argument was "we all pay for the roads so why are they closing them to traffic so they can run a sportive" that would be a coherent argument. And no-one except FC has suggested closing roads for sportives.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

I've now come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet for another CC user. Any guesses? Perhaps the mods could check the IP address to see if there are any matches, past or present


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589201"]
And that's the misunderstanding.
[/quote]


Why would one party be excluded from use, what would give the cyclist priorty?


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> VamP, in truth the adjective cluster preceded a gerund rather than a verb.
> 
> Had the gerund been a verb, the words qualifying it would have toi have been adverbs.
> 
> ...



Nice catch, I was so keen to hit the Add Reply button that I didn't read. I actually meant to write noun rather than verb.

I had heard of a gerund previously, but assumed it was a Belgian snack, most frequently consumed at pre-Christmas cyclocross festivals near Gent. 

Edit: forgot to say, nice choice of car analogy. I would add ''torched'' if I wasn't concerned about over-adjectivising. If you can say that. Not my first language, and all that...


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I've now come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet for another CC user. Any guesses? Perhaps the mods could check the IP address to see if there are any matches, past or present




Not another non conformist


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Do the demographics prove that?



Cyclists have a higher median income, iirc - survey[1] from a little while ago, I forget the source. I think it makes a degree of sense, given how pervasive motoring is as a form of utility transport, and cycling's marginalisation to being a pursuit of enthusiasts.

[1] Caveats around the samples being self selecting, more likely to be enthusisats &c apply, obv.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> VamP, in truth the adjective cluster preceded a gerund rather than a verb.
> 
> Had the gerund been a verb, the words qualifying it would have toi have been adverbs.
> 
> ...




A mustard/yellow sort of colour I'm thinking.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Cyclists have a higher median income, iirc - survey[1] from a little while ago, I forget the source. I think it makes a degree of sense, given how pervasive motoring is as a form of utility transport, and cycling's marginalisation to being a pursuit of enthusiasts.
> 
> [1] Caveats around the samples being self selecting, more likely to be enthusisats &c apply, obv.




I wasnt doubting you.

I am suprised because most of the cyclists that I see are not enthusiasts but commuters on their way to Mornflake !


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I am suprised because most of the cyclists that I see are not enthusiasts but commuters on their way to Mornflake !



Oh, which Mornflake?

I hold their staff in very high regard, as I see a lot of their HGVs on the road, and they're invariably driven skillfully and considerately.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling





VamP said:


> Chapeau on your abililty to stick five adjectives in a row ahead of a verb though.


First time I've felt it necessary to enter this debate.

I think you'll find that it's a gerund, not a verb, in front of which FC put five adjectives. I like gerunds, which are when a 'doing word' (e.g. "trolling") becomes a '"thing word". For instance: "His trolling was tiresome" (gerund). Compare that with "He couldn't stop trolling" (verb). Same word, different function. Interesting if you like those subtle distinctions in grammar. Here endeth today's English lesson.

As to the less important matter over which FC seems to be determined to keep winding us all up, I'm going to remain silent as I'm not going to rise to the bait.

EDIT - I see I've been beaten to it re gerunds. Another grammar freak.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I was doubting you.
> 
> I am suprised because most of the cyclists that I see are not enthusiasts but commuters on their way to Mornflake !



You don't see, who I see:


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Oh, which Mornflake?
> 
> I hold their staff in very high regard, as I see a lot of their HGVs on the road, and they're invariably driven skillfully and considerately.




I mentioned it as I saw you were in Crewe.  

I dont live too far from you.


----------



## 4F (3 Nov 2011)

Blimey, can anyone sum this thread up in a few words so I don't have to read the 66 pages ta ?


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> First time I've felt it necessary to enter this debate.
> 
> I think you'll find that it's a gerund, not a verb, in front of which FC put five adjectives. I like gerunds, which are when a 'doing word' (e.g. "trolling") becomes a '"thing word". For instance: "His trolling was tiresome" (gerund). Compare that with "He couldn't stop trolling" (verb). Same word, different function. Interesting if you like those subtle distinctions in grammar. Here endeth today's English lesson.
> 
> As to the less important matter over which FC seems to be determined to keep winding us all up, I'm going to remain silent as I'm not going to rise to the bait.



Where do you stand on Moomin mugs, Brian?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> You don't see, who I see:



*Desperately searches around for hot poker to poke mind's eye out with*


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

I would have thought that cycling was a pastime fairly evenly distributed across the social spectrum.

I genuinely would not have thought it was more popular within the higher social groups.

You live and learn.


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Nov 2011)

4F said:


> Blimey, can anyone sum this thread up in a few words so I don't have to read the 66 pages ta ?



Umm, we should all go and ride our bikes more and use computers less.

And Origamist has a spiffy collection of mugs.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I would have thought that cycling was a pastime fairly evenly distributed across the social spectrum.
> 
> I genuinely would not have thought it was more popular within the higher social groups.
> 
> You live and learn.



In London, everyone who rides a bike talks like Boris. True fact dat.


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> Where do you stand on Moomin mugs, Brian?


I don't. Firstly as I haven't got any. And secondly as it would hurt my feet.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I've now come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet for another CC user. Any guesses? Perhaps the mods could check the IP address to see if there are any matches, past or present



Are there any other options other than troll or sock puppet for forumers who voice a different opinion ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

4F said:


> Blimey, can anyone sum this thread up in a few words so I don't have to read the 66 pages ta ?



A: We shouldn't be allowed to ride side by side, it's annoying to drivers

B: YEAH!

C: F*** right off!

D: Can we not just pull over, or let them go round us if it's a wide no?

B: NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

C: But surely it depends on the circumstances?

B: No. Never. What if (Insert long, complex question here)

(Insert 7 pages of people saying "How long is a piece of string?")

B: Why is everyone an cycle millitant?

J: You're a dumbass

B: No you're a dumbass. (Insert same long, complex question here)

(Insert 40 pages of the last 6 lines)

Y: Cars!

Z: Mugs!




Thank-you


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> I don't. Firstly as I haven't got any. And secondly as it would hurt my feet.



If you're in the South Hams, they sell them in Totnes, top of the hill on the left.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I've liked a lot of her work, but I can't recall the Hobbit stuff, I'll check it out though.



Here you are;

http://www.zepe.de/tjillu/hobbit/

I love the Smaug in this one;
http://www.zepe.de/tjillu/hobbit/s/title.htm


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

4F said:


> Blimey, can anyone sum this thread up in a few words so I don't have to read the 66 pages ta ?




Yes.

I said some things which were right. Most others said things which were not.

Some people think it's OK to double up. Their views have remained constant.

Some people think otherwise. Their views have also remained constant. 

Some people think it depends on the circumstances. Their views have remained constant.

If this thread were a car, it would be a 1981 Talbot Tagora 2.2 GLS in Minicab Beige.

Interesting, but no-one is really sure why.


----------



## 4F (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> A: We shouldn't be allowed to ride side by side, it's annoying to drivers
> 
> B: YEAH!
> 
> ...



Quality thanks, I think I shall retreat to the safe haven of helmet debates


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I mentioned it as I saw you were in Crewe.
> 
> I dont live too far from you.



And there's me thinking their empire might span our great nation!

I think Crewe's a bit of an outlier, cycling wise, at times. For instance, we seem to have more e-bikes per head than anywhere else in the country. Especially those ones that look like slightly crap mopeds.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I would have thought that cycling was a pastime fairly evenly distributed across the social spectrum.
> 
> I genuinely would not have thought it was more popular within the higher social groups.



Again, I offer the caution that it's a self selected sample who identify as cyclsits. But also, that I can see how it would arise. I daresay that in more civilised countries (for utility cycling), the distribution is more even.

If this post was a car, it would be a blue one. (Well, everyone else is doing it).


----------



## briantrumpet (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> If you're in the South Hams, they sell them in Totnes, top of the hill on the left.


Ah, I avoid going to Totnes, as the only way to escape is to eat lentils and wear dungarees.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> I am only being abrasive because you are an idiot. Normally I'd give you the benefit of doubt, but you have proven your mettle over 60 odd pages
> 
> I am, however, very glad that YOU are inclined to ALLOW sportives. Please attend a sportive near you, I am sure the participants will be only too keen to hear your ADVICE.
> 
> ...



I fully realise that you can accept no responsibility for your aggresive behaviour and that i must be to blame. Like your previously suggesting i had autism 
Wicked visual image of bitter angry mid 40s male taking his sexual inadequacy out on other innocent  forumers.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle's posts


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Are there any other options other than troll or sock puppet for forumers who voice a different opinion ?



Contrarian, iconoclast, dissenter, free thinker etc. However, the root problem here is not that you hold a minority opinion, it's more that your arguments are neither rarely cogent or apposite and you have failed to persuade the majority of contributors to this thread that your views on group riding and motorist interaction are credible. The more you repeat these poorly thought out contentions, the more people think you're a wind-up merchant.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

You forgot:

X: But what about Sportives?




MissTillyFlop said:


> A: We shouldn't be allowed to ride side by side, it's annoying to drivers
> 
> B: YEAH!
> 
> ...


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> Contrarian, iconoclast, dissenter etc. However, the root problem here is not that *you hold a minority opinion*, it's a because your arguments are neither rarely cogent or apposite and you have failed to persuade the majority of contributors to this thread that your views on group riding and motorist interaction are credible. The more you repeat these poorly thought out contentions, the more people think you're a wind-up merchant.



Quite. Add to the fact that it's only really a minority opinion on here, which is perhaps what attracts FC to the place. It makes it look more interesting than the bog-standard, f**kwitted, half-arsed commonplace it actually is. There are freecyclists propping up every bar in the country.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> You forgot:
> 
> X: But what about Sportives?



I didn't want over complicate it!


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> Contrarian, iconoclast, dissenter etc. However, the root problem here is not that you hold a minority opinion, it's a because your arguments are neither rarely cogent or apposite and you have failed to persuade the majority of contributors to this thread that your views on group riding and motorist interaction are credible. The more you repeat these poorly thought out contentions, the more people think you're a wind-up merchant.



On this topic i admittedly have an opinion that does not conform to the prevailing very pro cycling view but
why does that make you come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet.
Why ?


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I fully realise that you can *accept no responsibility for your aggresive behaviour* and that i must be to blame. Like your previously suggesting i had autism
> Wicked visual image of *bitter angry mid 40s male taking his sexual inadequacy out *on other innocent  forumers.



Hypocrite much?


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> On this topic i admittedly have an opinion that does not conform to the prevailing very pro cycling view but
> why does that make you come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet.
> Why ?



If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're a sockpuppet.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're a sockpuppet.



I think this guy is a sock puppet:


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Quite. Add to the fact that it's only really a minority opinion on here, which is perhaps what attracts FC to the place. It makes it look more interesting than the bog-standard, f**kwitted, half-arsed commonplace it actually is. *There are freecyclists propping up every bar in the country.*



And people wonder why so many pubs are closing.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're a sockpuppet.



Thanks ben .
I dont think youre a sock puppet eiother.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> I fully realise that you can accept no responsibility for your aggresive behaviour and that i must be to blame. Like your previously suggesting i had autism
> Wicked visual image of bitter angry mid 40s male taking his sexual inadequacy out on other innocent  forumers.




Doh!

*only too late remembers the old adage of not engaging idiots in internet fights*


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> And people wonder why so many pubs are closing.



Because all the tatooed nuckle dragging bullyboys are sat at home on there computers rather than down the pub like they used to be.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I didn't want over complicate it!




 yer, you're right, it's a strawman


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

VamP said:


> yer, you're right, it's a strawman



Never


----------



## ianrauk (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Because all the tatooed nuckle dragging bullyboys are sat at home on there computers rather than down the pub like they used to be.



Oh right.. I did wonder


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Thanks ben .
> I dont think youre a sock puppet eiother.



But I do think you're wrong about almost everything you have said.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> Ah, I avoid going to Totnes, as the only way to escape is to eat lentils and wear dungarees.



It's a price worth paying. Where are you located in Devon?


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Because all the tatooed nuckle dragging bullyboys are sat at home on there computers rather than down the pub like they used to be.



Keep going, FC. You're doing really well.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> On this topic i admittedly have an opinion that does not conform to the prevailing very pro cycling view but
> why does that make you come to the conclusion that FC is not a troll, but a sock puppet.
> Why ?



I'm wary of replying to someone who refers to themself in the third person (narcissism anyone?) but by your own admission, you do not understand the dynamics of group riding and the inherent safety issues vis a vis lateral positioning, but are still happy to endlessly pontificate on the subject all the same.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I'm wary of replying to someone who refers to themself in the third person (narcissism anyone?) but by your own admission, you do not understand the dynamics of group riding and the inherent safety issues vis a vis lateral positioning, but are still happy to endlessly pontificate on the subject all the same.



Yes but why does that make you think i am not a troll, but a sock puppet.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes but why does that make you think i am not a troll, but a sock puppet.




Do you want to be a troll?


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes but why does that make you think i am not a troll, but a sock puppet.



Troll? Sockpuppet? Genuine Idiot? We could have a poll...


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Do you want to be a troll?



No , obviously i dont want to be nor am i either.
I jwould just like to understand origamists thought process.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Troll? Sockpuppet? Genuine Idiot? We could have a poll...



Youve found youre level - an abusive name calling contest.
Carry on.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yes but why does that make you think i am not a troll, but a sock puppet.



I think you have multiple online identities and are pulling our collective chain as I can't believe you're surprised that most people on here think you're spouting nonsense. Of course, I could be wrong: you could be a troll.

Tell us more about your bikes, cycling interests, etc and let this monomaniacal obsession with "doubling up" go.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Youve found youre level - an abusive name calling contest.
> Carry on.



I'll try and drink myself down to yours if you're still around later...


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No , obviously i dont want to be nor am i either.
> *I jwould just like to understand origamists thought process.*



I don't fancy your chances.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Youve found youre level - an abusive name calling contest.
> Carry on.



Earlier you called someone a bitter angry mid sexual inadequate, so you're in no position to criticise.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I think you have multiple online identities and are pulling our collective chain as I can't believe you're surprised that most people on here think you're spouting nonsense. Of course, I could be wrong: you could be a troll.
> 
> Tell us more about your bikes, cycling interests, etc and let this monomaniacal obsession with "doubling up" go.




Thats an interesting point. What do we think about cyclists doubling up when out riding together ?


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Thats an interesting point. What do we think about cyclists doubling up when out riding together ?



We should discuss that !


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> I think you have multiple online identities and are pulling our collective chain as I can't believe you're surprised that most people on here think you're spouting nonsense. Of course, I could be wrong: you could be a troll.
> 
> Tell us more about your bikes, cycling interests, etc and let this monomaniacal obsession with "doubling up" go.



Why would anyone need multiple identities to pull anyones chain if that was their intention.
II have voiced opinions , apparently unpopular and to be silenced by any unpleasant means necessary but they are genuine opinions.
As ian said this is a cycling forum and perhaps as ian said i am a loon to have expected anything other than nasty vilification but i am a cyclists , maybe a naive one and i thought maybe this forum was receptive to a variety of opinions.
sadly i was clearly wrong.
Ian was right.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Why would anyone need multiple identities to pull anyones chain if that was their intention.
> II have voiced opinions , apparently unpopular and to be silenced by any unpleasant means necessary but they are genuine opinions.
> As ian said this is a cycling forum and perhaps as ian said i am a loon to have expected anything other than nasty vilification but i am a cyclists , maybe a naive one and i thought maybe this forum was receptive to a variety of opinions.
> sadly i was clearly wrong.
> Ian was right.



Oh get off your persecution complex, no-one has tried to silence you. If they have, they haven't been doing a very good job.


----------



## CopperCyclist (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Oh get off your persecution complex, no-one has tried to silence you.



The Moderators might soon!

(this post anyway...)


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> The Moderators might soon!
> 
> (this post anyway...)



No actually fair play to the moderators , they have recognised that ive got some good ideas and have let the thread proceed.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No actually fair play to the moderators ,* they have recognised that ive got some good ideas* and have let the thread proceed.



 Now I _know _you're having a laugh.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Well lets put it like this ; i know as much about sportives as you do about being polite and conducting a evenly tempered debate.
> Despite your abrasive manner you give an interesting perspective on sportives that confirms what r2d2 previously said and raises the dilema of allowing potentially dangerous activities on public roads. My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake.


dangerous as in nobody getting hurt as opposed to motor traffic being safe as in 2900 people getting killed every year.

How do you intend to impose this ban in any location other than in your head?


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> dangerous as in nobody getting hurt as opposed to motor traffic being safe as in 2900 people getting killed every year.
> 
> How do you intend to impose this ban in any location other than in your head?



Deliberate misrepresentation - disingenuous delleqq.
"My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake."


----------



## 4F (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Deliberate misrepresentation - disingenuous delleqq.
> "My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake."



I see what the others mean now, :troll:


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

4F said:


> I see what the others mean now, :troll:



Oh thats just what this topic needs , someone with absoilutely nothing to contribute ; you.
And fyi nobody thinks im a troll actually.


----------



## VamP (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Oh thats just what this topic needs , someone with absoilutely nothing to contribute ; you.
> And fyi nobody thinks im a troll actually.



 

Now that was the cherry on the cake . Priceless.


----------



## 4F (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> someone with absolutely nothing to contribute



Are you talking in the 3rd person again ?


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Oh thats just what this topic needs , someone with absoilutely nothing to contribute ; you.
> And fyi nobody thinks im a troll actually.


I can feel a wager coming on........


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Deliberate misrepresentation - disingenuous delleqq.
> "My own personal opinion is yes i am inclined to allow sportives but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake."


I quoted you directly. How is that misrepresentation?


----------



## Glow worm (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> but i would advise the participants to be considerate of other road users and not partake in any arrogant inconsiderate militant unnecessary 2abreast cycling and whereever practical and safe allow faster traffic to overtake."



Cracks me up when drivers trot out this old horse$hit time and time again. I love the fact that my 'vehicle' at about 18'' wide, maybe 4 feet long, is blocking the roads (2 abreast or not), while their vehicle is several feet wide, several more long and weighs a ton and a half (and stinks). And yet it's the bicycle causing all the problems. What's even funnier is that you just know that most of them are nipping around the corner on absurdley short trips (probably for their beer fags and chips judging by the size of a lot of them and by the crap they lob into the hedgerows) and expect us to clear out of their way - priceless.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I quoted you directly. How is that misrepresentation?



You suggested i wanted to impose a ban.
Deliberate misrepresentation.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> You suggested i wanted to impose a ban.
> Deliberate misrepresentation.


Went and looked he said he would like riding in large groups to be "discouraged".


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Why would anyone need multiple identities to pull anyones chain if that was their intention.
> II have voiced opinions , apparently unpopular and to be silenced by any unpleasant means necessary but they are genuine opinions.
> As ian said this is a cycling forum and perhaps as ian said i am a loon to have expected anything other than nasty vilification but i am a cyclists , maybe a naive one and i thought maybe this forum was receptive to a variety of opinions.
> sadly i was clearly wrong.
> Ian was right.



Actually, I don't think you are a sock puppet. I have reconsidered my position as there is a peculiar fervency and naivete to your posts that is hard to feign.


----------



## freecyclist (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> Actually, I don't think you are a sock puppet. I have reconsidered my position as there is a peculiar fervency and naivete to your posts that is hard to feign.



Well thanks for reconsidering and having the decency to let me know.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Origamist said:


> Actually, I don't think you are a sock puppet. I have reconsidered my position as there is a peculiar fervency and naivete to your posts that is hard to feign.




Quite frankly I dont think you had thought it through.

How would a sock puppet have pressed the keys on the keyboard.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

I he were a sock puppet and if that sock puppet were a car, it might well be a 1960s Standard Vanguard.

Unremarkable initself save for the genesis of the straight-six motor that went all the way through to the delightful and rapid Triumph 2.5 pi.


But in truth, I doubt he is a sock puppet...

Or the Stalinist version of same: A shock Puppet.


----------



## montyboy (3 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I he were a sock puppet and if that sock puppet were a car, it might well be a 1960s Standard Vanguard.
> 
> Unremarkable initself save for the genesis of the straight-six motor that went all the way through to the delightful and rapid Triumph 2.5 pi.
> 
> ...




I see the Vanguard in a light blue whilst I can only imagine the 2.5pi to be white


----------



## DonnyDarko (3 Nov 2011)

Just caught up on some of the thread and couldn't be arsed to read the rest. Thread robbed me for sure here! haha

Some random babble going on for sure.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Keep going, FC. You're doing really well.



Boggles at the image of the claude being " tatooed nuckle dragging bullyboys"!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Earlier you called someone a bitter angry mid sexual inadequate, so you're in no position to criticise.



Ahh but! ( there is always a but!) that's "free speech"!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No actually fair play to the moderators , they have recognised that ive got some good ideas and have let the thread proceed.



You really do clutch at straws don't you...

If the Mods shut the thread down they are "silencing" you.
If they let it run they are supporting you.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for either , or will you fall back on one of the oldy but goodies such as " I have had a private message of support"?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Oh thats just what this topic needs , someone with absoilutely nothing to contribute ; you.
> And fyi nobody thinks im a troll actually.



I do!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I do!



Bugger! I think he's a troll and he hooked me! :-(


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I see the Vanguard in a light blue whilst I can only imagine the 2.5pi to be white




Dark Green for the 2.5 surely, the same sort of Green that 3500 P6s should be?


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Thats an interesting point. What do we think about cyclists doubling up when out riding together ?



Dunno, but I'm doubling-up reading this thread .....


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Oh thats just what this topic needs , someone with absoilutely nothing to contribute ; you.
> And fyi nobody thinks im a troll actually.



I do.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No actually fair play to the moderators , they have recognised that ive got some good ideas and have let the thread proceed.



Ha! The moderators haven't expressed an opinion either way.


----------



## Bicycle (3 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Dark Green for the 2.5 surely, the same sort of Green that 3500 P6s should be?




The ones that stick in my mind were a gorgeous turquoise/malachite sort of colour.

With the obligatory black C-Pillar of course.

.. and it's the strange-looking MkI with the roll-top nose, rather than the slick but soullessMichelotti update.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> I do.



Hah! He got you too!


----------



## lukesdad (3 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> What? People chat whilst driving all the time....



Ah you got the point then ? Or did you ? No probably not !


----------



## gaz (3 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Boggles at the image of the claude being " tatooed nuckle dragging bullyboys"!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Little yellow Brompton said:


> Ahh but! ( there is always a but!) that's "free speech"!






Little yellow Brompton said:


> You really do clutch at straws don't you...
> 
> If the Mods shut the thread down they are "silencing" you.
> If they let it run they are supporting you.
> ...






Little yellow Brompton said:


> I do!






Little yellow Brompton said:


> Bugger! I think he's a troll and he hooked me! :-(






Little yellow Brompton said:


> Dark Green for the 2.5 surely, the same sort of Green that 3500 P6s should be?



Can you please multi quote?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Nov 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Ah you got the point then ? Or did you ? No probably not !



You're setting the bar a little high for me there


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Nov 2011)

gaz said:


> Can you please multi quote?



Isn't that a bit like posting 6 abreast?


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (3 Nov 2011)

gaz said:


> Can you please multi quote?



I tried... honestly I did! I pressed the button and... nothing! I think I broke the tinterweb


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Nov 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> I tried... honestly I did! I pressed the button and... nothing! I think I broke the tinterweb



Me neither, I never figured out how that works. Maybe we could have a multipost workshop.


----------



## benb (3 Nov 2011)

You click multiquote on all the messages you want, then click add reply.


----------



## snorri (3 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> You click multiquote on all the messages you want, then click add reply.


After clicking the first Multiquote the page changes before I have time to click the others((


----------



## gaz (3 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> After clicking the first Multiquote the page changes before I have time to click the others((



That shouldn't happen :S
Have you got Javascript turned off?

One thing to note about multi quote, it doesn't work across multipal pages.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

gaz said:


> ... across multipal pages.



Sorry to point that one out, but as typos go, you've come up with a delightful new word


----------



## Noodley (4 Nov 2011)

None of my cycling mates are able to go out with me tonight...I'll have to weave across the road instead.

But tomorrow I should be going out in a group - how many riders do you reckon we could manage side by side?


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

Noodley said:


> None of my cycling mates are able to go out with me tonight...I'll have to weave across the road instead.
> 
> But tomorrow I should be going out in a group - how many riders do you reckon we could manage side by side?



MR NOODLEY please could you form a pyramid, like them motorcycle display teams?

That way, people unhappy at you riding n people abreast can simply look further up the pyramid until they find a row with a value of n that makes them happy.


----------



## freecyclist (4 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Quite. Add to the fact that it's only really a minority opinion on here, which is perhaps what attracts FC to the place. It makes it look more interesting than the bog-standard, f**kwitted, half-arsed commonplace it actually is. There are freecyclists propping up every bar in the country.



Sad indictment of this forum if indeed advocating consideration to others is a minority view.
I rather think the reality is that i hold the mainstrean reasonable view whereas you and a few vocal others hold a militant extremist viewpoint which although may go down well on a cycling forum will not go down so well in the outside world and which might explain why you get intimidated by motorists.


----------



## Jezston (4 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> You click multiquote on all the messages you want, then click add reply.



THIS THREAD HAS BEEN USEFUL!


----------



## Jezston (4 Nov 2011)

Now can we shut it down please?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (4 Nov 2011)

Nuke it...


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

Jezston said:


> Now can we shut it down please?



Not before we see Noodley's cyclist pyramid, please.


----------



## Bicycle (4 Nov 2011)

A wonderful thing about these threads is that members post asking for them to be closed.

95% of the threads on this forum are of no interest to me.

I ignore them.

This one has both informed me and made me howl with laughter, sometimes at the same time.

When I'm reasonably sure it has lost its ability to do both, I'll stop clicking on it.

Why shut it down?


----------



## ianrauk (4 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Why shut it down?



Some people are just too sensitive...


----------



## Bicycle (4 Nov 2011)

If that statement in favour of shutting this thread were a car, it would be a 1978 Vauxhall VX1800 Estate.

In maroon metallic with a factory-fit vinyl roof. The tax disc would be sellotaped to the screen.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Nuke it...



Can I remind you that this thread has, uh, a substantial dollar value?


----------



## Dan B (4 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Can I remind you that this thread has, uh, a substantial dollar value?



I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it looks like 3bm has exceeded his authority


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it looks like 3bm has exceeded his authority



I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sad indictment of this forum if indeed advocating consideration to others is a minority view.
> I rather think the reality is that i hold the mainstrean reasonable view whereas you and a few vocal others hold a militant extremist viewpoint which although may go down well on a cycling forum will not go down so well in the outside world and which might explain why you get intimidated by motorists.



Why do you insist on arguing against imaginary points of view? (actually, I know why, but I'd like you to try and explain it)
No-one has said we shouldn't show consideration to others - no-one!

If you want an argument, and you clearly do, please can you argue against positions that people actually hold, rather than ones that only exist in your fevered imagination.

And you wonder why people think you're a troll.


----------



## benb (4 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Can I remind you that this thread has, uh, a substantial dollar value?



I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (4 Nov 2011)

Noodley said:


> None of my cycling mates are able to go out with me tonight...I'll have to weave across the road instead.
> 
> But tomorrow I should be going out in a group - how many riders do you reckon we could manage side by side?



32 if you use both sides of the road!


----------



## StuartG (4 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> 32 if you use both sides of the road!


You forgot the pavements, say 38?


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.



Game over man, game over.


----------



## Bicycle (4 Nov 2011)

StuartG said:


> You forgot the pavements, say 38?



38?

I didn't take you for a militant. Clearly I was mistaken.

Anything over 2 is just wrong. Even 2 is wrong when I'm in a hurry and doing something Very Important. 

If you're going to try 38 could you avoid using the A417 for the next couple of days. I'll be using it a lot to do something jolly important and I don't look forward to being inconvenienced by a ragedy bunch of militant cyclists with a vacuous point to prove.

Crunch times for me on the A417 are 0800 to 0930 and 1550 to 1900. Both days.

Thanks in advance


----------



## StuartG (4 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I didn't take you for a militant. Clearly I was mistaken.
> 
> Anything over 2 is just wrong. Even 2 is wrong when I'm in a hurry and doing something Very Important.
> 
> If you're going to try 38 could you avoid using the A417 for the next couple of days.


Cool it man - we won't be using the cycle lanes - so you and FC and all other responsible cyclists will not be inconvenienced


----------



## mickle (4 Nov 2011)

Hold on, you cant have a pyramid with 38 people. 1+2+3+4+5+6+etc... so 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55 etc...

Before you start embarrassing yourselves


----------



## Andy84 (4 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> Hold on, you cant have a pyramid with 38 people. 1+2+3+4+5+6+etc... so 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55 etc...
> 
> Before you start embarrassing yourselves



Tandems?


----------



## Jezston (4 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Some people are just too sensitive...



LOL


----------



## threebikesmcginty (4 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it looks like 3bm has exceeded his authority



No, look I've got the instruction manual to prove it.


----------



## mickle (4 Nov 2011)

Andy84 said:


> Tandems?



A very good point. And well made.


----------



## briantrumpet (4 Nov 2011)

But tandems are a real problem for motorists, as they are longer than a normal bicycle AND if you try to overtake one and can't get all the way past before a car comes from the opposite direction, you can't pull in in between the two riders. If they were being considerate riders, they'd get off and get onto two separate bikes. If anyone disagrees with me, it'll only prove how militant you cyclists are.


----------



## snailracer (4 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Sad indictment of this forum if indeed advocating consideration to others is a minority view...


Cyclists have already shown consideration to others by:

- not hogging parking spaces and narrowing roads when parked
- not hogging roadspace by driving cars with empty seats and boots
- not driving dangerous, overpowered, overweight, half-blind steamrollers that kill thousands every year
- not slowing down the roads with traffic lights
- not generating air and noise pollution
- not increasing global warming
- not supporting dodgy OPEC governments

Which is a lot more than motorists can claim.



freecyclist said:


> ...
> I rather think the reality is that i hold the mainstrean reasonable view whereas you and a few vocal others hold a militant extremist viewpoint which although may go down well on a cycling forum will not go down so well in the outside world and which might explain why you get intimidated by motorists.


I don't know if your viewpoint is "mainstream" or not, but it's simply wrong. It was once the mainstream view that the earth was flat, but that was simply wrong, too. Most motorists (and a lot of cyclists, too) have no idea about cycling, so it's hardly surprising their notions of how to cycle safely or correctly may be wrong.

When I am driving my car, other motorists annoy me much, much more than cyclists. Perhaps that is because bad driving risks my safety, whereas bad cycling does not. When I am on my bike, if I have the choice of possibly annoying a motorist but enforcing safety, or risking a misjudged overtake, I'll take the former. Inconveniencing motorists is not as important as cyclists' safety - that should be obvious to any reasonable human being.

Lorry drivers are taught to "block" as many lanes as necessary when negotiating roundabouts or junctions, to avoid cars getting "wedged" alongside them - most motorists would agree that that is sensible and safe, and that is the same principle cyclists are applying when taking the lane.

Motorists intimidate each other too, and there are even cyclists that intimidate motorists - maybe it's just human nature that some people are aggressive tw@ts at times. However, I do not equate giving in to unjustified aggression with being considerate.


----------



## Bicycle (4 Nov 2011)

StuartG said:


> Cool it man - we won't be using the cycle lanes - so you and FC and all other responsible cyclists will not be inconvenienced




What revolutionary talk is this!?

I shall be in my motor car!

I have no use for these new-fangled cycle lanes.

Will this militancy never cease?

I feel like a commander of the National Guard at the St Martin barricades in 1832.

This revolutionary talk must be met robustly. 

Me? Cycle to an important meeting? Pah! 

(Author assumes a look of disdain and combines this with a Gallic shrug while saying "Pfff" in a French accent).


----------



## StuartG (4 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> What revolutionary talk is this!?
> I feel like a commander of the National Guard at the St Martin barricades in 1832.








Hmmmm ... designate all cycle lanes as bridleways? Just make sure you clean up behind you ...


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I shall be in my motor car!
> 
> I have no use for these new-fangled cycle lanes.



Don't speak too soon! 

Manchester's motorists appear to appreciate the extra parking opportunities these oddly placed green painted bits of road and pavement provide.


----------



## StuartG (4 Nov 2011)

I hear Philip Hammond was thinking of conscripting militant cyclists as valet parking attendants for the war weary motorists so eliminating this source of temptation to the primary position.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

1589344 said:


> The second stop line 1m further out is a bit of a hit as well.



Genuinely, I don't care about ASLs. I simply expect them to be blocked, and wait mid-lane a bit further back from the front. 

I see red when drivers block pedestrian crossings though (happens a lot in Crewe) - that's incredibly anti-social.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

1589347 said:


> Sorry, I was unclear. Not ASLs, I'm thinking of where motorists use the outer edge of a cycle lane ad the stop line when turning out of a side road.



Oh, I see now! Yes, that's a pain, although generally it happens because they can't see around the cars parked in the cycle lane, ime...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (4 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Can I remind you that this thread has, uh, a substantial dollar value?




They can BILL me for it!


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Nov 2011)

it's sweepstake time

no of posts before midnight Saturday - my guess is 1800
no of posts by the most prolific poster on the thread by midnight Saturday - my guess is 200
identity of most prolific poster on this thread................no, I think I'll leave that one alone!


----------



## 400bhp (4 Nov 2011)

Has anyone died yet in the making of this thread since the last time I asked?


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it's sweepstake time
> 
> no of posts before midnight Saturday - my guess is 1600
> no of posts by the most prolific poster on the thread by midnight Saturday - my guess is 100



Can we throw in a Flounce Point? I'm going for Bicyclist at #1358.


----------



## rowan 46 (4 Nov 2011)

400bhp said:


> Has anyone died yet in the making of this thread since the last time I asked?



I have


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Can we throw in a Flounce Point? I'm going for Bicyclist at #1358.


 Sorry - but enflouncement is just like cricket - too serious a matter for petty wagers!

I have counted the posts made by one particular contributor, and I reckon my amended guess is way too modest!


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I have



We have a haunted thread now, it will be an excellent tourist attraction for the forums, I daresay.


----------



## rowan 46 (4 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> We have a haunted thread now, it will be an excellent tourist attraction for the forums, I daresay.



I got better


----------



## threebikesmcginty (4 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Can we throw in a Flounce Point? I'm going for Bicyclist at #1358.



How about a bonus point for type of flounce? I'm going for a reverse double-gainer.


----------



## mangaman (4 Nov 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> How about a bonus point for type of flounce? I'm going for a reverse double-gainer.



With pike?

Of course I could sabotage TCs little game by flouncing myself earlier


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I got better



DAMN YOUR EYES

I had that Derek Acorah booked and everything.


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> How about a bonus point for type of flounce? I'm going for a reverse double-gainer.



DZ is being very strict. My money was on a forward dummy-enflouncement with a stroppy Hindorff, ending on a reverse turgid Yurchenko.


----------



## rowan 46 (4 Nov 2011)

that's it you are all being very silly and I'll have no more of it goodbye cyclechat


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2011)

mangaman said:


> With pike?
> 
> Of course I could sabotage TCs little game by flouncing myself earlier



Faux-enfloncements will be disqualified. Smeggers' word is final.


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> that's it you are all being very silly and I'll have no more of it goodbye cyclechat



See #1134 above, and behave.


----------



## rowan 46 (4 Nov 2011)

i'm back did you miss me


----------



## rowan 46 (4 Nov 2011)

sorry missed post 1134


----------



## threebikesmcginty (4 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> DZ is being very strict. My money was on a forward dummy-enflouncement with a stroppy Hindorff, ending on a reverse turgid Yurchenko.



Well you have to be on the 7th Level of Flouncedom to pull off that kind of manoeuvre.


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Well you have to be on the 7th Level of Flouncedom to pull off that kind of manoeuvre.



I've been studying the form...


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Nov 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I got better




No you didn't ....


----------



## ianrauk (4 Nov 2011)

are we allowed to sit side by side at the table drinking tea?


----------



## mangaman (4 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> are we allowed to sit side by side at the table drinking tea?



Of course not  

There may be a coffee drinker in a great hurry trying to get past to an adjacent table.

It's just common decency Ian - surely you can see that?


----------



## Mad at urage (4 Nov 2011)

Noodley said:


> None of my cycling mates are able to go out with me tonight...I'll have to weave across the road instead.
> 
> But tomorrow I should be going out in a group - how many riders do you reckon we could manage side by side?






Andy84 said:


> Tandems?



According to some silly driver this morning, I was riding three in a row! See ... I can take up far more room than any of you amateurs .


----------



## Dave Davenport (4 Nov 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> According to some silly driver this morning, I was riding three in a row! See ... I can take up far more room than any of you amateurs .



Are your Tim Brook-Taylor?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (4 Nov 2011)

mangaman said:


> Of course not
> 
> There may be a coffee drinker in a great hurry trying to get past to an adjacent table.
> 
> It's just common decency Ian - surely you can see that?



But maybe some of us want an eclair as well?


WHAT ABOUT CAKES?


----------



## briantrumpet (4 Nov 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> WHAT ABOUT CAKES?


It's easier to eat two cakes in a row than two abreast. But you should always wear a helmet when doing so.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> It's easier to eat two cakes in a row than two abreast. But you should always wear a helmet when doing so.



I eat lemon meringues because of their high visibility filling. And also only the yellow ones out of off of Fondant Fancies.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

Well, I suppose all you militant extremists are happy now you've silenced the voice of the sensible majority.

Poor freecyclist can't get a non-sequitur in sideways!


----------



## Bicycle (5 Nov 2011)

You get these militant cyclists, all clubbing together and forming a sort of opinion peloton.

There's no way a contrary view is going to get past them in those twisty lanes of contention.

A little courtesy goes a long way.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> A little courtesy goes a long way.



Unless you're meeting a crowned head of state, in which case a large courtesy is proper form for ladies. I read it in Debretts.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (5 Nov 2011)

critical mass rides can be 20 abreast........


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> A little courtesy goes a long way.



No-one is disagreeing with that.


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

Poacher said:


> Well, I suppose all you militant extremists are happy now you've silenced the voice of the sensible majority.
> 
> Poor freecyclist can't get a non-sequitur in sideways!



Quiet but not quite silenced - however im sure the jackbooted cycling militants will not stop with their relentless attempts to derail sensible discussion and questioning their extremist procycling agenda until every last dissenting voice is silenced and their militant opinion is the only one that dares raise its voice.


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Why do you insist on arguing against imaginary points of view? (actually, I know why, but I'd like you to try and explain it)
> No-one has said we shouldn't show consideration to others - no-one!
> 
> If you want an argument, and you clearly do, please can you argue against positions that people actually hold, rather than ones that only exist in your fevered imagination.
> ...


Ftao ben + r2d2.
I do not agree that everyone is saying that cyclists should be considerate to other road users and allow other traffic to overtake whenever safe to do so. 
It has been argued that cyclists should not make concessions to motorists - given that it is agreed that riding 2abreast is entirely legal it follows that for cyclists to single out / not ride 2abreast specifically to allow motorist to overtake safely quite clearly constitutes making a concession.
I would regard such concessions as highly commendable but others have described them as spineless.
My opinion is that cyclists should be considerate to other road users and allow other traffic to overtake when safe to do so.
The cycling militants ability to offer such courtesies is cloudied by their procycling/anti motorist ideology of asserting cyclists rights , reclaiming the roads from motorists and redressing the cyclist/motorist powerbalance - not making concessions to motorists is one manifestation of this ideology.
Asserting cyclist rights to be on the road obviously goes from the entirely legitimate (to be recommended) right to the other end of the spectrum where it interferes with best practice regarding consideration for other road users and thats when it is extreme and selfish and gives cyclists in general a bad name and should be unequivocaly condemned by all responsible cyclists.


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

1589387 said:


> Link please.



To what particular bit r2.


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

1589389 said:


> "It has been argued that cyclists should not make concessions to motorists"



rtwdidc


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Nov 2011)

Not just jackbooted cycling militants, SPD jackbooted cycling militants, I'll have you know!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (5 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Quiet but not quite silenced - however im sure the jackbooted cycling militants will not stop with their relentless attempts to derail sensible discussion and questioning their extremist procycling agenda until every last dissenting voice is silenced and their militant opinion is the only one that dares raise its voice.



Does Godwin's law apply on moderated forums


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

I still think Dellzeqq's estimate of 2000 posts by midnight tonight was wildly optimistic.
We'll be lucky to top 1200 at this rate.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

"Single out if necessary when it's safe for motor vehicles to overtake"

Pehaps one of the issues with this statement is that it assumes that the cyclist knows better when it is safe to overtake. Maybe the driver following who knows the characteristics of the vehicle he is driving has a better knowlege of when it would be safe to overtake.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Maybe the driver following who knows the characteristics of the vehicle he is driving has a better knowlege of when it would be safe to overtake.


[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0VEVVtaBDI[/media]

Listen to what the narrator is saying. This is undoubtedly true and applies to the decision to overtake just as much as it does to the decision on how close to pass.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> "Single out if necessary when it's safe for motor vehicles to overtake"
> 
> Pehaps one of the issues with this statement is that it assumes that *the cyclist knows better when it is safe to overtake*. Maybe the driver following who knows the characteristics of the vehicle he is driving has a better knowlege of when it would be safe to overtake.



Indeed he does. It's the cyclist's call. And the driver is not obliged to overtake just because the cyclist allows the opportunity.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> Indeed he does. It's the cyclist's call. And the driver is not obliged to overtake just because the cyclist allows the opportunity.




And this is where you are wrong.

The cyclist is free to maintain his speed and position but it is the always the driver that has to decide when it is safe to overtake.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> And this is where you are wrong.
> 
> The cyclist is free to maintain his speed and position but it is the always the driver that has to decide when it is safe to overtake.



You misunderstand me. The cyclist is not deciding when it is safe for the driver to overtake, but when a possible overtaking manoeuvre could compromise his (the cyclist's) safety, and vetoing the overtake on those grounds. As long as the cyclist is happy that an overtake would not endanger him, the driver is free to decide to overtake or not.


----------



## snorri (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> the driver that has to decide



Some drivers have a problem with this but cyclists can assist the decision making process by assertive road positioning. This was covered way back in the thread.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> You misunderstand me. The cyclist is not deciding when it is safe for the driver to overtake, but when a possible overtaking manoeuvre could compromise his (the cyclist's) safety, and vetoing the overtake on those grounds. As long as the cyclist is happy that an overtake would not endanger him, the driver is free to decide to overtake or not.




I am still not sure on this one.

As the cyclist does not know the size, characteristics and space/time required for the vehicle following to make the manouvre I dont believe that they are in a position to make that decison.

I think that it is very dangerous for any road user to veto the movements of a following road user and this is the cause of much unpleasantness.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589407"]
See my post above. A cyclist is able under some circumstances to control whether the following car can pass. This is outside of the driver's control.
[/quote]


Indeed they are and this can lead to confrontation.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> *I am still not sure on this one.*
> 
> As the cyclist does not know the size, characteristics and space/time required for the vehicle following to make the manouvre I dont believe that they are in a position to make that decison.
> 
> I think that it is very dangerous for any road user to veto the movements of a following road user and this is the cause of much unpleasantness.



That much is clear...


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> Some drivers have a problem with this but cyclists can assist the decision making process by assertive road positioning. This was covered way back in the thread.




perhaps there is a subtle difference between aiding a decision which is usually appreciated rather than presenting a veto.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> That much is clear...




That was my polite way of telling you I thought that you were wrong.


----------



## briantrumpet (5 Nov 2011)

1589405 said:


> You are looking at this the wrong way around. When riding a bike it is often necessary to tell a driver that it is currently unsafe for them to overtake because, amazingly enough, they are frequently incapable of seeing this unaided.


And to add that the cyclist has the odds stacked against him should the driver make a poor judgement, and therefore should be given an active part in the decision about safety (in the humble opinion of one who would rather not be splatted on the road).

Damn, I was trying to avoid making a sensible point. Ho hum.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> That was my polite way of telling you I thought that you were wrong.



All very well, but of course it is you who are wrong. You're making a strawman argument. I don't know any cyclists who try to insist on vehicles overtaking them against the driver's wishes or judgement. All sensible cyclists prevent or discourage unsafe overtakes, as it is, quite simply, their call.


----------



## Dan B (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> As the cyclist does not know the size, characteristics and space/time required for the vehicle following to make the manouvre I dont believe that they are in a position to make that decison.



If there is less than 6-8' of gap between my offside and an approaching obstacle of some kind (e.g. oncoming traffic, parked cars, traffic island etc) then it does not require intimate knowledge of the size and characteristics of the vehicle following to know that there is not space for it to pass safely.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> And to add that the cyclist has the odds stacked against him should the driver make a poor judgement, and therefore should be given an active part in the decision about safety (in the humble opinion of one who would rather not be splatted on the road).
> 
> Damn, *I was trying to avoid making a sensible point.* Ho hum.



You could ask Freecyclist for some tips...


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

1589413 said:


> Well you could always try not interacting with the drivers of cars coming up behind you and let them make all the decisions. At the minimum you will get uncomfortably close passes. At the other end of the scale one day someone will eventually say "Not heard much from Montyboy lately, wonder why?"




I think you are guilty of not really taking on board my point.

I am all in favour of interaction between the cyclist and the motorist, this is the ideal and the safest outcome. What I think is dangerous is when one party decides to veto or block the other.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

Dan B said:


> If there is less than 6-8' of gap between my offside and an approaching obstacle of some kind (e.g. oncoming traffic, parked cars, traffic island etc) then it does not require intimate knowledge of the size and characteristics of the vehicle following to know that there is not space for it to pass safely.




Under those circumstances I would agree entirely.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> All very well, but of course it is you who are wrong. You're making a strawman argument.* I don't know any cyclists who try to insist on vehicles overtaking them against the driver's wishes or judgement.* All sensible cyclists prevent or discourage unsafe overtakes, as it is, quite simply, their call.




I am sure that you understand that I was not suggesting that .


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589421"]
That in bold is wrong.* All that the cyclist does not know is the quality of the driver. 

*It is in my own interest to prevent an overtake where it is not safe, for example at a pinch point. It's not dangerous at all, and is correct and appropriate behaviour.



[/quote]


How does a cyclist establish this?


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2011)

actually.....to introduce a complicating factor....there are times when I can see an opportunity for a driver to pass, and I'll wave him or her past in a big way, while slackening off the pace a bit.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I think you are guilty of not really taking on board my point.
> 
> I am all in favour of interaction between the cyclist and the motorist, this is the ideal and the safest outcome. What I think is dangerous is when one party decides to veto or block the other.



If it comes to the point where someone in a heavier, faster vehicle than you is clearly determined to pass you at any cost, despite your making it quite clear that they may not overtake, then you might be well advised to get out of the way if possible. Until that point you are quite entitled to prevent someone making a manoeuvre that endangers you. With sensible drivers discouragement is enough. How can it be dangerous to prevent or discourage something that is, er, dangerous?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589424"]
I often stop traffic on the walk to school. There's one particular road where traffic won't stop, and there are rarely sufficient gaps to pass safely. If a few families have gathered to cross and drivers aren't giving way, it's common for one of us to stop the cars so that we can all cross safely.

Do you see this being wrong?
[/quote]


No, I think that would be entirely approriate under the circumstances,


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> actually.....to introduce a complicating factor....there are times when I can see an opportunity for a driver to pass, and I'll wave him or her past in a big way, while slackening off the pace a bit.




this is something I do and would see it as positive interaction.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I think that it is very dangerous for any road user to veto the movements of a following road user and this is the cause of much unpleasantness.



Hmm.

Not as dangerous as the cretins who routinely decide the pinch points on Manchester Road are THE IDEAL place to overtake, or those who'll insist on the same manoeuvre on blind bends, hill crests &c.

I see what you're saying Monty, but my experience of commuting drivers is that they're opportunistic, extremely short term planners, mostly unable to read my speed correctly, or anticipate hazards - they also seem to routinely underestimate the amount of distance that they should give me when overtaking. (Although it's possible that they genuinely feel an elbow brushing overtake is a pleasant experience, to give them their due).

I've even been beeped at for waving one bloke back (he was about to overtake me into the path of an oncoming coach that he'd either not seen, or couldn't see- another blind corner special). Some people *need* to be "vetoed". 

The better ones (and there are some) hang back whatever road position I'm in at these points of danger - the majority[1] won't, and primary is essential not just to forestall a nasty overtake, but to give some escape room if they insist on attempting the manoeuvre (they'll generally go wider, if I start out in primary). 

[1] My personal feeling is that that majority is shrinking, albeit rather slowly. Whether that's because the people I encounter every day are more used to seeing me, and know they can pass safely as soon as we pass the danger points (i.e. I don't "hold them up" per se), or because drivers are becoming more cycle aware generally, I couldn't say.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> actually.....to introduce a complicating factor....there are times when I can see an opportunity for a driver to pass, and I'll wave him or her past in a big way, while slackening off the pace a bit.



It's also possible to vary the pace a bit so a motor vehicle & I don't reach a pinch point simultaneously and come into conflict - I do this a fair bit on my morning commute, although it needs good observation and decent knowledge of the route. Volume of traffic in the evening generally precludes it though.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> It's also possible to vary the pace a bit so a motor vehicle & I don't reach a pinch point simultaneously and come into conflict - I do this a fair bit on my morning commute, although it needs good observation and decent knowledge of the route. Volume of traffic in the evening generally precludes it though.




Exactley.

Sometimes this is a far better method of avoinding a close pass than taking the primary, sometimes too early and running the risk of being seen ass the aggresor.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589432"]
But in doing this I will "veto the movements of a following road user". I'm not sure what your position is.
[/quote]


my position is that veto is not always the best option.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> my position is that veto is not always the best option.



I'm not sure anyone said it was "always" the best option, did they?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> I'm not sure anyone said it was "always" the best option, did they?




I dont think I said that was so.

I merely stated my own position when asked?


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

1589391 said:


> Would it be at all possible to have that in English?



Roger that. Will do . In due course.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2011)

we'll make a cyclist of him yet!


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

1589413 said:


> Well you could always try not interacting with the drivers of cars coming up behind you and let them make all the decisions. At the minimum you will get uncomfortably close passes. At the other end of the scale one day someone will eventually say "Not heard much from Montyboy lately, wonder why?"



Id think if far more likely that someone down the benefit office will eventually wonder why theclaud hasnt been in to sign on saying "Oh lord has anyone seen theclaud ? she was always whining on about feeling intimidated but at the same time deliberately stopping cars overtaking , I do hope nothing bad has happened to her".


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I dont think I said that was so.
> 
> I merely stated my own position when asked?



Jolly good. Everyone's happy, then. We veto overtakes when necessary, and we don't when unnecessary.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Id think if far more likely that someone *down the benefit office will eventually wonder why theclaud hasnt been in to sign on* saying "Oh lord has anyone seen theclaud ? she was always whining on about feeling intimidated but at the same time deliberately stopping cars overtaking , I do hope nothing bad has happened to her".



 Nice touch, Freecyclist. I do like a quality troll.

Some of us whine about things, others take control. I'll leave onlookers to decide which of us does which.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589443"]
Then there's been some misunderstanding. This is what you said.....




....which suggests, given that you consider the activity to be very dangerous, that you think it should not happen.
[/quote]


why because I think that something can be dangerous does that mean I think it shouldnt happen.

I think that your problem is that because we have disagreed on different threads you seem determined to find fault with anything that i post here.

please move on.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Sometimes this is a far better method of avoinding a close pass than taking the primary, sometimes too early and running the risk of being seen ass the aggresor.



It's less hassle, although it's only possible when the motor traffic flow has gaps - heading south out of Manchester, there are times and places where that's not the case - in those cases, I'd be very uneasy at advising anyone not to take primary at pinch points, or blindspots, personally.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589446"]
I look at threads on an individual basis (except for with the few members who are disagreeable for the sake of it). If we're disagreed previously then you'll have to remind me where because I can't remember.

I'm not clear on what you're saying because what you have written is that it's very dangerous for a cyclist to prevent a car overtaking at a pinch point. Not that it sometimes is, but always. And if it's always very dangerous then I'm not sure what your variable is for deciding whether an overtake should be prevented or not.

I'm not disagreeing with you, as I'm not sure what you're saying.
[/quote]


My view is not that it is damgerous for a cyclist to prevent an overtake at a pinch point but that it may be in other circumsatnces. My view is that sometimes cyclists can be guilty of taking the primary unecessarily which only serves to cause annoyance. is I am sorry if this was not clear.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Exactley.
> 
> Sometimes this is a far better method of avoinding a close pass than taking the primary, sometimes too early and running the risk of being seen ass the aggresor.



If I have to take primary to prevent a close pass (and I frequently do have to) then I will. I couldn't care less if a minority of ignorant motorists see it as aggressive - my safety is more important than other people's opinions of me.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> If I have to take primary to prevent a close pass (and I frequently do have to) then I will. I couldn't care less if a minority of ignorant motorists see it as aggressive - my safety is more important than other people's opinions of me.




I dont think a "couldnt care less" attitude doesnt do anyone any favours.

If a motorist said the same thing we would quite rightly be critical.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

@Montyboy: I take the attitude that my safety is more important than somebody else's convenience, and somebody else's safety is more important than my convenience; would you agree?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

Poacher said:


> @Montyboy: I take the attitude that my safety is more important than somebody else's convenience, and somebody else's safety is more important than my convenience; would you agree?




I would agree 100%.

Safety is always paramount in any situation.


----------



## srw (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> All sensible cyclists prevent or discourage unsafe overtakes, as it is, quite simply, their call.



All sensible _road users_ at one time or another prevent or discourage unsafe manoeuvres of all kinds.


----------



## srw (5 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> actually.....to introduce a complicating factor....there are times when I can see an opportunity for a driver to pass, and I'll wave him or her past in a big way, while slackening off the pace a bit.



I'd never actually wave someone past - the decision whether or not to overtake is always the driver's. But I'll quite happily pull in, turn round and look meaningful. Whether I'm in a car going slowly or on a bike.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

srw said:


> I'd never actually wave someone past - *the decision whether or not to overtake is always the driver's*. But I'll quite happily pull in, turn round and look meaningful. Whether I'm in a car going slowly or on a bike.




many here would disgree.


----------



## snailracer (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I am still not sure on this one.
> 
> As the cyclist does not know the size, characteristics and space/time required for the vehicle following to make the manouvre I dont believe that they are in a position to make that decison.
> 
> I think that it is very dangerous for any road user to veto the movements of a following road user and this is the cause of much unpleasantness.


As I posted earlier...

Lorry drivers, whose training is much more rigorous than that of a car driver or cyclist, are trained to swing across and block as many lanes as is necessary, when negotiating a roundabout or junction - this is to prevent cars over- or undertaking and getting wedged under the side of the turning lorry.

Most would agree this is in everyone's interest, and yet it is clearly a case where the vehicle in front has "vetoed" the potential actions of those behind. Implicit in this technique is that it is acceptable for the vehicle in front to do this, and also that you should not rely on following vehicles to do the safe thing.

I see no difference in principle between such a manouevre being carried out by a lorry or cyclist. IMO, it would seem even more important for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than lorries, for whom collisions with cars are a mere inconvenience.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

snailracer said:


> As I posted earlier...
> 
> Lorry drivers, whose training is much more rigorous than that of a car driver or cyclist, are trained to swing across and block as many lanes as is necessary, when negotiating a roundabout or junction - this is to prevent cars over- or undertaking and getting wedged under the side of the turning lorry.
> 
> ...



I think that I would agree with 99% of that and in some of my previous posts I have referred to taking similar actions myself when towing a trailer.

I think what I was referring to where cyclists have adopted the primarily to prevent an overtake where it was perhaps inappropriate to do so. The conditions for a safe overtake will vary depending upon the vehicle from a car to an hgv etc.

My last point is poorly worded. I was trying to say that a badly judged decison to veto can the cause of confrontation.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I think what I was referring to where cyclists have adopted the primarily to prevent an overtake where it was perhaps inappropriate to do so. The conditions for a safe overtake will vary depending upon the vehicle from a car to an hgv etc.
> 
> My last point is poorly worded. I was trying to say that a badly judged decison to veto can the cause of confrontation.



As I said before, it's the cyclist's call. That a driver might consider a cyclist's road position "badly judged" is irrelevant, as they might be of this opinion even when the position is very well judged indeed.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I dont think a "couldnt care less" attitude doesnt do anyone any favours.
> 
> If a motorist said the same thing we would quite rightly be critical.



It should be obvious from my post that I meant I couldn't care less if the driver thinks I'm being aggressive - not that I generally have a "couldn't care less" attitude. My priority is my safety, and that frequently means taking primary to prevent or discourage an unsafe overtake. If that annoys the car driver, then TBH that's just tough.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> As I said before, it's the cyclist's call. That a driver might consider a cyclist's road position "badly judged" is irrelevant, as they might be of this opinion even when the position is very well judged indeed.




Does the motorists view become relevant if the cyclists position is indeed badly judged?


----------



## freecyclist (5 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> we'll make a droid of him yet!



FTFY


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Does the motorists view become relevant if the cyclists position is indeed badly judged?



No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> It should be obvious from my post that I meant I couldn't care less if the driver thinks I'm being aggressive - not that I generally have a "couldn't care less" attitude. My priority is my safety, and that frequently means taking primary to prevent or discourage an unsafe overtake. If that annoys the car driver, then TBH that's just tough.




But isnt that the point, you should care if the motorist thinks you are being aggresive?

If he thinks that you are being aggressive it is likely that you will meet with a similar position. If he thinks you are preserving your safety he is likley to support your manouvre.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.




You really do need to take a more balanced view. If we were to consider every road users position I believe we would all get along a lot better to everyones benefit and safety.

I dont think we should adopt the "as long as I am alright" school of thought.


----------



## srw (5 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> No. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it is the cyclist's judgement call.



It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.

(Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

srw said:


> It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.
> 
> (Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)




Why did you call me Toryboy?

I have never made any posts that would give any indication of my political persuasion.

I think that this is your third post today where you have made a claim about me without any evidence whatsover. Why is that?


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

srw said:


> It is the cyclist's judgement call as to whether she should give the driver an opportunity to overtake. It is always the driver's call as to whether that opportunity should be taken.
> 
> (Just so that Toryboy can't pretend to misunderstand me again)



Spot on.


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> You really do need to take a more balanced view. If we were to consider every road users position I believe we would all get along a lot better to everyones benefit and safety.
> 
> I dont think we should adopt the "as long as I am alright" school of thought.



What on earth are you banging on about?


----------



## briantrumpet (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> You really do need to take a more balanced view.


That would be admirable if it weren't for the unbalanced nature of the consequences of poor judgement: 

Cyclist makes poor judgement and allows bad overtake: cyclist gets wiped out
Car driver makes bad judgement and overtakes at wrong time: cyclist gets wiped out.
Cyclist makes poor judgement and holds traffic up for a bit longer than necessary: no-one gets hurt, but incurs the wrath of ill-informed drivers.

In those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect cyclists to put their safety first, before worrying whether an impatient car driver might or might not get wound up by their action. Of course, ideally, the cyclist will make the right judgement at all times, and all drivers will respect those judgements. But we're all human and sometimes make poor judgements - but isn't better that those judgements err on the side of caution, given the catastrophic potential of getting it wrong?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> That would be admirable if it weren't for the unbalanced nature of the consequences of poor judgement:
> 
> Cyclist makes poor judgement and allows bad overtake: cyclist gets wiped out
> Car driver makes bad judgement and overtakes at wrong time: cyclist gets wiped out.
> ...



You make a very good point and I a compelling argument.


----------



## briantrumpet (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> You make a very good point and I a compelling argument.


Steady on, chap. This isn't how internet debates are supposed to go!


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Why did you call me Toryboy?
> 
> I have never made any posts that would give any indication of my political persuasion.
> 
> I think that this is your third post today where you have made a claim about me without any evidence whatsover. Why is that?




Stephen, this isnt the first time I have had to pull you up on this.

Answer please.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

1589470 said:


> In order it goes, my safety, your safety, my convenience, your convenience.




Generally, I'd agree, but occasionally I'd put somebody else's safety above my own - it depends on the risks involved; and I often put somebody else's convenience above my own. There are no hard and fast rules on this, unlike in freecyclist's world.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> But isnt that the point, you should care if the motorist thinks you are being aggresive?
> 
> If he thinks that you are being aggressive it is likely that you will meet with a similar position. If he thinks you are preserving your safety he is likley to support your manouvre.



It's not up to me to try and guess how my cycling will be interpreted. If, through their own ignorance or stupidity, a driver decides to interpret my correct taking of primary as an aggressive manoeuvre, that's their problem. 

Are you saying I shouldn't take primary when appropriate, just in case a driver takes it the wrong way?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589481"]
But having a cheap pop is? Simple question that Monty's posed imo.
[/quote]


I dont think you understand the rules here .

Its okay to make personal insults that have no relevance to the topic or without any subsatnce in fact. However, if you ask someone to justify their remarks and you are not part of the "group" then someone will take issue with you.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> It's not up to me to try and guess how my cycling will be interpreted. If, through their own ignorance or stupidity, a driver decides to interpret my correct taking of primary as an aggressive manoeuvre, that's their problem.
> 
> Are you saying I shouldn't take primary when appropriate, just in case a driver takes it the wrong way?




No, what I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggresive and is likely to be met with a poor response.


----------



## Bicycle (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> What I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggressive and is likely to be met with a poor response.




+1


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589491"]
And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't.
[/quote]


How can you describe the actions of a cyclist taking the primary when it is not appropriate as being "correct"?


----------



## Bicycle (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589491"]
And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't.
[/quote]


I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument. 

First, I'm not sure we can generalise with any confidence about whose attitude generates (or brings) aggression. 

Secondly, a cyclist might rub along better with other road users by bearing in mind that most drivers are unfamiliar with both the reason for and the wider acknowledgement of the taking of Primary Position.

On this forum we've had contributors saying that members of the emergency services attending an incident had no idea what Primary Position was. We had a serving police officer saying on these pages that he'd heard of it only in recent weeks. Many, many drivers know nothing of the concept of Primary Position. These are the people with whom we cyclists share the highway.

Many cyclists will think that OJT for motorists by getting into Primary and letting the following driver figure it out for themselves is a good idea.

That may or may not be so, but if the use of Primary is not understood by the driver, or if it is inappropriate in the circumstances, then the driver might see it as an agressive move.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589494"]
I haven't. What I'm saying is that poor drivers will become aggressive regardless of the appropriateness of the position. Conversely, good drivers will have the patience to allow a cyclist to take primary when it's not necessarily best and choose not to become aggressive.
[/quote]


I dont disagree with any of the above.

It did appear you were disagreeing when you responded to the previous post. Sorry if i misunderstood.


----------



## Bicycle (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589494"]
What I'm saying is that poor drivers will become aggressive regardless of the appropriateness of the position. .
[/quote]


I know plenty of poor drivers who do not have an aggressive bone in their body.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I know plenty of poor drivers who do not have an aggressive bone in their body.




My mother is shocking but she wouldnt want to fight you!


----------



## snailracer (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> How can you describe the actions of a cyclist taking the primary when it is not appropriate as being "correct"?


But both cyclist and motorist will consider themselves correct, and as there is no third party to judge, surely the following vehicle must give way to the leading vehicle?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

snailracer said:


> But both cyclist and motorist will consider themselves correct, and as there is no third party to judge, surely the following vehicle must give way to the leading vehicle?



I think if there is any doubt the motorist should always give way to the cyclist.

The risk is far to great to do otherwise.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> How can you describe the actions of a cyclist taking the primary when it is not appropriate as being "correct"?



I think the problem is that you're making an assumption that the driver knows when taking primary is correct or incorrect.

Given the knowledge of cycling, traffic law &c displayed by the aggressive drivers I've encountered, that's not an assumption I feel is justified.


----------



## Bicycle (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589500"]
Ok. Becoming aggressive as a result of someone else's road position is a sign of one type of poor driver. 

And I know that I was generalising. The point is that if the positioning is correct then any aggression is unacceptable. And, despite any suggestion otherwise, no-one here is defending poor positioning.
[/quote]


Indeed, nobody can defend poor positioning. I do not seek to defend it. But I might have some sort of plea in mitigation for some drivers.

A difficulty may arise when the cyclist is taking Primary and the following vehicle has not heard of primary and does not see what the cyclist is trying to achieve, despite having driven regularly for 20-odd years and accrued no penalty points.

There are many such motorists around. I am not one, but they abound. 

They are being confronted with a bicycle being driven in what they may consider the 'wrong' part of the carriageway for a bicycle. They may fail to see the justification for this positioning. 

Many, many of today's motorists might react so. They may mention to friends that they were held up by a bicycle being ridden in the middle of a carriageway; it is not unlikely that their friends will also be quite unfamiliar with the notion of Primary.

This is not necessarily because the driver is a pig-ignorant, ill-trained, ill-read, aggressive, bicycle-hating moron.

It may just be that the tiny, tiny amount of literature and publicity about the use of primary has not filtered out beyond the arena of the cycling enthusiast in their area.

In my Marches market town the only mention I've seen of Primary was in a small folded-A4 leaflet in a dusty rack at the local Police Station. Most local residents will never have seen it.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Indeed, nobody can defend poor positioning. I do not seek to defend it. But I might have some sort of plea in mitigation for some drivers.
> 
> A difficulty may arise when the cyclist is taking Primary and the following vehicle has not heard of primary and does not see what the cyclist is trying to achieve, despite having driven regularly for 20-odd years and accrued no penalty points.
> 
> ...




I think that this is a very valid point.

I am familiar with the concept of "primary" from a motorcycle traing course I attended. The only cycle training I received was back in the 70's when I did my cycling proficiency and I was told to ride 18 inches from the kerb.

I think there needs to be more publicity/info for the motorists especially in view of the ever increasing number of cyclists on the roads


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Nov 2011)

Would it help if we had primary schools?

(runs away....)


----------



## briantrumpet (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I think there needs to be more publicity/info for the motorists especially in view of the ever increasing number of cyclists on the roads


Step forward Reginald Molehusband. Maybe what he did for parking he could do for drivers' understanding of why good cyclists cycle as they do. 

As Tony Blair said, "Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war." Oh, sorry wrong quote. I meant, "Education, education, education". That would seem to be the answer. Now, where's Mr Molehusband?


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> Step forward Reginald Molehusband. Maybe what he did for parking he could do for drivers' understanding of why good cyclists cycle as they do.
> 
> As Tony Blair said, "Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war." Oh, sorry wrong quote. I meant, "Education, education, education". That would seem to be the answer. Now, where's Mr Molehusband?




or "clunk click every trip" !


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> No, what I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggresive and is likely to be met with a poor response.



OK, so we all agree that you shouldn't take primary when it's not appropriate. Being human, we'll probably make mistakes from time to time. If in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and go for primary.

But - I think most drivers don't have the first idea as to when a cyclist in front of them taking primary is appropriate or not.


----------



## benb (5 Nov 2011)

[QUOTE 1589500"]
Ok. Becoming aggressive as a result of someone else's road position is a sign of one type of poor driver. 

And I know that I was generalising. The point is that *if the positioning is correct then any aggression is unacceptable. *And, despite any suggestion otherwise, no-one here is defending poor positioning.
[/quote]

Even if the position is not correct, save for a muttered "FFS".


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> They are being confronted with a bicycle being driven in what they may consider the 'wrong' part of the carriageway for a bicycle. They may fail to see the justification for this positioning.
> 
> Many, many of today's motorists might react so. They may mention to friends that they were held up by a bicycle being ridden in the middle of a carriageway; it is not unlikely that their friends will also be quite unfamiliar with the notion of Primary.
> 
> This is not necessarily because the driver is a pig-ignorant, ill-trained, ill-read, aggressive, bicycle-hating moron.



They're probably not bad people per se, but so what? I've had people justify a close "punishment pass" on the basis that my lights were illegal (because one was a flashing light, legal since 2005, and actually mentioned as "permitted" in the current Highway Code). The difference here isn't so much that people can't be bothered to keep their knowledge up to date, so much as them not seeing why they shouldn't take out their frustrations on others. That's bad when all you have between you and them is a layer or two of performance fabric, and possibly a polystyrene hat.

I daresay motorists in France and Belgium are as ignorant about current traffic law in their countries, but it doesn't seem to lead them to the conclusion that they'll whizz past an inch off the cyclist's elbow[1] if they think that the cyclist is in the wrong (so far as I can tell from my experience there, at least). 

It's also worth restating that primary has a twofold benefit - firstly, it forestalls the dangerously close overtake, secondly, if that overtake happens, you have room to escape into. If you're already in the gutter, you're more likely to be offed, as I found out to my cost after a driver clipped my bars and left me lying on the pavement[2] during my first, abortive attempt at taking up cycling.

[1] Although I'll grant you that they seem to harbour an intense and obvious dislike for their fellow motorists.
[2] Handy, as it allowed all the following cars (I think four or five, although I was too dazed for keeping count) to breeze on past my prostrate form, as I'd not fallen in the carriageway.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Even if the position is not correct, save for a muttered "FFS".



Highway Code 147:



> You should;
> 
> * not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.



If only all drivers took some kind of test, where they were supposed to learn things like this.


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Highway Code 147:
> 
> 
> 
> If only all drivers took some kind of test, where they were supposed to learn things like this.




and cyclists.

there is a guy on this forum who seems to have a number of clips on you tube showing himself shouting at motorists.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

.......and there's also a guy on this forum who thinks reading the Highway Code is only for "sad old bankers" like me.


Have you found a responsible adult to read and explain the HC to you yet, freecyclist?


----------



## snorri (5 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> there is a guy on this forum who seems to have a number of clips on you tube showing himself shouting at motorists.


You're making things up again.


----------



## Poacher (5 Nov 2011)

We're still well short of 2000 posts, and midnight is fast approaching. Come on now, one last push!


----------



## montyboy (5 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> You're making things up again.




"I have said on previous occasions that I understand that I shouldnt shout at every driver in the world who passes me closely but sometimes it gets away from me. The fact that I have a cam on doesnt encourage me to shout things or go up to drivers, it just reasures me that the incident has been filmed."

Mathew T.....just posted!


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Nov 2011)

Poacher said:


> .......and there's also a guy on this forum who thinks reading the Highway Code is only for "sad old bankers" like me.
> 
> 
> Have you found a responsible adult to read and explain the HC to you yet, freecyclist?



I bloody love the Highway Code. Its parts about cycle paths "...they may make your journey safer" are hopelessly optimistic, but its broad message (could be paraphrased as "Be Excellent to Each Other, and Leave the Partying On Until You Arrive Safely at Your Destination") is a splendid one, and I wish more road users, and especially drivers acted upon it. The story of its implementation is fascinating too, and formed part of Joe Moran's very enjoyable "On Roads" book.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> You're making things up again.



Sadly, there is just such a contributor to this forum.

I saw his YouTube channel today and it is quite a piece of work.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> and cyclists.



In five years of travelling in and out of Manchester, cyclists have given me concern for my wellbeing TWICE. (Neither time because they were cross with me, just because they were being stupid - bikes are slow, light, and easily avoided compared to cars/vans/busses/trucks though).

For all their supposed irresponsibility and fecklessness, they're a vanishingly small problem compared to drivers. Suggesting otherwise, or that there's an equal level of risk posed is surely a false equivalence.



> there is a guy on this forum who seems to have a number of clips on you tube showing himself shouting at motorists.


Shouting? 

We're seriously comparing this to being passed closely at speed by several hundred kg of metal, because the person in control of it has got the hump?


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> They're probably not bad people per se, but so what? I've had people justify a close "punishment pass" on the basis that my lights were illegal (because one was a flashing light, legal since 2005, and actually mentioned as "permitted" in the current Highway Code). The difference here isn't so much that people can't be bothered to keep their knowledge up to date, so much as them not seeing why they shouldn't take out their frustrations on others. That's bad when all you have between you and them is a layer or two of performance fabric, and possibly a polystyrene hat.
> 
> I daresay motorists in France and Belgium are as ignorant about current traffic law in their countries, but it doesn't seem to lead them to the conclusion that they'll whizz past an inch off the cyclist's elbow[1] if they think that the cyclist is in the wrong (so far as I can tell from my experience there, at least).
> 
> ...



You make very reasonable and coherent points. I agree with you about french drivers, but have never cycled in belgium - although I've driven there a lot.

However, on a cyclists' forum I fear slightly the "they" mentality about drivers. I don't see it in your posts, but I fear it is present in the thinking of some of us.

Nobody can justify a 'punishment pass'. Any attempt to do so would be contemptible. You're right.

However, on the matter of Primary I do worry that to many perfectly reasonable motorists the adoption of primary in some circumstances will seem at best eccentric.

I'm not saying that this will lead to the bewildered driver becoming aggressive, nor that the cyclist ought therefore to avoid taking primary.

I'm saying that cyclists in the habit of taking primary when perhaps it might not be appropriate in the circumstances might like to consider how this act may be seen by perfectly reasonable and law-abiding motorists following them.

I put this rather better in an earlier post this evening on this thread.

MoTD is over, Arsenal won and I'm off to kip.


----------



## snorri (6 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Sadly, there is just such a contributor to this forum.
> 
> I saw his YouTube channel today and it is quite a piece of work.


Sadly? You have seen his videos, so will also have seen the advice offered to this particular young lad. Are you holding this one example up as typical behaviour of cyclists?


----------



## montyboy (6 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> In five years of travelling in and out of Manchester, cyclists have given me concern for my wellbeing TWICE. (Neither time because they were cross with me, just because they were being stupid - bikes are slow, light, and easily avoided compared to cars/vans/busses/trucks though).
> 
> For all their supposed irresponsibility and fecklessness, they're a vanishingly small problem compared to drivers. Suggesting otherwise, or that there's an equal level of risk posed is surely a false equivalence.
> 
> ...




My suggestion was merely that cyclists should take some sort of test as well as motorists Any extra training could only be a good thing couldnt it.

I never compared shouting with a close pass, I merely pointed out the inapproriate behavior.


----------



## montyboy (6 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> Sadly? You have seen his videos, so will also have seen the advice offered to this particular young lad. Are you holding this one example up as typical behaviour of cyclists?




I dont think anyone is suggesting that this is typical behaviour only that it exists as you suggested that i was making it up.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> Sadly? You have seen his videos, so will also have seen the advice offered to this particular young lad. Are you holding this one example up as typical behaviour of cyclists?



No, I'm not holding this one example as typical of anything. I do not suggest, imply or say that I do. I'm not quite sure why you might get the impression that I did.

Someone wrote on this thread that there was someone posting videos of himself shouting at drivers.

You posted a reply along the lines of "You're making things up again".

I posted the response that sadly the assertion about the 'shouty cyclist' was so, that it was not made up.

Why 'sadly'?

Sadly because there are people who will see these clips and may think they are representative of cyclists generally. They are not. 

I made no comment about the advice. I said only that the existence of such a person was not made up.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I dont think anyone is suggesting that this is typical behaviour only that it exists as you suggested that i was making it up.




Thank you Montyboy. That is exactly what I was saying. I don't know where the 'typical' idea came from either...


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> My suggestion was merely that cyclists should take some sort of test as well as motorists Any extra training could only be a good thing couldnt it.



In terms of road safety in the UK, imposing a cycling test would be a drop in the ocean. A fart in a hurricane.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Nov 2011)

snorri said:


> Sadly? You have seen his videos, so will also have seen the advice offered to this particular young lad. Are you holding this one example up as typical behaviour of cyclists?



Not typical, but one bad apple, and a very public one at that


----------



## freecyclist (6 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Even if the position is not correct, save for a muttered "FFS".



No-one is saying motorists are justified in getting angry at cyclists who innapropriately cycle in primary.
Afaicu what is being said is ;
It may cause motorists to become unjustifiably annoyed/angry - this in extreme cases may result in possibly life threateningly dangerous consequences for the cyclist in question.
Cycling innapropriately is selfish and by definition wrong.


----------



## snorri (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> I dont think anyone is suggesting that this is typical behaviour only that it exists as you suggested that i was making it up.


That's ok. This thread is just like a fire that I poke now and again.


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Answer please.



I don't know whether to feel flattered that you care so much about my good opinion or alarmed that you seem to have started stalking me - or amused that you think you're important enough that you will receive a reply when I'm offline.


----------



## benb (6 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> No-one is saying motorists are justified in getting angry at cyclists who innapropriately cycle in primary.
> Afaicu what is being said is ;
> It may cause motorists to become unjustifiably annoyed/angry - this in extreme cases may result in possibly life threateningly dangerous consequences for the cyclist in question.
> Cycling innapropriately is selfish and by definition wrong.



Everybody agrees with this.

But as I said before, most motorists won't know when a cyclist taking primary is doing so appropriately or not, and some will get angry no matter what the cyclist is doing. Let's face it, many motorists get angry at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

benb said:


> Everybody agrees with this.
> 
> But as I said before, most motorists won't know when a cyclist taking primary is doing so appropriately or not, and some will get angry no matter what the cyclist is doing. Let's face it, many motorists get angry at the drop of a hat.




Ben, good on you for saying _'some will get angry'_ and _'many motorists get angry' _in the above. Many posters would not qualify the remark. The inclusion of those adjectives put some welcome perspective on the matter. It is not as bad as I sometimes see it painted.

I read a lot about angry motorists and angry cyclists. Sometimes I read posts _by_ angry cyclists.

I ride a lot in London and the sticks and I see very little anger, aggression or bad driving. Of course it is out there. I have a very stiff right shoulder because of it. But it is not the norm, or even very common. 

Many years ago I was a motorcycle courier. We were at the time the magnet for much of the aggression on the roads (and the source of even more). Nonetheless, even when I was a courier I saw very little of it.


----------



## Origamist (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> My suggestion was merely that cyclists should take some sort of test as well as motorists Any extra training could only be a good thing couldnt it.
> 
> I never compared shouting with a close pass, I merely pointed out the inapproriate behavior.



Whilst I think cycling training is a good idea (and 100,000s have received Bikeability training, btw), I don't think it should be compulsory. I'd much rather more emphasis was placed on the driving test and how to treat vulnerable road users. Why?

In DfT data on collisions involving adult cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles, driver behaviour/error was found to have been the cause of more collisions than cyclist behaviour. When I tell this to work colleagues, etc they think I making it up; promulgating a militant, extremist cycling agenda (sound familiar?) because cyclists don't pay "road tax", don't have to pay for an MOT, and don't have to take a test / hold a licence. It flies in the face of their prejudices that cyclists would be far more likely to be at fault than drivers in collisions, because they routinely run red lights, don't wear helmets, cycle without lights etc.


----------



## freecyclist (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> No, what I am saying is that if you take primary when it is not appropriate this may be construed as being aggresive and is likely to be met with a poor response.



Everyone agrees with you except mcpaul and he will never agree with you.
Rather than agree with you like everyone else he will answer a completely different question as he did to you saying 
"And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't. "
He seems to specialise in this shifty unscrupulous debating tactic , you are wasting your time imho.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> How does a cyclist establish this?



You can't, that's the point. So the safest thing to do is assume they are a drunken moron and proceed with caution.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (6 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Everyone agrees with you except mcpaul and he will never agree with you.
> Rather than agree with you like everyone else he will answer a completely different question as he did to you saying
> "And that's where I disagree with you. It's the driver's attitude that brings the aggression, not the correct actions of the cyclist. We've all experienced poor drivers getting stroppy when they shouldn't. "
> He seems to specialise in this shifty unscrupulous debating tactic , you are wasting your time imho.



"everyone"? I would rather you not include me in your nose counting unless you have actually asked me and I have told you that I agree.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Nov 2011)

This is all very well, but when is this "Mc Paul" fellow going to step up and throw down some wikkid rhymes here, Yo?


----------



## Bicycle (6 Nov 2011)

I have a terrible feeling that this thread, which I and others have loved and nurtured, is dying.

I am filled with a terrible melancholy and a sense of coming grief and misery.

Opinions have been voiced and (frankly) I won all the arguments.

There were some attempts at insurrection by slightly militant car-haters, but I knew my message of love and courtesy between all road users would win the day.

If the dying of this thread were a car, it would be a 1972 Austin 1300 GT: Hinting at what might have been had Messrs Cooper and Issigonis been trusted to make real their dreams, but ultimately used as a vehicle of convenience by uninterested housewives in Epping.

We are all agreed, of course, that all road users should be lovely to each other. Hooray!


----------



## montyboy (6 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I have a terrible feeling that this thread, which I and others have loved and nurtured, is dying.
> 
> I am filled with a terrible melancholy and a sense of coming grief and misery.
> 
> ...




Ah, not many left I suspect.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2011)

http://www.flickr.co...157627943729443 

click at your peril!!!!!!!

we were frequently four abreast! And in groups of thirty!


----------



## Poacher (6 Nov 2011)

......and as for those Zooriders in Portland..at times they were taking up a whole lane (or more). Absolutely disgraceful!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (6 Nov 2011)

Poacher said:


> ......and as for those Zooriders in Portland..at times they were taking up a whole lane (or more). Absolutely disgraceful!



That looks terrifying! I was squeezing my brakes and thinking "why am I not slowing down?". I then realised I was watching a video. Sat on a couch.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> http://www.flickr.co...157627943729443
> 
> click at your peril!!!!!!!
> 
> we were frequently four abreast! And in groups of thirty!



58 miles to Brighton mostly in primary.. what a naughty boy I am...


----------



## rowan 46 (6 Nov 2011)

Since I got my new commuter I get very few problems with fellow road users in fact I would go as far as to say that discourtesy is a thing of the past.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (7 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> Ah, not many left I suspect.



and all of them that colour!


----------



## freecyclist (7 Nov 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> This is all very well, but when is this "Mc Paul" fellow going to step up and throw down some wikkid rhymes here, Yo?



Yo best steer clear - this Mcpaul is ccs equivalent of vanilla ice - sounds legit on a first listen but when you look a bit closer you realise hes just hes just a shifty pretender spouting sh8te.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Nov 2011)

ianrauk said:


> 58 miles to Brighton mostly in primary.. what a naughty boy I am...


and that's before we get to our sweaty, breathless encounter in the MaccyD's toilets!!!!!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Yo best steer clear - this Mcpaul is ccs equivalent of vanilla ice - sounds legit on a first listen but when you look a bit closer you realise hes just hes just a shifty pretender spouting sh8te.



I guess that makes you MC Hammer. Cause you're 2 legit 2 quit.

Not that I bought that single or anything...


----------



## snailracer (7 Nov 2011)

montyboy said:


> My suggestion was merely that cyclists should take some sort of test as well as motorists Any extra training could only be a good thing couldnt it...


AFAICT, inexperienced and unskilled cyclists are more likely to be gutter huggers, so more cyclists taking tests -> more riding in primary, more riding 2 abreast, which would be a good thing because more motorists would be more used to it.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (7 Nov 2011)

snailracer said:


> AFAICT, inexperienced and unskilled cyclists are more likely to be gutter huggers, so more cyclists taking tests -> more riding in primary, more riding 2 abreast, which would be a good thing because more motorists would be more used to it.


+1. Before we can hope to get a culture change amongst non-cycling drivers, we need them to get a consistent message from the people they see on bicycles.

On more than one occasion, I have had a car come up the side of me and push me in towards the kerb when I was approaching the back of a slow-moving queue in primary position, and when I've spoken to them, they've said "I assumed you would go up the inside of the queue".

I've even begun to suspect that some drivers' brains tell them that a cyclist is in the gutter, just because that's what they are expecting, even though their eyes tell them otherwise. Human perception is a weird phenomenon.


----------



## freecyclist (7 Nov 2011)

1589387 said:


> Link please.



http://www.cyclechat...d/page__st__150

"Trust me, you are wrong. We have all "considered" the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic and that our default response should be to get out of the way - we are obliged to "consider" it every time we are deliberately intimidated by someone who holds that view. Having considered it at enormous length, few of us are prepared to accept it. Some of us are clearly prepared to make concessions to it, but some of us have had enough, and are not. The latter category are stronger, happier, more confident cyclists, more affable companions and better citizens. If you want to try and make a virtue of spinelessness, then go ahead, but don't expect everyone to be impressed. "

Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic.
Cyclists are legally entitled to ride 2abreast , therefore to ride single file out of a considerate impulse not to inconvenience is a concession.
Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic = not being prepared to change our 2abreast riding solely out of a consideration for motorists convenience.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic.
> Cyclists are legally entitled to ride single file , therefore to ride single file out of a considerate impulse not to inconvenience is a concession.
> Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic = not being prepared to change our 2abreast riding solely out of a consideration for motorists convenience.


quoi?


----------



## mickle (7 Nov 2011)

Bicycle said:


> blah blah blah a 1972 Austin 1300 GT: Hinting at what might have been had Messrs Cooper and Issigonis blah blah blah



Excuse me? Does Sergio Pininfarina not feature in your re-writing of history?


----------



## freecyclist (7 Nov 2011)

1589556 said:


> As that was Claud's post, I'll leave her to explain how you are misinterpreting her.



I do not agree that everyone is saying that cyclists should be considerate to other road users and allow other traffic to overtake whenever safe to do so. 
It has been argued that cyclists should not make concessions to motorists (link provided to r2d2) - given that it is agreed that riding 2abreast is entirely legal it follows that for cyclists to single out / not ride 2abreast specifically to allow motorist to overtake safely quite clearly constitutes making a concession.
I would regard such concessions as highly commendable but others have described them as spineless.
My opinion is that cyclists should be considerate to other road users and allow other traffic to overtake when safe to do so.
The cycling militants ability to offer such courtesies is cloudied by their procycling/anti motorist ideology of asserting cyclists rights , reclaiming the roads from motorists and redressing the cyclist/motorist powerbalance - not making concessions to motorists is one manifestation of this ideology.
Asserting cyclist rights to be on the road obviously goes from the entirely legitimate (to be recommended) right to the other end of the spectrum where it interferes with best practice regarding consideration for other road users and thats when it is extreme and selfish and gives cyclists in general a bad name and should be unequivocaly condemned by all responsible cyclists.


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> http://www.cyclechat...d/page__st__150
> 
> "Trust me, you are wrong. We have all "considered" the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic and that our default response should be to get out of the way - we are obliged to "consider" it every time we are deliberately intimidated by someone who holds that view. Having considered it at enormous length, few of us are prepared to accept it. Some of us are clearly prepared to make concessions to it, but some of us have had enough, and are not. The latter category are stronger, happier, more confident cyclists, more affable companions and better citizens. If you want to try and make a virtue of spinelessness, then go ahead, but don't expect everyone to be impressed. "



Ah - thanks for digging that up, FC - it was rather a good post, I think. The "spineless" bit seems to have touched a raw nerve...


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2011)

1589561 said:


> Or not, as she sees fit.



 I think the orginal post was sufficiently clear. FC's strange riffing on it, on the other hand, is incomprehensible and desperately confused, so I'll leave the explaining to him...


----------



## freecyclist (7 Nov 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> quoi?



Edited - 
Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic.
Cyclists are legally entitled to ride *2abreast* , therefore to ride single file out of a considerate impulse not to inconvenience is a concession.
Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic = not being prepared to change our 2abreast riding solely out of a consideration for motorists convenience.


----------



## Bicycle (7 Nov 2011)

mickle said:


> Excuse me? Does Sergio Pininfarina not feature in your re-writing of history?




Well... I'm not re-writing it, but yes he does. However, all he did for the 1100/1300 was style the thing.

The layout was 100% Issigonis. That was the marvel. Pinifarina just made it OK to look at.

There was talk at the time of a Cooper version. This was not followed up for one reason or another. Had it been produced, it might have been seen as the true archetype of today's hot hatch - albeit without the hatch.

As it was, the 'hottest' version was the dull-but-worthy 1300GT. I'm not ignoring the Italian styling; it's just that the '_lost sportscar'_ would have been lost whether it had been styled by Pinifarina, Ghia or even some in-house bod at BMC.

Meanwhile, I went for a spin on the fixie thois morning and the conditions were almost criminal. Very slippery surface, leaves everywhere and the most frigid, penetrating breeze this side of Siberia. I blame the Government.

As I was riding alone and no-one else was fool enough to venture out, I rode in file.


----------



## freecyclist (7 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> I think the orginal post was sufficiently clear. FC's strange riffing on it, on the other hand, is incomprehensible and desperately confused, so I'll leave the explaining to him...


Ive quoted you directly.
You say quite clearly that you are not willing to make concessions for the convenience of motorists, ie - you will ride as you want without consideration for motorists convenience.
You equate considerate with being spineless.
On behalf of the considerate majority i condemn you for your selfish , inconsiderate behaviour. Please correct yourself as this gives all cyclists a bad name.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Unwilling to make concessions to the idea that we are an inconvenience to motor traffic.
> .



I'm sorry, but I am not an inconvenience to traffic. I AM traffic.

If we're talking motorised traffic, then it works both ways - we can both be inconvenient to each other, or we can both be helpful to each other.

I'm all for being considerate, but I'm not apologising for my existence.


----------



## srw (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ive quoted you directly.
> You say quite clearly that you are not willing to make concessions for the convenience of motorists, ie - you will ride as you want without consideration for motorists convenience.
> You equate considerate with being spineless.
> On behalf of the considerate majority i condemn you for your selfish , inconsiderate behaviour. Please correct yourself as this gives all cyclists a bad name.


I can only conclude that you cannot read or write basic English. This is not what theclaud is saying.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Nov 2011)

freecyclist said:


> Ive quoted you directly.
> You say quite clearly that you are not willing to make concessions for the convenience of motorists, ie - you will ride as you want without consideration for motorists convenience.
> You equate considerate with being spineless.
> On behalf of the considerate majority i condemn you for your selfish , inconsiderate behaviour. Please correct yourself as this gives all cyclists a bad name.


freecyclist - your obduracy is exceeded only by your ability to misconstrue. A concession to an idea is not the same as a concession to a person. The idea that cyclists are, of neccessity, an inconvenience to motorists, and that this idea should supervene in our considerations (and I, for one, am not averse to a bit of supervening on occasions, but confine it to considerations of taste, beauty, harmony with nature and admiration of derailleurs) is clearly drivel. Nonetheless there are times when a pragmatic consideration of the circumstances to hand suggests that making way for a passing car is both safe and polite - safe being the primary (if you'll forgive the use of the word) consideration.

Now, if there's any of that you don't understand, do please ask.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (7 Nov 2011)

theclaud said:


> I think the orginal post was sufficiently clear. FC's strange riffing on it, on the other hand, is incomprehensible and desperately confused, so I'll leave the explaining to him...




Sits back, opens a can of beer and waits....


----------



## Moderators (7 Nov 2011)

This thread has run its course and is now locked.


----------

