# Don't always blame the motorist.



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

I was coming home from Giggleswick to the A59 earlier this afternoon, in my car, the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. I was behind two cyclists who looked like husband and wife, judging by their jerseys. They did exactly what cyclists should not do, that is say, carrying on riding two a breast. I eventually overtook them quickly but was not impressed by their cycling ethos. 
Two motor bikes were behind me and one of them signalled the cyclists to go on a single line. On this forum, we tend to be quick to criticise motorists but cyclists are no angels either and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.


----------



## winjim (8 May 2016)




----------



## Mark trek29er (8 May 2016)

Funnily enough I was doing the fat lad at the back sportive round there today and they stressed the importance of single file to every rider before setting off so hopefully it wasn't someone doing that ride!


----------



## Profpointy (8 May 2016)

there aren't that many places where it'd be safe to overtake a pair of cyclists in aingle (that is two people remember with a less-than-car space between 'em) but not safe to overtake a pair side by side


----------



## glenn forger (8 May 2016)

I saw eleventy bad cyclists and none said hello.


----------



## MontyVeda (8 May 2016)

Sorry to hear you were delayed. Thankfully, you got back in time to tell us.


----------



## glenn forger (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> looked like husband and wife, judging by their jerseys.


----------



## MarkF (8 May 2016)

The A59 there is not a Dales country lane, it's a regular wide A road. Still, I don't like cycling on the A59 at all, especially Skipton to Settle, and it's worse on a hot weekend day, I probably wouldn't want to do anything to frustrate further, already frustrated drivers.................


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

MontyVeda said:


> Sorry to hear you were delayed. Thankfully, you got back in time to tell us.


Yes, I was delayed by less than a minute and when I still had 100 miles to go, what can I say?


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. I


Sorry to be dense, but if it is only just wide enough for two cars to pass then surely it's not wide enough for 2 cars and a bicycle, but plenty wide enough for 2 bikes and a car. I real have no idea what they did wrong.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Sorry to be dense, but if it is only just wide enough for two cars to pass then surely it's not wide enough for 2 cars and a bicycle, but plenty wide enough for 2 bikes and a car. I real have no idea what they did wrong.


I also said that the road was twisting a lot and may be should have added very few long straights to overtake safely.


----------



## Markymark (8 May 2016)

I tend to be more concerned by those that kill daily rather than those who slightly delay daily.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

I see this type of cycling a lot in Lincolnshire, it does not take much effort to single out if the cyclists know there is a vehicle behind. Trouble is add a bit of wind noise and no over the shoulder check and the cyclist has no idea somebody is there.


----------



## Dayvo (8 May 2016)

I always blame the driver, except when I'm driving,of course.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

Well, like I said at the beginning of this thread, some people here seem to think that cyclists are angels and always right . Luckily, as a cyclist, a motorist and ex driving instructor I can see both sides and make an impartial judgment based on facts . As for my speed, I was following them for a while until I could overtake safely as they never attempted to move over.


----------



## Dayvo (8 May 2016)

User14044mountain said:


> Did one have a blue face?



A Bluey McBlueFace, no less.


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2016)

Even if you are entirely correct (which I don't see), and they were preventing you overtaking safely by riding side by side, any ensuing collision following an ill-judged over take by the motorist *would still be the motorist's fault*_*. *_It's the person who is overtaking duty to do so only when it is safe.


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Luckily, as a cyclist, a motorist and ex driving instructor


You forgot to say "driving without an accident for 40 years".


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> But what benefit does singling out confer? If there is room to overtake safely, on the other side of the road, there is room to overtake. If there isn't room, singling out invites a dangerous overtake.



Singling out creates more space for everyone.


----------



## Markymark (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Singling out creates more space for everyone.


Also makes the group twice as long. Much harder to overtake.


----------



## glenn forger (8 May 2016)

You reckon the overtake's safer if it's twice as long?


----------



## Jimidh (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Well, like I said at the beginning of this thread, some people here seem to think that cyclists are angels and always right . Luckily, as a cyclist, a motorist and ex driving instructor I can see both sides and make an impartial judgment based on facts . As for my speed, I was following them for a while until I could overtake safely as they never attempted to move over.



I see what you are saying and you are right. I know plenty narrow roads where aa s common courtesy I and other riders would quickly go into single file to make it easier for a vehicle to pass and everyone is happy.

Unfortunately any form of even mild criticism of a cyclist is frowned upon by many.


----------



## Dayvo (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Singling out creates more space for everyone.



Those support cars and camera motorbikes can't do it very well in the pro races. What chance the average John driver in Angleterre?


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> You forgot to say "driving without an accident for 40 years".


It is actually since 1969, so that is 47 years, not bad hey?


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Also makes the group twice as long. Much harder to overtake.



I was replying to the OP and two cyclist.


----------



## Markymark (8 May 2016)

I always leave enough space for safe overtakes. Never room for unsafe ones. As the safety is mine I decide what is safe and what isn't. Someone being delayed 30s doesn't factor into my decision.​


----------



## Markymark (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I was replying to the OP and two cyclist.


Yes. 2 cyclists single file is twice as long as two side by side.


----------



## doog (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> I was coming home from Giggleswick to the A59 earlier this afternoon, in my car, the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. I was behind two cyclists who looked like husband and wife, judging by their jerseys. They did exactly what cyclists should not do, that is say, carrying on riding two a breast. I eventually overtook them quickly but was not impressed by their cycling ethos.
> Two motor bikes were behind me and one of them signalled the cyclists to go on a single line. On this forum, we tend to be quick to criticise motorists but cyclists are no angels either and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.




Hi

Your'e on a hiding to nothing mate....best wishes but the illuminati on this forum will gobble you up and spit you out the other side..

Indeed all the major players are lining up to have a little pop at you...best of luck pal


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> I appreciate that to drivers it appears that it does but that doesn't make it so. The reality is it creates more danger by encouraging unsafe overtaking.



That is not my personal experience.


----------



## Jimidh (8 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Also makes the group twice as long. Much harder to overtake.



Two riders are about as long as a car.

I get your point but there are times on very narrow rural roads that a quick nip into single file makes it easier for other road users. Especially those that actually want to give us plenty of space as they pass.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Yes. 2 cyclists single file is twice as long as two side by side.



No! It is longer.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Yes. 2 cyclists single file is twice as long as two side by side.



Next time you are up this way let us go out for a ride. I will show you many places where it is a good idea to single out.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> Oh well. Mine is that, if there is room to overtake me safely, they can get on with it. If there isn't, I will be controlling the space.



I would certainly control the space, just not make it a larger space than required.


----------



## doog (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> It is actually since 1969, so that is 47 years, not bad hey?



Thats good going and a cyclist as well you have the common sense to realise what is and isnt ideal road positioning under the circumstances..

Only you were there and as an experienced cyclist its a shame others simply cant accept your word...Im afraid its the nature of what this place has become...


----------



## Bianchi boy (8 May 2016)

Ex Driving instructor thinks we should move over to allow a motorist to execute a dangerous pass The end is nigh ,maybe they do not follow motoring laws as we assume they should


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

I wonder if some even drive.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Bianchi boy said:


> Ex Driving instructor thinks we should move over to allow a motorist to execute a dangerous pass The end is nigh ,maybe they do not follow motoring laws as we assume they should



Where did you read dangerous, or is it just Chinese whispers.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

Bianchi boy said:


> Ex Driving instructor thinks we should move over to allow a motorist to execute a dangerous pass The end is nigh ,maybe they do not follow motoring laws as we assume they should


Excuse me, when did I say I executed a dangerous pass?


----------



## Bianchi boy (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Where did you read dangerous, or is it just Chinese whispers.


 If the road is narrow and only wide enough for 2 vehicles as stated then to attempt to overtake a cyclist would in my opinion be dangerous resulting in the potential for there to be 2 motor vehicles trying to squeeze past a cyclist


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Bianchi boy said:


> If the road is narrow and only wide enough for 2 vehicles as stated then to attempt to overtake a cyclist would in my opinion be dangerous resulting in the potential for there to be 2 motor vehicles trying to squeeze past a cyclist



I do not think that was going on in the original post. I think the bit about 2 car wide was a description of the road width.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> I was coming home from Giggleswick to the A59 earlier this afternoon, in my car, the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. I was behind two cyclists who looked like husband and wife, judging by their jerseys. They did exactly what cyclists should not do, that is say, carrying on riding two a breast. I eventually overtook them quickly but was not impressed by their cycling ethos.
> Two motor bikes were behind me and one of them signalled the cyclists to go on a single line. On this forum, we tend to be quick to criticise motorists but cyclists are no angels either and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.


I don't always blame the motorist. But I do point the finger at the self-proclaimed cyclist with the motor-centric mindset. 

In what way precisely was their riding dangerous?


----------



## Bianchi boy (8 May 2016)

"They did exactly what cyclists should not do"
REALLY???


----------



## doog (8 May 2016)

User14044mountain said:


> That's totally uncalled for - the OP expressed an opinion, others put their points of view. I think that is permitted in a cycling forum.



What's permitted or not isnt down to you or me my friend....perhaps you've yet to find that out so excuse me for actually reading the OP's post, agreeing with every word he says and then watching him being thrown to the wolves.

If im spoiling your fun then I apologise...


----------



## Jimidh (8 May 2016)

Bianchi boy said:


> If the road is narrow and only wide enough for 2 vehicles as stated then to attempt to overtake a cyclist would in my opinion be dangerous resulting in the potential for there to be 2 motor vehicles trying to squeeze past a cyclist



Do you drive?

No one is going to overtake when another car is coming that would be dangerous whether riders were in single file or riding two abreast.

The world isn't a binary place where there is always a right or wrong way to use the road. A bit of common sense from all road users makes like better for everyone if we ride/ drive to the conditions.


----------



## Mugshot (8 May 2016)

Jimidh said:


> No one is going to overtake when another car is coming that would be dangerous whether riders were in single file or riding two abreast.



Have you ridden a bike, on a road?


----------



## Markymark (8 May 2016)

Jimidh said:


> Do you drive?
> 
> No one is going to overtake when another car is coming that would be dangerous whether riders were in single file or riding two abreast.
> 
> The world isn't a binary place where there is always a right or wrong way to use the road. A bit of common sense from all road users makes like better for everyone if we ride/ drive to the conditions.


Happens all the time. Best way to mitigate is making it hard to overtake at places when it's dangerous.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I don't always blame the motorist. But I do point the finger at the self-proclaimed cyclist with the motor-centric mindset.
> 
> In what way precisely was their riding dangerous?


The two cyclists should have used common sense and ride single file to let me pass more safely as I always try to give them plenty of space when overtaking. As I said in my original thread, even one of the motorbikes signalled them to ride single file.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (8 May 2016)

Motorist and motorbike rider both wrong shocker


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Markymark said:


> Happens all the time. Best way to mitigate is making it hard to overtake at places when it's dangerous.



Or making it easier when it is safer.


----------



## oldfatfool (8 May 2016)

I drive this road weekly and have cycled Bradford to Ingleton on occasion, and to be fair as a cyclist I would say it is 100% safer to ride 2 abreast forcing cars to wait for a safe point to overtake rather than giving them the chance to squeeze past. As a driver I wait until there is NO oncoming traffic and cross the white line the same I would if it was a tractor in the road even if it is only a solitary cyclist on this stretch of road in anycase.


----------



## newfhouse (8 May 2016)

Like others here, I'm confused by the OP and more so by some of the comments. If the road is only wide enough for a single car in each direction, why does it matter if the cyclists were two abreast? The overtaker should be on the 'wrong' side of the road, when safe to do so, in either case. If it's not safe, wait patiently. It sounds like singling out may have encouraged dangerous driving, perhaps not by @gavroche but by other drivers with less understanding of cycling.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Marmion and Adrian on same topic, this one could last.


----------



## doog (8 May 2016)

User14044mountain said:


> I refer to your comments about the forum. Given our views on the current state of CC are diametrically opposed, *I doubt I am your friend*.



agree you actually sound quite hostile..another willing to take a bite out of someone...

you fit in well


----------



## pplpilot (8 May 2016)

What did the police say when they got there?


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

oldfatfool said:


> I drive this road weekly and have cycled Bradford to Ingleton on occasion, and to be fair as a cyclist I would say it is 100% safer to ride 2 abreast forcing cars to wait for a safe point to overtake rather than giving them the chance to squeeze past. As a driver I wait until there is NO oncoming traffic and cross the white line the same I would if it was a tractor in the road even if it is only a solitary cyclist on this stretch of road in anycase.



How about riding two abreast until you see a safe place and then single file to give more space.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Marmion and Adrian on same topic, this one could last.


At least you'll get the right answers


----------



## Mugshot (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> even one of the motorbikes signalled them to ride single file


I'm not sure why you'd be surprised by the actions of the motorcyclist, I've had more than enough negative experiences with motorcyclists. Being on a motorcycle doesn't make someone any less likely to be a tosser.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Marmion said:


> At least you'll get the right answers



In your humble opinion of course.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Mugshot said:


> I'm not sure why you'd be surprised by the actions of the motorcyclist, I've had more than enough negative experiences with motorcyclists. Being on a motorcycle doesn't make someone any less likely to be a tosser.



Or being on a cycle for that matter.


----------



## Mugshot (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Or being on a cycle for that matter.


Or in a car


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> You didn't answer my question. Had they singled up, how much room would there have been to overtake?


Obviously more room than two abreast.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> Someone could always show me where I am wrong on this, if they have anything compelling to offer.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> How much though?



4foot which on a 16 foot wide road is quite a big percentage.


----------



## oldfatfool (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> How about riding two abreast until you see a safe place and then single file to give more space.


On many stretches of the road in question there are no safe places where a car can overtake a single cyclist if there is an oncoming vehicle.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

oldfatfool said:


> On many stretches of the road in question there are no safe places where a car can overtake a single cyclist if there is an oncoming vehicle.



In which case the cyclist would not single out.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> He could have given four foot?



How? He only has 2.


----------



## oldfatfool (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> In which case the cyclist would not single out.


And indeed the op said it is a narrow winding stretch barely wide enough for two cars! On wide bits 2 abreast isn't an issue in any case, and again means the motorist is less likely to try and squeeze past imho.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> How much though?


Enough to give them a safe clearance, which is what I like to do.


----------



## newfhouse (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> How about riding two abreast until you see a safe place and then single file to give more space.


Perhaps they did when or if they judged it appropriate.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

Good one Adrian, perfectly safe overtake I hope, but stick another cyclist beside that one and it would not be.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

newfhouse said:


> Perhaps they did when or if they judged it appropriate.



We were not there so can only take the words of a fellow cyclist.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> What constitutes safe clearance here?


You answered this in your previous post.


----------



## Tin Pot (8 May 2016)

doog said:


> Im afraid its the nature of what this place has become...



A testament to reality and a scourge of "it's common sense innit mate"?

Well done CycleChat.


----------



## Jimidh (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Or making it easier when it is safer.


Stop being sensible - it will never catch on!!


----------



## newfhouse (8 May 2016)

screenman said:


> We were not there so can only take the words of a fellow cyclist.


Who may have passed them by then.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> So, all the driver needs to do is get all the wheels clear across the line and the job is a good'n.



No.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> If that is what you did, what was the problem? If you had space to use the other side of the road, you had space to overtake a pair of cyclists.


And that is precisely my point, I couldn't give them the space I wanted due to their irresponsible riding . If I had been following another car , it would have been ok as I would have matched my speed to him and stayed behind but not those cyclists at possibly 10 mph for a long way.


----------



## growingvegetables (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> 1 - the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other.
> 2 - two cyclists did exactly what cyclists should not do, that is say, carrying on riding two a breast.
> 3 - cyclists are no angels ... and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.


My apologies for editing your OP - but I think it's the bare bones?

Conveniently "pruned" to reveal

1 - a fact.
2 - a harsh judgement. Did you stop and ask them politely why? Nope.

I take my son's girlfriend out on a few rides - she's just learning; and I ride to protect, and to communicate guidance or advice; and I spend a lot more time riding two abreast than ever I would normally. I've ridden similarly protectively of my kids, when their confidence has been shaken by repeated squeezes from a bunch of impatient halfwits (one halfwit is scary, but when you get one after the other ........?) - and again, abreast for a lot longer than I would normally, until they have recovered their poise. Any of us who have experience of riding with people developing their skills and confidence could come up with a dozen such scenarios.

But you didn't. Not for a second. Just a callous judgement - they "did exactly what cyclists should not do."​3 - a shockingly harsh judgement. "Pretty dangerous" - really? Hold on, mate! I'm going to suggest an alternative reading - that the impatience, the willingness to jump to angry conclusions, the motor-biker bullying them ........ any of those are far more dangerous.

Next step - "Let's a have a damned good witter about
- how 'not all cyclists are angels' (duuuuh!)
- and how there are fictional characters on the forum who think 'all cyclists are always angels'. (Again - duuuuh!)"

And you have my sincere apologies. My tirade is not particularly directed at you personally - I'm just peeved that it's yet another multi-page thread on exactly the same subject, with the same basic problem at its heart. "Let's pick on an anonymous couple, and make an example of them."


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> It is actually since 1969, so that is 47 years, not bad hey?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Luckily, as a cyclist, a motorist and ex driving instructor I can see both sides and make an impartial judgment based on facts



I had a close overtake from a driving instructor who literally brushed my elbow with the wing mirror.... I caught up with him in traffic and questioned his overtake.

Apparently he was also a cyclist and knew just how close he could overtake safely

All that 3' and "same distance as you would give a a car" is total BS, cyclists in reality only need a few inches


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> Oh right, I hadn't understood before. You couldn't give sufficient space because they were using both sides of the road.



Now that is something we do get on a lot of roads around this way.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> What signal is that? I can't recall a 'cyclists single out' signal in my driving lessons...


I had no idea the motorbiker was also a ex or current driving instructor. Thanks for pointing it out. You must be psychic.


----------



## Brandane (8 May 2016)

User said:


> OK enough. Let's just remind ourselves about the highway code
> View attachment 127779


"Give cyclists at least as much room as you would a car" ....... The room I would give a car depends on the speed of both vehicles; e.g. if the car is stationary on a narrow road and you are passing it at walking pace, you aren't going to be giving it as much room as you would if you were travelling at 60mph and overtaking a car doing 40mph...
Transfer this to the scenario given by the OP talking of cyclists doing 10 mph and you aren't going to have to move completely into the opposing lane, as long as they are in single file. I am not familiar with the road he was travelling on, but as the OP is a retired driving instructor I am going to trust his judgement on this. There are times when it is perfectly safe to pass a single cyclist (or 2 in single file in this case), but the width of the road can sometimes dictate that it is not safe if they are 2 abreast.
I am sure I remember something from the Police Roadcraft bible about the space given when passing other traffic being proportionate to the speed of the vehicles. I will try and find it.....


----------



## ufkacbln (8 May 2016)

User said:


> What signal is that? I can't recall a 'cyclists single out' signal in my driving lessons...




I had that with a motorcyclist on the way into work, pointing to the cycle track.
Then caught up with him at lights one day... and asked him why he kept signalling left, but when I slowed to let him in, he carried on at the same speed

He then explained he was signalling for me to get on to the cycle path..... you can imagine the rest of the conversation


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

User said:


> You said he made the signal. What signal did he make?
> 
> Or did you make that up?



You managed to read that line different to the way I did.


----------



## Tim Hall (8 May 2016)

User said:


> What signal is that? I can't recall a 'cyclists single out' signal in my driving lessons...


Is it anything like the one I use to suggest that an overtaking driver has passed me with a mere two feet to spare?


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

I must admit I was tempted to give a sign to the cyclist ( not in Lycra) who jumped the red light in Boston last week.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 May 2016)

I had the privilege of riding the Peter Ross "Rolling roadblock" or Gem sociable recumbent later marketed by Toucan engineering as the 2 Can

I can only imagine the apoplexy this would have caused


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

User said:


> You said he made the signal. What signal did he make?
> 
> Or did you make that up?


Why should I make it up? In my mirror, I clearly saw the motorbike giving the cyclists a hand signal to move back behind the each other.


----------



## screenman (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Why should I make it up? In my mirror, I clearly saw the motorbike giving the cyclists a hand signal to move back behind the each other.



He did not read your post correctly. It happens often with some posters.


----------



## gavroche (8 May 2016)

This thread is getting out of hand so this is my last post on the subject. All I was saying was that there are some inconsiderate cyclists on the roads same as there are other inconsiderate road users as well. No one is perfect and the fact that this is a cycling forum doesn't make us angels. FACT .  ​


----------



## jefmcg (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> This thread is getting out of hand so this is my last post on the subject. All I was saying was that there are some inconsiderate cyclists on the roads same as there are other inconsiderate road users as well. No one is perfect and the fact that this is a cycling forum doesn't make us angels. FACT .  ​


Inconsiderate is not dangerous. 

Good night, sleep well


----------



## shouldbeinbed (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Enough to give them a safe clearance, which is what I like to do.


Genuine question. Do you know the couple or they know you/r vehicle? 

If not not how can you know their experiences on that road or generally and what might have happened to motivate (frighten?) them into your opinion of bad cycling etiquette & how on earth are they to know you are a paragon of driving virtue with only their best interests at heart?


----------



## growingvegetables (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> ......... All I was saying was that there are some inconsiderate cyclists on the roads same as there are other inconsiderate road users as well.


Please tell me this is NOT a serious contribution? You are not really suggesting that the CC membership had somehow failed to miss that?

Stop digging your hole, @gavroche.


----------



## snorri (8 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Yes, I was delayed by less than a minute and when I still had 100 miles to go, what can I say?


Are some of our fellow CCers getting things a bit wrong here?
Throughout a 100 mile journey by car gavroche wasn't delayed or caused even minor inconvenience by any other road user or traffic control mechanism with the exception of a slowing down for less than a minute to accommodate two cyclists. 
Sounds like gavroche has enjoyed a driving experience the vast majority of drivers will never equal and can only envy.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 May 2016)

User said:


> OK enough. Let's just remind ourselves about the highway code
> View attachment 127779


I wonder about that illustration. It looks like a continuous white line at the bottom of the picture, meaning the driver has crossed to the other side of the carriageway illegally, and indicating that the driver has failed to complete an overtake in a safe and legal place.
Anyhow, if you can overtake a tractor you can overtake two bikes - when there's a safe place and a sufficient gap allowed by the surfeit of oncoming traffic. And the surfeit is F all to do with the cyclists.


----------



## 400bhp (8 May 2016)

This old chestnut again

Interesting when out and about in the car yesterday. The notable "pain in the asses" on the bikes were two groups strung out on the road. I would have much preferred then to be in a tight bunch.

I say "pain in the ass" because this is in the spirit of a post I read on here the other day which summed it up for me very well. I think it was @Dogtrousers who said something along the lines of "everyone annoys me when I am on my bike, when I'm in my car or when I'm walking". Post again please


----------



## Pat "5mph" (9 May 2016)

In four years of reading CC this is the first time an op really annoys me!



screenman said:


> I wonder if some even drive.


Why, drivers when on a bike should be extra aware that bikes annoy drivers?
Well, I don't drive, but I'm very well aware!



Jimidh said:


> No one is going to overtake when another car is coming that would be dangerous whether riders were in single file or riding two abreast.


Really? Never been closed passed then? Or beeped at, or shouted at only for being on the road, even when you on the bike are actually in nobody's way?



gavroche said:


> As I said in my original thread, even one of the motorbikes signalled them to ride single file.


Is that a new thing then? Should I obey to some random biker's signals? Whatever next, will bikers feel entitled to shout at me to get into the cycle path?
Already they seem to think they have priority to bikes in the bike boxes.



gavroche said:


> And that is precisely my point, I couldn't give them the space I wanted due to their irresponsible riding .


Had they been singled out, would they not also have had to keep a large gap between them, so you could pull in in case there was oncoming traffic you could not see while overtaking? You said yourself the road was twisted, so poor visibility ahead.
Well, Mr. ex-driving instructor, sometimes on the road _you just have to wait!_


----------



## Accy cyclist (9 May 2016)

Fellow cyclists posting about other cyclists "riding two abreast" just gives the anti cyclists more ammunition. One day they're(fellow cyclists)on a bike thinking why's that git behind me hassling me, then the next day they're behind a wheel thinking why's that git in front on a bike hassling me.


----------



## slowmotion (9 May 2016)

I'm really sorry, but somebody has to point out some home truths. There are roads where it is entirely safe to overtake cyclists when traffic is coming in the other direction. The lane with the cyclists can be wide enough for the motorist to do that, but not if they ride two or three abreast. It takes a few seconds for the car to be on it's way. It costs the cyclist so little. Why block them? 
It's bad manners, antagonises motorists, and makes our lives a bit less pleasant. What exactly is the point?


----------



## newfhouse (9 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> There are roads where it is entirely safe to overtake cyclists when traffic is coming in the other direction.


True, but apparently not in this case:


gavroche said:


> the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other.





slowmotion said:


> What exactly is the point?


Seriously?


----------



## benb (9 May 2016)

Usually if there is space to safely overtake one cyclist there is space to safely overtake 2 abreast.
Usually, if there isn't space to safely overtake 2 abreast there isn't space to safely overtake 1 cyclist.
So usually, whether the cyclists are single file or 2 abreast makes no difference to a safe driver, but does discourage unsafe drivers from overtaking where they shouldn't, and in fact by riding 2 abreast they are making it _easier_ to overtake as there is less linear distance to get past.
If there is a road where a driver can safely overtake a single cyclist but not safely overtake 2 abreast then of course cyclists should single out. But such specific width roads are pretty rare.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> I was coming home from Giggleswick to the A59 earlier this afternoon, in my car, the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. I was behind two cyclists who looked like husband and wife, judging by their jerseys. They did exactly what cyclists should not do, that is say, carrying on riding two a breast. I eventually overtook them quickly but was not impressed by their cycling ethos



During a 100-mile journey in your car, you came across a pair of cyclists whose riding position caused you to carefully consider how to safely overtake them. You were delayed by an amount so insignificant as to be not worth caring about. Everybody survived.

I'm surprised you didn't write to a national newspaper.




gavroche said:


> ...even one of the motorbikes signalled them to ride single file.



Last week, at a set of temporary traffic lights on long-running road works, a motorcyclist stopped beside me and advised me I should go up on the pavement to bypass them but I ignored him. I wish I'd known they were reliable sources of good roadcraft and I wouldn't have had to sit there like an eejit until the green light came on.


GC


----------



## Origamist (9 May 2016)

doog said:


> What's permitted or not isnt down to you or me my friend....perhaps you've yet to find that out so excuse me for actually reading the OP's post, *agreeing with every word he says and then watching him being thrown to the wolves.*



Yeah right, it's brutal on here. I thought _Game of Thrones _was harsh, but CC's online community is super-duper nasty.


----------



## Profpointy (9 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> During a 100-mile journey in your car, you came across a pair of cyclists whose riding position caused you to carefully consider how to safely overtake them. You were delayed by an amount so insignificant as to be not worth caring about. Everybody survived.
> 
> I'm surprised you didn't write to a national newspaper.
> 
> ...



No that's just silly - obviously as a cyclist you're hardly going to stop just because the light's red


----------



## Crackle (9 May 2016)

I've lost track. Who's to blame. Can we pick someone?


----------



## Inertia (9 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I'm really sorry, but somebody has to point out some home truths. There are roads where it is entirely safe to overtake cyclists when traffic is coming in the other direction. The lane with the cyclists can be wide enough for the motorist to do that, but not if they ride two or three abreast. It takes a few seconds for the car to be on it's way. It costs the cyclist so little. Why block them?
> It's bad manners, antagonises motorists, and makes our lives a bit less pleasant. What exactly is the point?


If i can state the obvious, if an apparenly knowledgable driver was uncomfortable passing cyclists two abreast because the road was so windy and narrow then they may have been uncomfortable with him passing them at one abreast. I try not to guess the plans of the motorist behind me and cycle with my own safety in mind and not the drivers timetable.


----------



## Inertia (9 May 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I wonder about that illustration. It looks like a continuous white line at the bottom of the picture, meaning the driver has crossed to the other side of the carriageway illegally, and indicating that the driver has failed to complete an overtake in a safe and legal place.
> Anyhow, if you can overtake a tractor you can overtake two bikes - when there's a safe place and a sufficient gap allowed by the surfeit of oncoming traffic. And the surfeit is F all to do with the cyclists.


I dont think it is a continuous white line, there is a break under his wheels and the red bar with writing covers where another break would be.


----------



## Tin Pot (9 May 2016)

Crackle said:


> I've lost track. Who's to blame. Can we pick someone?



The Green Party.

Alistair Campbell.

Hitler.


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

User said:


> OK enough. Let's just remind ourselves about the highway code
> View attachment 127779



Um yes but it also says this:


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


----------



## 400bhp (9 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> Yes, I was delayed by less than a minute and when I still had 100 miles to go, what can I say?



Genuine question for you here. What do you perceive to be more inconvenient for you;
A. Sat behind cyclists 2 abreast for one minute; or
B. Sat behind a car doing 50mph in a NSL (60 mph) for 6 minutes
?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2016)

Marmion said:


> *Motor*ist and *motor*bike rider both wrong shocker


Two motors don't make a right. Whodathunkit?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2016)

gavroche said:


> The two cyclists should have used common sense and ride single file to let me pass more safely as I always try to give them plenty of space when overtaking. As I said in my original thread, even one of the motorbikes signalled them to ride single file.


The singled out cyclist(s) could also apply "common sense" and stay off the roads entirely thus allowing Mr Toad to use the roads as he thinks they were intended.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The singled out cyclist(s) could also apply "common sense" and stay off the roads entirely thus allowing Mr Toad to use the roads as he thinks they were intended.




They could also have used the "common sense" that where a road has short straight lengths, that overtaking cyclist in single line takes longer, requires mores distance and is less likely to be possible. It means that you, the overtaking driver are on the other carriageway for the least possible time if they stay 2 abreast

By riding side by side they actually increase your chances of a safe overtake


----------



## Phil Fouracre (9 May 2016)

Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)


----------



## Bianchi boy (9 May 2016)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)



And we"ve not finished yet


----------



## screenman (9 May 2016)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)



Me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2016)

Could have ended at the OP had it contained more reasonable and reasoned judgements. Or simply had expressed frustration at two cyclists causing an impatient driver a trivial inconvenience without the hyperbole of claiming their behaviour was dangerous.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 May 2016)

Gavroche attention-seeking again.


----------



## bladesman73 (9 May 2016)

i love this forum, the resident offence takers are hilarious! Does CC keep them in a cage, feeding them bread, water and a sprinkling of otherness?


----------



## ufkacbln (9 May 2016)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)



Question is....

Are the pages in single file or read side by side?


----------



## Mugshot (9 May 2016)

I blame the usual suspects, you know who you are you bounders!

Edited as the swear filter didn't filter me and I actually wanted it to.


----------



## screenman (9 May 2016)

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.


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


----------



## Mugshot (9 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends


It strikes me as being pretty much the opposite of what you should be doing, at least two of those sound like situations where I'd be looking at primary, so why not double up?


----------



## Mugshot (9 May 2016)

User said:


> I don't think they do. Sometimes people referred to as one of "the usual suspects" uses the term to refer to other people who, most confusingly it must be said, are one of the ones who used it in the first place. Perhaps Thatcher was right, and there is no such thing as society.


I just wish someone would tell me who "they" were, i suppose its one of those if you have to ask situations.


----------



## Profpointy (9 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends



it's good advicefor not inconveniencing motorists, particalarly if they want to squeeze through. It's often damgerous advice for cyclists


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2016)

bladesman73 said:


> i love this forum, the resident offence takers are hilarious! Does CC keep them in a cage, feeding them bread, water and a sprinkling of otherness?



Who's taken offence?

GC


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Like much in the HC, it seems to have been written by motorists. The reasons why not to do this have been explained up thread.



Yes I know, I've read the thread. The point I was making was, you quoted the HC as if that put an end to the matter. Whereas you can clearly see it also offers advice which contradicts the assertion you're supporting. You can't have your cake and eat it - either you follow the HC and that means all of it, or you don't, but you shouldn't pick and choose only the bits that support your proposition.

BB


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends



That's because cyclists, like all people, prefer to ignore the things that don't fit in with their own view. BB


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Nonsense, it isn't handed down from above chiselled on granite. I can evaluate parts as sensible and others not so on their merits.



Maybe you feel you can. However, I would maintain that a post that says simply eg "Ok everyone let's just remember what the the Highway Code says for a minute yeah" and then quotes a fragment of it as if that therefore negates any other point of view, falls on their sword if another section of the afore-relied-on documentary evidence contradicts their thinking.

By the same logic, your opponent can simply quote the bit I quoted on its own, as if it it's incontrovertible by virtue of being in the Code, and assume a position of unarguable right. You will agree that that is ridiculous; so is your original post making use of the fragment you used. That is the point I'm making - not whether your opinions were right, but that *that* line of your argument was/is ridiculous.

Having removed it thus from the discussion, everyone can get on with the rest of the intractable debate.

BB


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Yeah, smart idea, remove one useful thing.



It isn't useful within the scope of the debate. In fact it left your "side" open to rebuttal so you would do better not to rely on it any longer. Bb


----------



## growingvegetables (9 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends


I'll stick my neck out - there's nothing *actually* wrong with the wording.

But ... it is not, and was never intended to be, a blanket legal prohibition. It does not absolve cyclists from reading the road, assessing risks, taking well-thought-out and rational decisions about their road position, and riding assertively when necessary to protect their own safety. It is a "should". That's advice and guidance.

Lordy - if it had any stronger weight, can you imagine how many road-users would fall down on the second sentence in the HC! "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other."


----------



## Brandane (9 May 2016)

Hmmmmmm; make your mind up about the Highway Code?



User said:


> OK enough. Let's just remind ourselves about the highway code
> View attachment 127779





User said:


> screenman said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> ...


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Anything and everything is open to rebuttal. It is the quality and substance thereof that counts. In this instance the space argument counts way more than the erroneous advice to single out. If this is not clear, try reading from the top until it is.



Lol, you're just not getting it are you? Actually I'm on the side of the cyclists in this debate but my point continues to be, not what is or isn't right, but that you can't rely on something for one piece of supporting evidence and then ignore other bits that don't support your argument. I'm sure you know this really but probably don't want to admit it. Bb


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends


and narrow is defined where and how?

As to OP the road, as described, where it is possible for two cars to pass each other, even if only just so, is not, by any South London bus passenger standard, a narrow road....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 May 2016)

User said:


> Anything and everything is open to rebuttal.


Nothing which impinges on a motorists' perceived right to proceed in the manner to which they think they are entitled may be rebutted.

It's the transport equivalent of "geroffmoilaaand!"; a counter-argument can be made but it withers in the face of the loaded 12-bore.


----------



## snorri (9 May 2016)

Phil Fouracre said:


> Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)


You must be new on here.


----------



## nickyboy (9 May 2016)

I'm not going to comment on the pros and cons of the OPs posting as, frankly, it's become a bit like the helmet "debate" with positions so entrenched there seems to be virtually no prospect of people changing their minds.

What is interesting is that the Highway Code seems (and I must confess to not having read it since I passed my driving test) at best contradictory and at worst misleading. It seems possible to pull out statements to support whichever position you have. if a reasonable chap like @User realises that some parts of it are sensible and some not (of course everyone's idea of what is "sensible" will differ) perhaps what we need is something much better than the Highway Code


----------



## bonsaibilly (9 May 2016)

nickyboy said:


> I'm not going to comment on the pros and cons of the OPs posting as, frankly, it's become a bit like the helmet "debate" with positions so entrenched there seems to be virtually no prospect of people changing their minds.
> 
> What is interesting is that the Highway Code seems (and I must confess to not having read it since I passed my driving test) at best contradictory and at worst misleading. It seems possible to pull out statements to support whichever position you have. if a reasonable chap like @User realises that some parts of it are sensible and some not (of course everyone's idea of what is "sensible" will differ) perhaps what we need is something much better than the Highway Code



What, like the aggressively-presented "facts" of a portion of a group of cyclists of varying proficiency, confidence and intellectual rigour, for instance?

bb


----------



## hatler (9 May 2016)

nickyboy said:


> I'm not going to comment on the pros and cons of the OPs posting as, frankly, it's become a bit like the helmet "debate" with positions so entrenched there seems to be virtually no prospect of people changing their minds.
> 
> What is interesting is that the Highway Code seems (and I must confess to not having read it since I passed my driving test) at best contradictory and at worst misleading. It seems possible to pull out statements to support whichever position you have. if a reasonable chap like @User realises that some parts of it are sensible and some not (of course everyone's idea of what is "sensible" will differ) perhaps what we need is something much better than the Highway Code


What, like Cyclecraft ?

I would be surprised if the esteemed Mr Franklin doesn't call this one correctly. And, even better, it's published by the same outfit as the HC.


----------



## bladesman73 (10 May 2016)

benb said:


> Get a grip.
> Disagreeing != Bullying


 where did i say disagreeing equates to bullying? you can disagree without trying to be clever, without the use of put downs. i really dispair with some posters on this forum. some think its ok for their first reply to a post to be as follows "you are talking bollocks... " etc. some proper internet warriors around. usual suspects that are killing sensible debate


----------



## marknotgeorge (10 May 2016)

Can I just point out that as my car, for example, is 2.025m wide, the 4 feet of extra space apparently given by singling out is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2016)

Your "ganging up" is just a group of individuals, who happen to share a similar viewpoint on the rights and wrongs of cycling on the road, and, inter alia, the rights and wrongs of those operating dangerous machinery around vulnerable road users, and who aren't slow in coming forwards to express themselves when an OP contains asshattery* of the first order.

So no "ganging up" at all.

*well dissected in this case by @growingvegetables in post ninety something.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2016)

marknotgeorge said:


> Can I just point out that as my car, for example, is 2.025m wide, the 4 feet of extra space apparently given by singling out is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?


Singling out generates a sense of enormous well-being in the mind of Mr Toad. It is almost as good as a doffed-cap or a tugged forelock.

"I have power over yew. Yew must submit to me."


----------



## Pat "5mph" (10 May 2016)

Back to the op, ime every time I get shouted at/beeped at by drivers for being in primary or for riding 2 abreast is because the said drivers would like to pass without going in the other lane, and I would not like them to pass due to being reluctant of being squashed.
At times, the other lane has been empty, or we are very near at red traffic lights, or even on a 20mph road with speed bumps, but still, they must go in front.
Now, if even retired driving instructors that cycle think this way, what hope is there?
No wonder some new cyclists refuse to ride the roads!
I used to dread the aggravation: I'm older, slow, mostly ride heavily laden bikes.
Why should I always seek segregated paths, most of them inconvenient, with rubbish surfaces?
I really try not to hold anyone up, but if I don't have a choice and it happens, well, tough.
After all, when I have to slow to walking pace for a group of pedestrians on a shared path I don't go about ranting "they should walk single file".


----------



## screenman (10 May 2016)

marknotgeorge said:


> Can I just point out that as my car, for example, is 2.025m wide, the 4 feet of extra space apparently given by singling out is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?



What even on some of the roads around here?


----------



## screenman (10 May 2016)

Can I ask for some advice please, we have many roads around here that are single track some many miles long. Now if I am riding on these and a car wants to get pass I will control the situation and move over to create space as soon as possible, if riding 2 abreast we will single out as there is no way a car would get pass other wise. For cars to pass each other one or at times both need to use the verges or passing space which are few and far between.

Am I doing wrong, also how come in hundreds of thousands of cycling miles I seldom have a problem with vehicles or their drivers is this just luck.


----------



## screenman (10 May 2016)

User said:


> When is "as soon as possible"?



I said I control the situation, so I decide when as soon as possible happens, which is when I consider it safe.


----------



## slowmotion (10 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Can I ask for some advice please, we have many roads around here that are single track some many miles long. Now if I am riding on these and a car wants to get pass I will control the situation and move over to create space as soon as possible, if riding 2 abreast we will single out as there is no way a car would get pass other wise. For cars to pass each other one or at times both need to use the verges or passing space which are few and far between.
> 
> Am I doing wrong, also how come in hundreds of thousands of cycling miles I seldom have a problem with vehicles or their drivers is this just luck.


 You are a very bad person and should be ashamed to call yourself a cyclist. You must put in some serious remedial work on your victim status.


----------



## doog (10 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Can I ask for some advice please, we have many roads around here that are single track some many miles long. Now if I am riding on these and a car wants to get pass I will control the situation and move over to create space as soon as possible, if riding 2 abreast we will single out as there is no way a car would get pass other wise. For cars to pass each other one or at times both need to use the verges or passing space which are few and far between.
> 
> Am I doing wrong, also how come in hundreds of thousands of cycling miles I seldom have a problem with vehicles or their drivers is this just luck.



back on topic... you are correct, why ? because you are an experienced cyclist who does his talking out on the road..in the real world..not behind a keyboard .

I will go out of my way to encourage the free flow of traffic past me be it tractors, cars or HGV's....I will do it in the safest way possible for myself and other road users. I really dont want them up my chuff. Every other long distance cyclist I know does this, every other long distance cyclist I meet here or abroad does this, up mountains, down Cols and 99.999% of the time motorists and other road users will appreciate this,without fail thank you and go on their way...as I do.

There are many people on here well versed in the skill of arguing the toss but less versed in the skill of cycling differing road and traffic conditions...

That aside let the vitriol continue..


----------



## screenman (10 May 2016)

User said:


> So the same as I described way back up thread.



I have come across many cyclist who do not look over their shoulder so would not know a vehicle is there, in fact I shout a warning when I am coming up just to get their attention so that I can pass safely and that is when I am on my bike.

So although I may do things correctly and you I expect even saintly we I think would agree some cyclist may not.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I have come across many cyclist who do not look over their shoulder so would not know a vehicle is there, in fact I shout a warning when I am coming up just to get their attention so that I can pass safely and that is when I am on my bike.
> 
> So although I may do things correctly and you I expect even saintly we I think would agree some cyclist may not.


We also don't know the experience or experiences of the cyclists in the OP whom the (let's consider them) the non accused of being bullies contingent appear to have automatically assumed Gavroche must be correct and they are simply being inconsiderate and unhelpful for the sheer devilment of it, rather than making their own informed and rational value judgement of protecting their own safety at that particular point. They may well have been well aware that there was a bit coming up where they could accommodate an overtake they deemed safe to them but they didn't get the chance because their control of their environment was usurped from them and they were passed at the discretion of the car driver in spite of their attempts to do what we all consider good cycling practice and controlling our space until we feel it safe to accommodate a pass.

But since its an I'm a cyclist but..... thread, there are a few on here seem happy to suck up the 'poor annoyed me in my car' OP as Gospel.

Maybe those automatically deciding that they're in the wrong on the basis of a one sided Mr Toad-a-like OP & including Gavroche, should ride a few miles on that couples pedals before castigating them as incompetent or unhelpful to drivers.

We all have our own thoughts and feelings on protecting our safety amongst the big metal boxes including them and just because Gavroche appears to hold a different threshold to them it is not a given that it they are incompetent or willfully negligent.


----------



## newfhouse (10 May 2016)

doog said:


> I will go out of my way to encourage the free flow of traffic past me be it tractors, cars or HGV's....


Regardless of traffic conditions or your own schedule? If I did that on my commute I'd never get to work.


doog said:


> I will do it in the safest way possible for myself and other road users. I really dont want them up my chuff.


How do you know that the cyclists in the OP didn't take the same approach? After all, the slightly inconvenienced motorist did manage to find a safe opportunity to overtake within sixty seconds.


doog said:


> Every other long distance cyclist I know does this, every other long distance cyclist I meet here or abroad does this, up mountains, down Cols and 99.999% of the time motorists and other road users will appreciate this,without fail thank you and go on their way...as I do.


What makes you think these were long distance cyclists? Would it matter anyway?


----------



## glenn forger (10 May 2016)

doog said:


> Every other long distance cyclist I know does this, every other long distance cyclist I meet here or abroad does this..



How many cyclists are you claiming to speak for? Ball park.


----------



## growingvegetables (10 May 2016)

doog said:


> .... Every other long distance cyclist I know does this, every other long distance cyclist I meet here or abroad does this, up mountains, down Cols ...


v


doog said:


> ... There are many people on here well versed in the skill of arguing the toss but less versed in the skill of cycling differing road and traffic conditions...



Ah, now I understand. Only long-distance cyclists are real cyclists. Anybody else is just an argumentative t@ss@r. An interestingly exclusivity.

*Sad fact though* - the vast majority of cyclists who do not belong to your selective little band have a much stronger grasp of maths and statistics. [A generous way of suggesting we count better ]



doog said:


> ... *99.999% of the time* motorists and other road users will appreciate this,without fail thank you and go on their way...



Dunno what planet you're cycling on, but it sure as anything isn't Yorkshire!

Put this response down to a vitriolic reply ...... to your arrogant vitriol.


----------



## newfhouse (10 May 2016)

User said:


> Just long distance ones. You don't need to concern yourself because you don't ride enough to qualify, so your opinion doesn't count.


I reckon I'm at the Ronnie Corbett end of the line too.


----------



## glenn forger (10 May 2016)

This sinister chorus of long-distance cyclists seem a moody bunch.


----------



## DaveReading (10 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I have come across many cyclist who do not look over their shoulder so would not know a vehicle is there, in fact I shout a warning when I am coming up just to get their attention so that I can pass safely and that is when I am on my bike.



The cyclists' behaviour that you describe sounds perfectly reasonable to me. 

The only time I look over my shoulder (on the bike or in the car) is when I'm about to move in or out which could possibly put me in the path of a vehicle (or bike) coming up behind me. Am I doing wrong ?


----------



## slowmotion (10 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> This sinister chorus of long-distance cyclists seem a moody bunch.


 Oh, I don't know about that. The outraged victim types seem to be singing in tune, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Seevio (11 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Dunno what planet you're cycling on, but it sure as anything isn't Yorkshire!


Yorkshire isn't a planet. It got demoted in 2006 along with Pluto.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (11 May 2016)

This new red herring about long distance cyclists....

May just be me but I encounter far less cars over longer rides than commuting in the Manchester rush hour, even finding quieter routes to make it a more pleasant (less unpleasant) experience. 

Long distance riding is no real example of enhanced experience around cars.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

User said:


> Some have mirrors and or good hearing.



Riding into a head wind you have very little chance of hearing a quiet vehicle a safe distance behind you.

As for mirrors, yes some do.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

DaveReading said:


> The cyclists' behaviour that you describe sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> The only time I look over my shoulder (on the bike or in the car) is when I'm about to move in or out which could possibly put me in the path of a vehicle (or bike) coming up behind me. Am I doing wrong ?



So on say a 5 mile long single carriage road you would not do a life saver until you got to the end, on a headwind day that would put a lot of traffic behind you. I take it you have mirrors.


----------



## mickle (11 May 2016)

The attitude of the OP is at the core of everything that's bad about cycling in a car centric society. The post and it's weird title identifies him as a 'cyclist hating cyclist'. Motoring is the norm. We're all drivers. So amongst those of us who both drive and cycle there's a group whose driving mentality is so deeply ingrained that they think of cyclists as an 'out group'. This combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules of the road make them think, upon catching up with a cyclists in their car, that the cyclists are somehow 'in the way'. Thus is at the crux of it. The cyclists aren't in the way, they are ahead. A fallen tree is 'in the way' a cow on the road is 'in the way '. A cyclist riding along in front of your car is another road user with equal rights (some might argue - more right) to be in the road. They are not 'in the way' they are in front of you. And you are behind. They got there first. It's their road. And it therefore falls to you to treat them with courtesy and respect and patience until such time as you can safely pass. They have no obligation to let you pass. Their journey us no less important than yours. Patience. It probably took you longer to write the post complaining about this incident that the valuable time they cost you.
Amazing that a 'former driving instructor' needs this spelling out.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> So on say a 5 mile long single carriage road you would not do a life saver until you got to the end, *on a headwind day that would put a lot of traffic behind you.* I take it you have mirrors.



Headwind, tailwinds, in the eye of a hurricane, sunshine, rain, plagues of frogs, the motorised vehicles will still be travelling faster.

Why will all the traffic stack up behind?

I don't get it that at all, a rearward glance is not needed by drivers as a permission slip to overtake. As long as the other carriageway is free, surely the cars can pass with a cheery wave and a song in their hearts??

Or shall we add a 5 mile tailback into the equation to help try to make a non existent point stick.

The Snake and much moreso Woodhead pass between Manchester and Sheffield is a shorter than M62 route but largely winding, poor to see past others single lane each way with Articulated lorries, these travelling far more slowly than smaller motorised traffic even with their far greater width and length don't build up inordinate queues of cars. They accrue some followers and it can take a few miles (not a few seconds as per OP) to find a safe spot to get by, but they do not ever seem to receive the same level of abuse and opprobrium for the 'inconvenience' they cause.

I'll happily admit to being a Mr Toad if I catch up such a truck, especially on the least overtake friendly bit at the edge of Manchester but never when that has happened have I ever thought it necessary to engage with Internet world to castigate the driver for their driving.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User said:


> Just long distance ones. You don't need to concern yourself because you don't ride enough to qualify, so your opinion doesn't count.


How long a distance is long distance?


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Headwind, tailwinds, in the eye of a hurricane, sunshine, rain, plagues of frogs, the motorised vehicles will still be travelling faster.
> 
> Why will all the traffic stack up behind?
> 
> ...



Sorry I meant single track roads,


----------



## DaveReading (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> So on say a 5 mile long single carriage road you would not do a life saver until you got to the end, on a headwind day that would put a lot of traffic behind you. I take it you have mirrors.



No, I don't have mirrors. And no, as far as I'm concerned a lifesaver is something you do prior to a manoeuvre, e.g. pulling out or turning right (to check that it's safe). I don't feel the need to turn round to count the cars behind me - there's nothing wrong with my hearing.


----------



## Bianchi boy (11 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The attitude of the OP is at the core of everything that's bad about cycling in a car centric society. The post and it's weird title identifies him as a 'cyclist hating cyclist'. Motoring is the norm. We're all drivers. So amongst those of us who both drive and cycle there's a group whose driving mentality is so deeply ingrained that they think of cyclists as an 'out group'. This combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules of the road make them think, upon catching up with a cyclists in their car, that the cyclists are somehow 'in the way'. Thus is at the crux of it. The cyclists aren't in the way, they are ahead. A fallen tree is 'in the way' a cow on the road is 'in the way '. A cyclist riding along in front of your car is another road user with equal rights (some might argue - more right) to be in the road. They are not 'in the way' they are in front of you. And you are behind. They got there first. It's their road. And it therefore falls to you to treat them with courtesy and respect and patience until such time as you can safely pass. They have no obligation to let you pass. Their journey us no less important than yours. Patience. It probably took you longer to write the post complaining about this incident that the valuable time they cost you.
> Amazing that a 'former driving instructor' needs this spelling out.



Absolutely spot on comments


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

DaveReading said:


> No, I don't have mirrors. And no, as far as I'm concerned a lifesaver is something you do prior to a manoeuvre, e.g. pulling out or turning right (to check that it's safe). I don't feel the need to turn round to count the cars behind me - there's nothing wrong with my hearing.



A life saver in my terms is a look over the shoulder, no need to count the cars. You may not hear a car behind if you are cycling into a head wind and they are sat a bit back. But you seemed like me to have survived so far so we must be doing things correct.

Out of interest when you drive your car on the single tracks I mention, how far would you think it a reasonable distance for a cyclist to hold you up for, or a walker for that matter.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The attitude of the OP is at the core of everything that's bad about cycling in a car centric society. The post and it's weird title identifies him as a 'cyclist hating cyclist'. Motoring is the norm. We're all drivers. So amongst those of us who both drive and cycle there's a group whose driving mentality is so deeply ingrained that they think of cyclists as an 'out group'. This combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules of the road make them think, upon catching up with a cyclists in their car, that the cyclists are somehow 'in the way'. Thus is at the crux of it. The cyclists aren't in the way, they are ahead. A fallen tree is 'in the way' a cow on the road is 'in the way '. A cyclist riding along in front of your car is another road user with equal rights (some might argue - more right) to be in the road. They are not 'in the way' they are in front of you. And you are behind. They got there first. It's their road. And it therefore falls to you to treat them with courtesy and respect and patience until such time as you can safely pass. They have no obligation to let you pass. Their journey us no less important than yours. Patience. It probably took you longer to write the post complaining about this incident that the valuable time they cost you.
> Amazing that a 'former driving instructor' needs this spelling out.



Is it their road or our road, is courtesy not down to all of us or just the person behind?


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> A life saver in my terms is a look over the shoulder, no need to count the cars. You may not hear a car behind if you are cycling into a head wind and they are sat a bit back. But you seemed like me to have survived so far so we must be doing things correct.


What is the purpose of the lifesaver in this scenario?


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> What is the purpose of the lifesaver in this scenario?



I want to know what is creeping up behind me at all times, I do not trust other people to look after my safety.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Sorry I meant single track roads,
> View attachment 128047



Ah ha, gotcha, but thats still inventing a worst case scenario and assuming that people are just going to be rather deaf and rude.

Tractors etc and even IME some considerate slow moving car drivers, decent cyclists, like what we are, invariably have the good grace and common sense every now and again to let any tailback go by. 

When safe and mutually convenient to do so. (the key point and the thing that Gavroche stole from the couple in the OP by his MGIF attitude)

Though to be fair I doubt they'd need to more than once or twice in several miles. I've lived in rural areas as a cycle daft kid and holidayed - by bike and car - in areas of the country where such roads are more common, but they're hardly thoroughfares thronged with vehicles where such a hypothesis as you post is likely or common at all, so minimal inconvenience all round.

They also tend to be sound tunnels as per your pic or so remote and exposed in e.g. the fens, that you can hear your own heartbeat in your ears and the rustling of the vegetation. Swivelling your head round; outside of a lifesaver look at the appropriate juncture; is done because you'd hear a well lubed bike or stealth bomber in quiet mode coming up behind you , let alone a regular motor vehicle from a good way off even in weather.

It isn't like this:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFufoOgCMW8


I use mirrors on every bike I have & family ones, wouldn't be without them, they play for more of a part in my urban commute than my backline pootles to nowhere though.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Funny I find it harder to hear things behind me when riding into a headwind on the fens around where I live than most other places, it is seldom quiet enough to hear a bike or a car, Eurofighter, I will give you that one or even the Lanc, Red Arrows, Hurricane, Spitfire and a few more no doubt, comes with living in between so many bases, not forgetting the areobatics flying out of Wickenby.


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I want to know what is creeping up behind me at all times, I do not trust other people to look after my safety.


What do you think they may do to endanger you?


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> What do you think they may do to endanger you?



Not a clue.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I want to know what is creeping up behind me at all times, I do not trust other people to look after my safety.



Me too, so I do that fairly often. It's a bit like when I can't see or hear my two cats; I know something's up and usually find them where they shouldn't be. Same when it all goes quiet on a country road, I get the feeling I need to check what's going on behind me in case someone's about to close pass me.

GC


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Not a clue.


Well it seems to be a bit unfair to criticise cyclists who dont look over their shoulder when there doesnt seem to be a obvious danger for them to be looking out for.

As GC said there is the possibilty of a close pass but Im not sure a shoulder check for every car pass is a good idea. if I did it on my commute Id spend more time looking behind than in front.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> Well it seems to be a bit unfair to criticise cyclists who dont look over their shoulder when there doesnt seem to be a obvious danger for them to be looking out for.
> 
> As GC said there is the possibilty of a close pass but Im not sure a shoulder check for every car pass is a good idea. if I did it on my commute Id spend more time looking behind than in front.



My reply was to someone who said they only checked at junctions or before a maneuver, my point is that it is a good idea to maybe do a few more. 

I must admit that I am lucky in that I seldom get trouble from motorists and cannot remember anyone apart from kids shouting at me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> Well it seems to be a bit unfair to criticise cyclists who dont look over their shoulder when there doesnt seem to be a obvious danger for them to be looking out for..



It doesn't cost anything to have the odd check behind to see what's developing. I've been scared shitless being caught unawares by fast, reasonably quiet vehicles, only hearing them as they whooshed past me. Even when they're not that close it gives a scare. Worst one was a mate in his electric car.



> As GC said there is the possibilty of a close pass but Im not sure a shoulder check for every car pass is a good idea. if I did it on my commute Id spend more time looking behind than in front.




Doesn't need to be for every car, and I don't think that's been suggested.

I've had occasion to ride on a horrible A road dual carriageway where the speed limit was 70mph. I would keep an eye on the traffic pattern behind to watch for a change that would endanger me and that's exactly what happened. The cars come along in waves from the roundabout and, provided the lead car moved to lane 2 early, following drivers would take their cue from that, see me and move out wide. That's fine until you get the lazy driver who wants to keep as much of his car in lane 1 as possible, blocking the view of me for following drivers. That's when I get gesticulating to get them to move out. One driver didn't and the guy behind him very nearly hit me at 60mph+. 

It pays to be aware of what's around you.

GC


----------



## MontyVeda (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.
> 
> 
> never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends


the highway code is a guide... it's not the be-all and end-all of road safety. It mentions nothing of riding in primary and secondary, it mentions nothing about why we may be safer in the centre of the lane rather than the gutter... but it does have this note:



> The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. *Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident*.



So in this case, does that note mean that the cyclists should have given way to Gavroche (thus avoiding the 'incident' of a slight delay in his journey), or that Gavroche should have given the cyclists right of way? (avoiding a close/dangerous pass incident)... I suspect it's the latter, going by the simple premise that no road user is obliged to give right of way to vehicles behind them (unless it's an emergency vehicle).


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> My reply was to someone who said they only checked at junctions or before a maneuver, my point is that it is a good idea to maybe do a few more.
> 
> I must admit that I am lucky in that I seldom get trouble from motorists and cannot remember anyone apart from kids shouting at me.


ok, I was just replying to your comment that you come across many cyclist who do not look over their shoulder so would not know a vehicle is there. I do agree knowing what around you is a good idea.

Ive never really had any trouble from motorists except when they dont pay attention and pull out in front of me, fortunately I am looking out for that. 



glasgowcyclist said:


> It doesn't cost anything to have the odd check behind to see what's developing. I've been scared shitless being caught unawares by fast, reasonably quiet vehicles, only hearing them as they whooshed past me. Even when they're not that close it gives a scare. Worst one was a mate in his electric car.
> 
> Doesn't need to be for every car, and I don't think that's been suggested.


It wasnt specifically suggested for every car but you did mention checking for close passes which would only be useful if you checked every car, no?



glasgowcyclist said:


> I've had occasion to ride on a horrible A road dual carriageway where the speed limit was 70mph. I would keep an eye on the traffic pattern behind to watch for a change that would endanger me and that's exactly what happened. The cars come along in waves from the roundabout and, provided the lead car moved to lane 2 early, following drivers would take their cue from that, see me and move out wide. That's fine until you get the lazy driver who wants to keep as much of his car in lane 1 as possible, blocking the view of me for following drivers. That's when I get gesticulating to get them to move out. One driver didn't and the guy behind him very nearly hit me at 60mph+.
> 
> It pays to be aware of what's around you.
> 
> GC


I dont disagree that its good to know whats around you, but I just disagreed with the original comment which seemed to say the cyclists screenman had seen were at fault for not looking over their shoulder.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> It wasnt specifically suggested for every car but you did mention checking for close passes which would only be useful if you checked every car, no?



Are you referring to this post of mine?:



glasgowcyclist said:


> Me too, so I do that fairly often. It's a bit like when I can't see or hear my two cats; I know something's up and usually find them where they shouldn't be. Same when it all goes quiet on a country road, I get the feeling I need to check what's going on behind me in case someone's about to close pass me.



GC


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Are you referring to this post of mine?:
> 
> GC


Yes


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> Yes



Purely out of interest, what type of roads do you mainly drive on yourself. Most of mine is single carriage roads with and my cycling is a mix of the same roads but witha lot of single track roads.

One of the things I hope is that as motorists or cyclist that we all arrive at our destination safely.


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Purely out of interest, what type of roads do you mainly drive on yourself. Most of mine is single carriage roads with and my cycling is a mix of the same roads but witha lot of single track roads.
> 
> One of the things I hope is that as motorists or cyclist that we all arrive at our destination safely.


A mix of all kinds really, some parts of my commute are urban and others are A roads. Some stretches go as narow as single track where I have to wait, or the car will wait for me at a passing point.

I second your feeling about us all arriving safely. most times a car pulls out in front of me I think its just carelessness, sometimes ignorance as they dont realise I may be going fast, still dangerous though.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

Inertia said:


> Yes



That was referring to doing shoulder checks when it's quiet. Something's bound to be coming along and I like to get plenty of notice. See also my other post where I describe watching for traffic patterns to see if a problem's developing. 

GC


----------



## Profpointy (11 May 2016)

To go back to the OP's point, and despite being one of the, shall we say, sceptics, it does sometimes happen that bikes could, and arguably should, single out on 1-1/2 car width roads where it's safe to do so. It is basic good manners - same to pull in if towing or whatever. But if there's two cars' widths, then singling out whilst appearing "helpful" it's more likely to encourage stupid overtakes and means extra risk to the cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

What's happening here? This thread's descending into reasonableness a bit suddenly, someone call the Mods!

GC


----------



## Profpointy (11 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What's happening here? This thread's descending into reasonableness a bit suddenly, someone call the Mods!
> 
> GC



yeah, that's how Hitler started !


----------



## Inertia (11 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That was referring to doing shoulder checks when it's quiet. Something's bound to be coming along and I like to get plenty of notice. See also my other post where I describe watching for traffic patterns to see if a problem's developing.
> 
> GC


Well I do the checks every now and then just so I know whats going on behind, I fear it wouldnt save me from a close pass though, by the time I can see its close its too late to do much.

It could also be my imagination but I find that when I look, cars seem to move a little further out than they planned, but that could be them them panicing when I wobble as I turn to look


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

Just found this,

The most common vehicle involved in collisions with cyclists is a car or taxi, with the rider usually being hit by the front of the vehicle. In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle.


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> To go back to the OP's point, and despite being one of the, shall we say, sceptics, it does sometimes happen that bikes could, and arguably should, *single out on 1-1/2 car width roads* where it's safe to do so.


Me too. My problem with the OP is he quite explicitly stated that the road was _just wide enough_ for two cars, which doesn't suggest 1 1/2 width road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Is it their road or our road, is courtesy not down to all of us or just the person behind?


If you are walking down a busy city street do you choose to get out of the way of those walkers behind you who want to walk faster than you? Surely as a matter of courtesy.....?


----------



## Profpointy (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If you are walking down a busy city street do you choose to get out of the way of those walkers behind you who want to walk faster than you? Surely as a matter of courtesy.....?



actually yes. If I'm dawdling along I'll generally stand aside if I notice someone behind is in a hurry, then continue my dawdle.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

Profpointy said:


> actually yes. If I'm dawdling along I'll generally stand aside if I notice someone behind is in a hurry, then continue my dawdle.


On a busy city street? How do you ever continue your dawdle? Wait until nightfall?


----------



## Rapples (11 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> someone call the Mods!








Now that's not really gonna help is it


----------



## Profpointy (11 May 2016)

Rapples said:


> Now that's not really gonna help is it



Riding more than two abreast and no helmets neither !


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If you are walking down a busy city street do you choose to get out of the way of those walkers behind you who want to walk faster than you? Surely as a matter of courtesy.....?



I hope to never hold people up if I can help it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> On a busy city street? How do you ever continue your dawdle?



He _might_ be walking backwards.

GC


----------



## benb (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If you are walking down a busy city street do you choose to get out of the way of those walkers behind you who want to walk faster than you? Surely as a matter of courtesy.....?



Certainly when I am walking behind two people walking side by side, possibly with mobility issues, who cannot go as fast as I would like, I get as close to them as possible and intimidate them until they go single file and let me through. I'm going faster, therefore my journey is more important.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2016)

User said:


> This far from Xmas?



You're showing your age. And mine.

GC


----------



## EasyPeez (11 May 2016)

Jimidh said:


> The world isn't a binary place where there is always a right or wrong way to use the road. A bit of common sense from all road users makes like better for everyone if we ride/ drive to the conditions.



I quite agree with this in principle. 

Unfortunately cyclists, drivers, pedestrians - humanoids in whatever context of conveyance - will have varying levels of relevant knowledge, experience and skill. And we are all vulnerable to misjudgements, impatience, ill temper, distraction etc, which is where a reliance on common sense becomes a sticky wicket. 

I personally am happy to single when riding in a group in order to cause minimum delay/frustration to drivers, and our cycle club encourages this on rides generally, depending on the road conditions and the size of the group. But to come back to 'common sense', for me if one road/group is both more vulnerable and less potentially dangerous to others than another road user/group then to me common sense is to give the more vulnerable/less dangerous user/group priority when it comes to road space, regardless of possible delays/requirements for reduction in speed from others.



Jimidh said:


> No one is going to overtake when another car is coming that would be dangerous whether riders were in single file or riding two abreast.



This? Poppycock. If you honestly believe this then you must cycle very rarely or in a part of the UK that is totally unique in terms the proficiency and considerateness of its drivers.


----------



## doog (11 May 2016)

[QUOTE
Put this response down to a vitriolic reply ...... to your arrogant vitriol. [/QUOTE]

There's only room for so many comedians on here..


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

benb said:


> Certainly when I am walking behind two people walking side by side, possibly with mobility issues, who cannot go as fast as I would like, I get as close to them as possible and intimidate them until they go single file and let me through. I'm going faster, therefore my journey is more important.


and I thought that was just me!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User said:


> This far from Xmas?


Which route? And is it a long distance?


----------



## doog (11 May 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What's happening here? This thread's descending into reasonableness a bit suddenly, someone call the Mods!
> 
> GC



The mods have actually been busy..dont worry about that..

Every time I log on I wait with baited breath to see if ive been banned again...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I hope to never hold people up if I can help it.


Then you should never cycle on the roads of Britain. Because you can help it and you do hold people up, inevitably.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)




----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Then you should never cycle on the roads of Britain. Because you can help it and you do hold people up, inevitably.



Tell me why Grumpy Gregory and not just Gregory.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Tell me why Grumpy Gregory and not just Gregory.
> 
> It is a shame where people pick your words about to try and gain brownie points.


Then speak plainly...


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Then speak plainly...



Should I call you sir? You forgot to answer my question.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Should I call you sir? You forgot to answer my question.


I forgot no such thing.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> Cycling is not 'a sport' for most people.



Maybe not, but this forum is.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User said:


> What about the lunchtime runners, should I be checking behind me for them as I walk so I can stand aside in order not to impede their progress?


Abso-bleedin'-lutely.

Your shoeists are all the same, choosing to use your backward transport technology in a public space, and delaying others, with their superior technology, as a result. 

So rude. So selfish.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

User said:


> What about the lunchtime runners, should I be checking behind me for them as I walk so I can stand aside in order not to impede their progress?



I can see no reason not too.


----------



## screenman (11 May 2016)

User said:


> Me neither, provided it doesn't endanger me by stepping into a road with traffic passing, or inconvenience me to any great extent. Same deal as with cars passing cyclists.



Or for that matter cyclist.


----------



## doog (11 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The attitude of the OP is at the core of everything that's bad about cycling in a car centric society. The post and it's weird title identifies him as a 'cyclist hating cyclist'. Motoring is the norm. We're all drivers. So amongst those of us who both drive and cycle there's a group whose driving mentality is so deeply ingrained that they think of cyclists as an 'out group'. This combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules of the road make them think, upon catching up with a cyclists in their car, that the cyclists are somehow 'in the way'. Thus is at the crux of it. The cyclists aren't in the way, they are ahead. A fallen tree is 'in the way' a cow on the road is 'in the way '. A cyclist riding along in front of your car is another road user with equal rights (some might argue - more right) to be in the road. They are not 'in the way' they are in front of you. And you are behind. They got there first. It's their road. And it therefore falls to you to treat them with courtesy and respect and patience until such time as you can safely pass. They have no obligation to let you pass. Their journey us no less important than yours. Patience. It probably took you longer to write the post complaining about this incident that the valuable time they cost you.
> Amazing that a 'former driving instructor' needs this spelling out.



Now thats an interesting post and and something I would normally agree with. Its in the DNA of every driver to get past a cyclist and I hate it

However you've ignored the road in question, the road conditions, the experience of the OP (and the fact he's an experienced cyclist) and have glibly gone down' the cyclists cant do no wrong' route . Lost on the thread was an early post about an event on the same road where people were encouraged to go single file, I wonder why that was...?


----------



## Tim Hall (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Abso-bleedin'-lutely.
> 
> Your shoeists are all the same, choosing to use your backward transport technology in a public space, and delaying others, with their superior technology, as a result.
> 
> So rude. So selfish.


Where are long boardists in this hierarchy?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User said:


> Retired


Copenhagen has a thriving scene. They are even used as everyday transport by the hipper sort of chick and chap.

I have 'had a go' whilst here, using a rented board. Danish tarmac is every bit as unforgiving as its British cousin.


----------



## Tim Hall (11 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Copenhagen has a thriving scene. They are even used as everyday transport by the hipper sort of chick and chap.
> 
> I have 'had a go' whilst here, using a rented board. Danish tarmac is every bit as unforgiving as its British cousin.


That's the trouble with universal gravitational constants. They're all over the place.


----------



## Mugshot (11 May 2016)

If I'm in the car I always pull over for lorries because they pay more road tax than me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> That's the trouble with universal gravitational constants. They're all over the place.


Gravity is a harsh mistress, and the Laws of Physics are merciless. It said that in the handbook for my Canyon full boinger. Smart folk at Canyon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> Sorry for the delay...Long distance tourers,weighed down with panniers covering many miles both here and abroad.....people who respect the road and other users, not a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago ,joined a forum and are now experts. (ring a bell anyone)


utter parp


> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger...many European countries have nailed this, the UK as usual really dont have a clue and we end up with the OP's post.


ditto


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User said:


> Anything you have ever written that contains anything of any sense whatsoever is now completely lost in the sheer stupidity of your selection excluding people who know loads about the subject and, even worse, assuming that some of those people fail your selection criteria.


Is the parp written by an example of the cyclist hating Cyclist? Tis why I hate Cyclists.


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2016)

Tim Hall said:


> Where are long boardists in this hierarchy?


malibu!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

Mugshot said:


> If I'm in the car I always pull over for lorries because they pay more road tax than me.


If I delay a really powerful car by not driving fast enough, such that the driver tailgates me and flashes their headlights, regular occurrence on the A24, I pull over and set fire to my own motor. Be rude not to.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

jefmcg said:


> malibu!


Nah, københavn



I've seen this guy commute many times. He does get some stick from the Cyclists but not so much from the people who ride bikes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> This was in response to a post that has been removed for some reason best known to the writer, and so it makes no sense really. The word 'sport' has been replaced with 'hobby' in a later version of the original. Just in case anyone wonders what I was on about.


Yeahbut when did you take up the hobby and what is your longest long distance ride eh? eh? EH?


----------



## glenn forger (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> Sorry for the delay...Long distance tourers,weighed down with panniers covering many miles both here and abroad.....people who respect the road and other users, not a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago ,joined a forum and are now experts. (ring a bell anyone)



Yes, how many?


----------



## doog (11 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Yes, how many?



loads


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> not a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago ,joined a forum and are now experts. (ring a bell anyone)


Yeah, let's make them all use the cycle path until they learn better.
Even on a Sunday, when Mr. Car Driver should not be in such a hurry, but, hey-ho, they are a danger to themselves ( reference to your previous, deleted post).
What if you actually need your bike to go to work and you don't have a car?
Take the unlit canal path or 2 buses, it's only a hobby after all.


doog said:


> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger..


The narrow, long winded road in the op does not sound like an A road.

I need to stop reading this thread, it's giving me a hopeless feeling.
I wonder if, according to you @doog, children would be allowed to ride to school or to their friends?


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger.


A routes is not a universal term. I'm not sure what other countries have the term, and if they mean the same.

Can you give examples of where you mean?


----------



## benb (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> Sorry for the delay...Long distance tourers,weighed down with panniers covering many miles both here and abroad.....people who respect the road and other users, not a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago ,joined a forum and are now experts. (ring a bell anyone)
> 
> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger...many European countries have nailed this, the UK as usual really dont have a clue and we end up with the OP's post.



What a load of unmitigated


----------



## glenn forger (11 May 2016)

doog said:


> loads



More than ten and less than fifty?


----------



## slowmotion (11 May 2016)

I'm getting a bit confused by all this. A vociferous group give the impression that motorists in general are thoroughly nasty bullies. I don't seem to share the roads with these caricature villains. It must make cycling a rather unpleasant experience to pedal along with a general sense of seething outrage.


----------



## newfhouse (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I'm getting a bit confused by all this. A vociferous group give the impression that motorists in general are thoroughly nasty bullies. I don't seem to share the roads with these caricature villains. It must make cycling a rather unpleasant experience to pedal along with a general sense of seething outrage.


Strange, I'm not seeing that at all. I saw a post from someone who was slightly impeded in his progress by having to share space with other road users. Since then I've seen, mostly, reasonable explanations of why the cyclists may have been riding as they were, based on the description of the road given in the OP. 

Most drivers (and cyclists!) are pretty competent most of the time. Being sensibly assertive and owning space when riding is necessary to deal with the minority that are not. That's not seething outrage, it's caution. But it's still a pleasurable way to travel.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> dickhead....if I call you a nobber I might get away with it


"dickhead...." How so? You've given some very specific qualification criteria above for holding and expressing opinions. I'm interested in who in here reaches your standard.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Sorry for the delay...Long distance tourers,weighed down with panniers covering many miles both here and abroad.....people who respect the road and other users,* not a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago, joined a forum and are now experts. *(ring a bell anyone)
> 
> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger...many European countries have nailed this, the UK as usual really dont have a clue and we end up with the OP's post.





doog said:


> Now thats an interesting post and and something I would normally agree with. Its in the DNA of every driver to get past a cyclist as proven in the OP & by your own rather questionable statement above that cyclists (apart from you and your long distance panniers naturally) are a pain in the arse on certain roads. and I hate it
> 
> However you've ignored the road in question, the road conditions, the experience of the OP *(and the fact he's an experienced cyclist)* and have glibly gone down' the cyclists cant do no wrong (pedant hat - is that Brian Cant or do you need an apostrophe for the double negative?) ' route . _Lost on the thread was an early post about an event on the same road where people were encouraged to go single file, I wonder why that was...?_




You have the MOST narrow minded view of your own self importance and need to be right that I've seen outside of the worst excesses of SC&P:

*You've failed with the emotional blackmail and petty abuse schtick to shut people up.

*Your strange belief that long distance cycling = worthy, anything else = hobbyists who need to shut up and listen to the gospel according to doog, has been treated with the contempt it deserves.

*Now you've decided that theres only you and those who's opinions you choose to approve of are experienced enough to be allowed to comment? Nice one.

*You are that desperate to be right you'll happily tie your arguments up to the point of making yourself appear ridiculous. You know & can personally vouch for everyone's cycling life stories to be making such definite statements?*

_Maybe because it was just as wrong as the near instant MGIF usurping of the couples control of the road in the OP, done with such little patience and consideration that even the most experienced and longest distance cyclist in the world could not have had time to make an informed and adequate enough judgement of them and their competence/attitude/intention to enable a safe pass AT THEIR DISCRETION to make it worthy of such criticism.

I know that road around where you'd be turning off up towards Giggleswick, its not too far from me and is my preferred route to Skipton and Harrogate, done Preston on it too, in a car admittedly but never had a problem I felt I had to get all frothy mouthed and internetty over. It is not a short road nor a uniform experience. How can you know to be so sure in your dismissal of others that the post you reference is the same bit of it as Gavroche was using any more than I or others can?
How can you know unequivocally those factors you claim others have ignored? the road surface & conditions right there and then or the weather or the confidence & competence of both the cycling parties and those expecting them to act differently & whatever other factors that you may wish to consider that make even riding the same route many times, different every time?_


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

Oh look, I can use coloured text

Give your head a shake..I think your'e taking this place slightly too seriously.

Wheres the OP again...bullied off the forum per chance ?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Oh look, I can use coloured text
> 
> Give your head a shake..I think your'e taking this place slightly too seriously. pots kettles
> 
> Wheres the OP again...bullied off the forum per chance ?



see what I mean about petty abuse, you just can't help yourself can you?

 When you make so many rash comments in such a short space of time it helps to differentiate them. Highlighter pens sell well in W H Smiths for much the same reason.

Maybe Gavroche having accepted the sense of the counter argument that he was a tad hasty in MGIF and subsequent public condemnation of an innocent couple just going about their day (no bullying at all there is there) has made a tactical withdrawal to save further embarrassment.

but you'd clearly know best, you are doog after all


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> "dickhead...." How so? .



It was a prudent slip that just might have been down to your constant chipping away and enthusiasm to jump on the usual bandwagon. Perhaps you can share some real world experience of similar road conditions, I'd be genuinely interested, ive offered a viewpoint from a different perspective that you and others have belittled in the same way the OP was belittled)..I appreciate it might involve you dropping the comedy / sarcasm persona but im sure just for a minute you and a few others can attempt it.


----------



## EasyPeez (12 May 2016)

Just thought a bit of perspective might be helpful at this point.








Sorry, I realise you can't quite pick out the A59 from that.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> see what I mean about petty abuse, you just can't help yourself can you?
> 
> When you make so many rash comments in such a short space of time it helps to differentiate them. Highlighter pens sell well in W H Smiths for much the same reason.
> 
> ...



Im witnessing plenty of petty abuse in your pretty pink posts thanks, but oh look - here come the cavalry....ill just make myself another cuppa. Sean must be shaking his head, I guess like me he thought the mob mentality was limited to helmet debates. Little did he realise that without that particular outlet the cancer would spread across multiple threads. 

What was the usual call to arms "_Oh look we've got a live one here_" ...tut tut..nothings changed apart from the subject headline.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> a glib bunch of heroes who took up a hobby 18 months ago ,joined a forum and are now experts. (ring a bell anyone)



Doesn't ring a bell with me. Maybe you could specify to whom you are referring.

GC


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> That aside we really should follow the approach of other countries in that cyclists are barred from many A routes as they are simply a pain in the arse and are putting themselves in danger...many European countries have nailed this, the UK as usual really dont have a clue and we end up with the OP's post.


Sorry but as a taxpayer, I already pay for motorways to prioritise road traffic, why should I also pay for the A roads if I'm to be forbidden from using them?

Let's get rid of cycle lanes and all that pointless sh*te. Teach road users how to get along with each other and respect each other's space instead.

A roads are often the shortest and therefore quickest way from A to B on a bike and I've no intention of giving up on them any time soon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> It was a prudent slip that just might have been down to your constant chipping away and enthusiasm to jump on the usual bandwagon. Perhaps you can share some real world experience of similar road conditions, I'd be genuinely interested, ive offered a viewpoint from a different perspective that you and others have belittled in the same way the OP was belittled)..I appreciate it might involve you dropping the comedy / sarcasm persona but im sure just for a minute you and a few others can attempt it.


Real world experience of cycling on NSL SC A roads? Alone, with my missus, or in a group? On a road bike? On a tourer? On an mtb? With panniers? Without? In the 70's, the 90's, the 00's, or in the current decade?

Nah. I've no need to demonstrate my credentials, plenty in here know how I roll. In fact riding with them, considering their pov on the craft of cycling, seeing how inclusive they are, et cetera, has made me a better bike rider, and, I hope, a better man. It certainly helped me shed my own previously motor-centric mindset.

Suffice to say I hope to ride at all times in a way which prioritises my safety, and the safety of those I ride with, over the convenience of motorists.

I don't expect those motorists I "inconvenience and delay", nor those on bikes who think with that same motor-centric mindset, to understand my behaviour whilst riding a bike. Not least of all because to them cycling is a sport, a hobby, a pastime, and my bikes are just childish toys. Whereas to me, a bike is my primary means of transport...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> No, he really is like that.


As tlh sometimes says "This is Gregry. He's a bit grumpy, has a heart of gold, but there are no hidden depths."


----------



## CaadX (12 May 2016)

User said:


> Ah yes, the resident passive-agressive non-arguers who have nothing to say about the subject but like to chip in to decry others' contributions.


You called ?


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> No, he really is like that. Are you as surly and aggressive as you seem on here?



Im not sure, are you as glibly smug as you come over on here ? I actually doubt you are.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

User said:


> You are working quite hard on your faux victim persona there.



I guess you remember the line well.


----------



## John the Monkey (12 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The attitude of the OP is at the core of everything that's bad about cycling in a car centric society. The post and it's weird title identifies him as a 'cyclist hating cyclist'. Motoring is the norm. We're all drivers. So amongst those of us who both drive and cycle there's a group whose driving mentality is so deeply ingrained that they think of cyclists as an 'out group'. This combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules of the road make them think, upon catching up with a cyclists in their car, that the cyclists are somehow 'in the way'. Thus is at the crux of it. The cyclists aren't in the way, they are ahead. A fallen tree is 'in the way' a cow on the road is 'in the way '. A cyclist riding along in front of your car is another road user with equal rights (some might argue - more right) to be in the road. They are not 'in the way' they are in front of you. And you are behind. They got there first. It's their road. And it therefore falls to you to treat them with courtesy and respect and patience until such time as you can safely pass. They have no obligation to let you pass. Their journey us no less important than yours. Patience. It probably took you longer to write the post complaining about this incident that the valuable time they cost you.
> Amazing that a 'former driving instructor' needs this spelling out.



"After a while the anger becomes fascinating. Sometimes a driver will lean out of the window and scream "GET OUT THE WAY", when you're innocently at the side of the road, and if you were in a car you'd be much more in the way. And you wonder how exhausting it must be to scream at everything that is, technically, in the way. They must knock at random doors and yell at whoever answers "If these houses hadn't been built I could have DRIVEN through here, now GET OUT THE WAY."" 
-_Mark Steel_

_"_This is the basis of car culture, the idea that the world and all of the world's people are merely in its way._"
-- Travis Hugh Culley_


----------



## Mugshot (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Real world experience of cycling on NSL SC A roads? Alone, with my missus, or in a group? On a road bike? On a tourer? On an mtb? With panniers? Without? In the 70's, the 90's, the 00's, or in the current decade?


You're selling yourself short, what about the longboard down the skate park?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

Mugshot said:


> You're selling yourself short, what about the longboard down the skate park?


I've longboarded on an A road. Very small hours, slightly pished. Very nice bit of tarmac with a good camber for carving, and a nice gentle down slope followed by a upwards incline to scrub off the speed. Braking not being my strong point.


----------



## Dayvo (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Copenhagen has a thriving scene. They are even used as everyday transport by the hipper sort of chick and chap.
> 
> I have 'had a go' whilst here, using a rented board. Danish tarmac is every bit as unforgiving as its British cousin.



My brother-in-law lives in Copenhagen. He used to commute from Hellerup to the city by kayak.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Im witnessing plenty of petty abuse in your pretty pink posts thanks, but oh look - here come the cavalry....ill just make myself another cuppa. Sean must be shaking his head, I guess like me he thought the mob mentality was limited to helmet debates. Little did he realise that without that particular outlet the cancer would spread across multiple threads.
> 
> What was the usual call to arms "_Oh look we've got a live one here_" ...tut tut..nothings changed apart from the subject headline.




petty abuse in a statement of fact???????????????????????? 

you have been hostile, aggressive, manipulative & used rude and offensive words to describe others on this thread from your first involvement in it. I have done nothing of the sort and have justified, in a range of colours, every observation I have made with reference to where it came from.

You come across as a classic bully throwing your weight around while simultaneously whining about bullying from others that is nothing near your obnoxiousness and you appear to have a very warped personal value system if you consider your conduct on this thread to be above reproach and anyone else's petty abuse.

The site owner is Shaun by the way and I'm sure that if he or the mods were that bothered (no doubt very close now) the thread would be locked or individuals spoken to/locked out of further participation.

Last time I checked the helmet thread was still alive and well and able to be contributed to by whoever fancies it, just combined into one place, but as ever don't let simple facts cloud your rhetoric.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

User said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say here but, in view of your obvious antipathy, it seems that for the future it would be better not to bother engaging with you.



Please dont bother..(I really dont know what happened but you somehow circumnavigated my ignore function..)


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> petty abuse in a statement of fact????????????????????????
> 
> you have been hostile, aggressive, manipulative & used rude and offensive words to describe others on this thread from your first involvement in it. I have done nothing of the sort and have justified, in a range of colours, every observation I have made with reference to where it came from.
> 
> ...




lol


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but as a taxpayer, I already pay for motorways to prioritise road traffic, why should I also pay for the A roads if I'm to be forbidden from using them?



The old 'I pay my taxes I'll cycle where I want line'......comedy genius. Guess what I also pay mine but use a bit of common sense in the process. I think the OP clearly saw that the cyclists in question were lacking that, just as you appear to be.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> What happened? You peeked. We understand.



You really want to know ?

I was logged out and noticed he was attempting to 'engage with me.'...so I thought I'd give him the pleasure (for old times sake..and all that).


----------



## ufkacbln (12 May 2016)

Personally I believe in mirrors and being aware of what is around you

To this day I have no idea what it was that made me turn into the side lane in this case

However whether it was mirrors, hearing, awareness or simply a sixth sense, I hate to think of the result if I hadn't

[/QUOTE]


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> The old 'I pay my taxes I'll cycle where I want line'......comedy genius. Guess what I also pay mine but use a bit of common sense in the process. I think the OP clearly saw that the cyclists in question were lacking that, just as you appear to be.


I'm sorry are you accusing me of lacking common sense because I choose to use the most convenient way to get to work? That puts us in a quandary because most people use the most convenient way to get to work too. If they also lack common sense then it surely stops being "common"


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> I'm sorry are you accusing me of lacking common sense because I choose to use the most convenient way to get to work? That puts us in a quandary because most people use the most convenient way to get to work too. If they also lack common sense then it surely stops being "common"



Lets just call it lacking a bit of sense then...what's convenient to you..the fastest route or do feel obliged to cycle that road simply because you pay taxes as you said?

I cycled a certain route for years, I was the only nutter on it..when I look back at it now I realise I lacked common sense..common as in the overwhelming majority wouldn't cycle it...


----------



## glenn forger (12 May 2016)

I expect you can name the road where you reckon only nutters cycle?


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Lets just call it lacking a bit of sense then...what's convenient to you..the fastest route or do feel obliged to cycle that road simply because you pay taxes as you said?
> 
> I cycled a certain route for years, I was the only nutter on it..when I look back at it now I realise I lacked common sense..common as in the overwhelming majority wouldn't cycle it...


Fastest and safest route. A roads tend to be wide, motorists tend to concentrate more. On the little side roads where you think I should be are the parents talking to little Tarquin, chatting on their mobiles, doing their makeup etc all while trying to navigate a space constricted by parked cars, school runs etc.

Perhaps if you spent longer cycling than just trying to wind people up on the internet you would have noticed these things


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> Perhaps if you spent longer cycling than just trying to wind people up on the internet you would have noticed these things



Im being lectured by martin now


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I expect you can name the road where you reckon only nutters cycle?



I expect I can .


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Im being lectured by martin now


Your world must be truly horrible where a suggestion (perhaps......) is a lecture.

As a serial A road rider I'd love to know on which ones I'm counted as a nutter on. The A2, A20, the A5 is a lovely road if a tad boring, the A30 is an all round joy


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> Your world must be truly horrible where a suggestion (perhaps......) is a lecture.
> 
> As a serial A road rider I'd love to know on which ones I'm counted as a nutter on. The A2, A20, the A5 is a lovely road if a tad boring, the A30 is an all round joy



The A30 argument ? I think its been done to death but well done...what we really need is more people like you encouraging cyclists onto it.


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> The A30 argument ? I think its been done to death but well done...what we really need is more people like you encouraging cyclists onto it.


Why? What's wrong with it? I'm assuming you have experience of riding it


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> Why? What's wrong with it? I'm assuming you have experience of riding it



Of course, Im just wondering which part you find an absolute joy. I rarely see cyclists on the A30 and for good reason, there are parts of the *old *A30 which are great but its a long road as you know. Im aware someone did the length of it once - was that you ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

Dayvo said:


> My brother-in-law lives in Copenhagen. He used to commute from Hellerup to the city by kayak.


Colleague does that in Stockholm, and skates in when it is frozen.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> The old 'I pay my taxes I'll cycle where I want line'......comedy genius. Guess what I also pay mine but use a bit of common sense in the process. I think the OP clearly saw that the cyclists in question were lacking that, just as you appear to be.



What were the two cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Of course, Im just wondering which part you find an absolute joy. I rarely see cyclists on the A30 and for good reason, there are parts of the *old *A30 which are great but its a long road as you know. Im aware someone did the length of it once - was that you ?


I've ridden from London to where it splits to become the A33 and the A303. Respectively I've ridden those to Winchester and Stonehenge.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> What were the two cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?



I dunno ...who mentioned that they were doing anything dangerous?


----------



## growingvegetables (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> I dunno ...who mentioned that they were doing anything dangerous?


The OP?


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> I've ridden from London to where it splits to become the A33 and the A303. Respectively I've ridden those to Winchester and Stonehenge.



Im at the opposite end , south west up to Salisbury. Im not adverse to anything that has a decent shoulder (like the A303 which actually has lengths of cycle path on the shoulder ) however its the older part of the A30 I have issues with between Honiton and Salisbury. An extremely fast road, mainly single carriageway, no shoulder in most places and the limit points for drivers are ridiculous. Of course in an ideal world we should be able to ride safely on any road but when you are dealing with the general motoring public as we know there are some places best avoiding. (I expect people to disagree with this of course and stamp their feet )


----------



## Mugshot (12 May 2016)

Some people are twats.


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Im at the opposite end , south west up to Salisbury. Im not adverse to anything that has a decent shoulder (like the A303 which actually has lengths of cycle path on the shoulder ) however its the older part of the A30 I have issues with between Honiton and Salisbury. An extremely fast road, mainly single carriageway, no shoulder in most places and the limit points for drivers are ridiculous. Of course in an ideal world we should be able to ride safely on any road but when you are dealing with the general motoring public as we know there are some places best avoiding. (I expect people to disagree with this of course and stamp their feet )


So far most of the places I'd avoid cycling seem to be cycle paths : the new embankment springs to mind, I hate it. I'm not a huge fan of the A3 but I've found it's bearable if you keep your speed up; the A2/M2 junction near Gravesend us "interesting" but it wouldn't stop me riding it


----------



## growingvegetables (12 May 2016)

@martint235 - you missed your vocation. Should have been (the cycling equivalent of) a Horse Whisperer.


----------



## martint235 (12 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> @martint235 - you missed your vocation. Should have been (the cycling equivalent of) a Horse Whisperer.


Sorry but I don't get that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> Of course in an ideal world we should be able to ride safely on any road but when you are dealing with the general motoring public as we know there are some places best avoiding.


Don't blame the general motoring public.


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

Personally, I wouldn't like to set forth on some parts of the A30 in Cornwall. It's a motorway in all but name and the weekenders rushing to and from their holiday stays are not the most considerate drivers.


----------



## screenman (12 May 2016)

Around here many blame the roads, I have never understood that though.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> ive offered a viewpoint from a different perspective that you and others have belittled in the same way the OP was belittled


What was getting ridiculed was not the OP but the OP's claim that the behaviour of the cyclist's was dangerous.


doog said:


> I dunno ...who mentioned that they were doing anything dangerous?


See above. For pity's sake.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

screenman said:


> Around here many blame the roads, I have never understood that though.


Nowt wrong with the roads, generally. Driver behaviour needs looking at and improving.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> Personally, I wouldn't like to set forth on some parts of the A30 in Cornwall. It's a motorway in all but name and the weekenders rushing to and from their holiday stays are not the most considerate drivers.


And if you ventured forth on said parts and the worst happened, who would be responsible?


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Nowt wrong with the roads, generally. Driver behaviour needs looking at and improving.



but not the general motoring public eh ?


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> And if you ventured forth on said parts and the worst happened, who would be responsible?


 I think that would very much depend on the circumstances. I wouldn't expect a blanket exemption from blame if I did something totally daft when riding.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> but not the general motoring public eh ?


You're the one blaming them not me. 

Nobber drivers with nobber attitudes to more vulnerable road users are a tiny minority of the general motoring public.

Nobber Cyclists with motor-centric mindsets are, unfortunately, too large a proportion of the bike riding public.

What were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> So far most of the places I'd avoid cycling seem to be *cycle paths* : the new embankment springs to mind, I hate it. I'm not a huge fan of the A3 but I've found it's bearable if you keep your speed up; the A2/M2 junction near Gravesend us "interesting" but it wouldn't stop me riding it



Totally agree about cycle paths. I did Dorset to Harwich in Sept before a European tour but made a decision to follow NCN / Sustrans routes from this planner http://cycle.travel/map

Although I was prepared, ie suitable bike it was 4 days and 256 miles and most so called cycle paths were shocking..some were average but there was nothing I would have taken my road bike down.. totally piss poor compared to some of our European counterparts - but I guess we know that .


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I think that would very much depend on the circumstances. I wouldn't expect a blanket exemption from blame if I did something totally daft when riding.


Does riding normally on said road constitute doing something totally daft?


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Does riding normally on said road constitute doing something totally daft?


 No. Did I say that?


----------



## screenman (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> No. Did I say that?



No.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> No. Did I say that?


No. So if you rode normally on said road and the worst happened, who would be responsible?


----------



## screenman (12 May 2016)

[QUOTE="GrumpyGregry, post: 4277441, member: 519

Nobber Cyclists with motor-centric mindsets are, unfortunately, too large a proportion of the bike riding public.



Can you lead me to the official numbers or have you just made that bit up, because it is different to my experience.


----------



## screenman (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No. So if you road normally on said road and the worst happened, who would be responsible?



What is normal?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

What were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

screenman said:


> What is normal?


In this context riding legally on a public highway in a manner that is the opposite of, and I quote, "totally daft".


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No. So if you road normally on said road and the worst happened, who would be responsible?



what is 'roading normally'..surely you ride to the road conditions.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

screenman said:


> [QUOTE="GrumpyGregry, post: 4277441, member: 519
> 
> Nobber Cyclists with motor-centric mindsets are, unfortunately, too large a proportion of the bike riding public.
> 
> ...


Does something have to be backed by official numbers to be true? Plenty of evidence of the existence of "cyclist hating Cyclists" with motor-centric mindsets in this thread, in this forum, probably in your cycling club, or amongst your Cyclist friends, certainly in my cycling club, et cetera.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> what is 'roading normally'..surely you ride to the road conditions.


Remind me, what were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Remind me, what were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?



wtf are you talking about..where did I say they were doing anything dangerous ?

'kin hell


----------



## Tim Hall (12 May 2016)

User13710 said:


> I've heard that defence before, but not since the 1980s.


Usenet, newsgroups, kill files, plonking. Ah, happy days.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> wtf are you talking about..where did I say they were doing anything dangerous ?
> 
> 'kin hell


The OP claims the cyclists were doing something dangerous

You have characterised those who have argued against the OP as mere keyboard warriors, if you will as poseurs, dilettantes, lightweights, hobbyists, newcomers, low mileage wasters and, in my case, described me a muppet and a dickhead. (Which I've reported btw)

You have consistently defended the OP's point of view, albeit in a manner often lacking clarity.

So do tell me, in your considered opinion as an experienced long-distance Cyclist of long-standing, supremely well qualified to offer a definitive opinion on the matter, what, precisely, were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No. So if you road normally on said road and the worst happened, who would be responsible?


 I'm afraid you are going to have to give me more details of this tragic event that causes my demise before I can apportion blame. If I had a blowout when wizzing down a hill and impaled myself on the spike of a bale lifter in the adjacent lane, I doubt my widow could sue successfully. 

What have you got, Grim Reaper?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

User said:


> Terminal boredom.


I admit the evenings on my todd in cph are a bit tedious and the forum provides a diversion. But it isn't terminal.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The OP claims the cyclists were doing something dangerous
> 
> You have characterised those who have argued against the OP as mere keyboard warriors, if you will as poseurs, dilettantes, lightweights, hobbyists, newcomers, low mileage wasters and, in my case, described me a muppet and a dickhead. (Which I've reported btw)
> 
> ...



The OP said many things however at no point did I agree, mention, hint or assume the cyclists were doing anything dangerous...

I mentioned common sense but that was based on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations (who was there..you werent, nor was I..)


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

User said:


> Terminal boredom.


 Terminal boredom is a bit unlikely on the A30 as Porsche Cayennes close pass at 90mph within arms reach. Some kind of adrenaline overdose perhaps?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I'm afraid you are going to have to give me more details of this tragic event that causes my demise before I can apportion blame. If I had a blowout when wizzing down a hill and impaled myself on the spike of a bale lifter in the adjacent lane, I doubt my widow could sue successfully.
> 
> What have you got, Grim Reaper?


You are riding normally, in a manner entirely appropriate for the weather and road conditions. Let's even say you are wearing hi-viz* and an approved cycling helmet. With some retina burning rear stobe light turned on. It is Saturday mid-morning. A bright dry clear morning and the sun is behind you. You are heading west. In primary, or secondary, as is your wont. A weekender rushing to their holiday stay, generally acknowledged as not the most considerate of drivers, passes you at the speed limit, but alas passes you too close, for reasons that are unclear fromt he witness reports, and you fall from your bike and die. 

Who is to blame? Surely you must be a teeny tiny bit at fault for being there in the first place?

_*hi-viz doth offend mine eye._


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You are riding normally, in a manner entirely appropriate for the weather and road conditions. Let's even say you are wearing hi-viz* and an approved cycling helmet. With some retina burning rear stobe light turned on. It is Saturday mid-morning. A bright dry clear morning and the sun is behind you. You are heading west. In primary, or secondary, as is your wont. A weekender rushing to their holiday stay, generally acknowledged as not the most considerate of drivers, passes you at the speed limit, but alas passes you too close, for reasons that are unclear fromt he witness reports, and you fall from your bike and die.
> 
> Who is to blame? Surely you must be a teeny tiny bit at fault for being there in the first place?
> 
> _*hi-viz doth offend mine eye._


 I might still be alive if I hadn't been there but I appear to have been riding in exemplary fashion. Fortunately, a personal desire for self-preservation prevents me being there in the first place having made my own risk-assessment.

By the way, you are Gabriel García Márquez and ICMFP.


----------



## hatler (12 May 2016)

Extraordinarily entrenched views here. I think it's too late for any realistic prospect that anyone is going to be hauled out of their own trench to a different place, but I like a challenge. And I know I'm treading in some well-worn footsteps here.



gavroche said:


> ... the road is twisty and just wide enough for two cars to pass each other.


This one line should be sufficient for anyone with any sense to draw all the necessary and relevant conclusions about the appropriate behaviour of the cyclists and driver concerned.

There's not enough room for a car to overtake one bike if there's a car coming the other way.
Therefore any car behind a single bike should wait until there are no vehicles coming the other way.

There's enough room for cars to pass each other in opposite directions, and two bikes abreast are generally less wide than a car.
Therefore, there's enough room for a car to overtake two bikes abreast, presuming there's no vehicle coming the other way.

Given that a car coming the other way means it would be impossible to overtake one bike safely, the existence of a second bike (abreast of the first) doesn't alter the level of impossibility.

Net result, whether the bikes were singled out or two abreast makes not one jot of difference to how or when a following driver should overtake them.

It sounds like the cyclists did EXACTLY the right thing, and stayed two abreast, otherwise they might have invited an unsafe pass from an impatient, inconsiderate motorist. I detect no 'attitude' here, other than a desire to stay safe, with, just possibly, a little thought to the prevention of a motorist making an utter tit of himself. Thankfully their tactics appear to have been completely successful, on both counts.




gavroche said:


> On this forum, we tend to be quick to criticise motorists but cyclists are no angels either and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.



I'm struggling to see how anything these two did could in any way be interpreted as 'dangerous'. Quite the opposite.

This isn't rocket engineering, the principles really are quite straightforward.

I defy anyone to out-logic this argument.


----------



## mickle (12 May 2016)

The End.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

doog said:


> You're coming over as a bit of a bellend now...put it to bed mate... The OP said many things however at no point did I agree, mention, hint or assume the cyclists were doing anything dangerous...
> 
> I mentioned common sense but that was based on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations (who was there..you werent you clown, nor was I..)
> 
> My initial issue was the attitude of people like you...and you continue to evidence it..... the majority of people reach an impasse, you seem incapable..


What is this attitude with which you take issue?
That I don't agree with you but choose to do so without resorting to personal insults?
That I don't agree with your elitist criteria for being able to hold an opinion, even though my credentials, and those of others, mean we qualify as members of your elite group of Cyclists?
That I don't agree with your definition and application of "common sense", whatever the heck that actually is?
Or that my view on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations is different to yours?

Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder when people don't agree with you?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

slowmotion said:


> By the way, you are Gabriel García Márquez and ICMFP.


Whilst that is quite the nicest thing anyone has said to me since I caught my flight to cph on Tuesday morning my qualifications to be _the greatest Columbian who ever lived_ are scant.


----------



## hatler (12 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The End.


If only.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 May 2016)

mickle said:


> The End.


And with that, I'm out.


----------



## slowmotion (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Whilst that is quite the nicest thing anyone has said to me since I caught my flight to cph on Tuesday morning my qualifications to be _the greatest Columbian who ever lived_ are scant.


 You are too modest.


----------



## doog (12 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> That I don't agree with your definition and application of "common sense", whatever the heck that actually is?
> Or that my view on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations is different to yours?
> 
> Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder when people don't agree with you?



So you accept I mentioned common sense after all......thank feck for that..

The rest of your posts are hyperbole

Goodnight


----------



## CaadX (12 May 2016)

User said:


> Not specifically but do throw in some of your wisdom.


I'll just watch ta !


----------



## theclaud (13 May 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I admit the evenings on my todd in cph are a bit tedious



*Brew By Numbers* ‏@*BrewByNumbers*  16h16 hours ago

We're in Copenhagen this weekend but our taproom will be open as normal Friday + Saturday, launching our new Tripel!






3 retweets 7 likes


----------



## growingvegetables (13 May 2016)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but I don't get that.


And I'm sorry - I got distracted.

But for a few posts, you had @doog communicating civilly and pleasantly. Just a couple, I grant you ... but it was a pleasure.



A bit like the semi-feral cat that visits our back garden - I happen to know just which bit of his chin he likes to be fussed over. And he just lies on his back and soaks it up.

But the slightest disturbance - and he's back to being fierce and feral!  Yup, @doog - that's you.


----------



## screenman (13 May 2016)

I tend to single out on twisty roads, gives any speeding motorists or motorcyclist a tad more space to avoid us if they come around the blind bend behind us at too high a speed.


----------



## Pale Rider (13 May 2016)

screenman said:


> I tend to single out on twisty roads, gives any speeding motorists or motorcyclist a tad more space to avoid us if they come around the blind bend behind us at too high a speed.



Which recognises the practicalities of the situation.

I agree a motorist who wants you to single out is saying 'give me enough room to squeeze past unsafely', and I have on occasion prevented that by remaining two abreast.

But the safest place for that type of driver is in front of me, so that is the situation I will usually try to engineer.

Riding solo on a narrow road I will pull over to let a motorist pass.

Yes, I was there first, 'right' is on my side, the driver should wait, etc etc.

But all that is trumped by my wish to avoid a collision.


----------



## martint235 (13 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> And I'm sorry - I got distracted.
> 
> But for a few posts, you had @doog communicating civilly and pleasantly. Just a couple, I grant you ... but it was a pleasure.
> 
> ...


Ah ok now I understand.

It was fluke as I usually have two internet states: infinitely calm or frothing at the mouth. That must have been one of my calm phases. It rubs off sometimes.


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2016)

hatler said:


> I defy anyone to out-logic this argument.


OK then; I love a challenge.....

If you take a VW Golf as an average representative of a car, it's width including mirrors is 2.027 metres. Two of them, then, are 4.054 metres wide. If we take @gavroche 's quote literally, adding some clearance for two cars to "just pass each other" (are they coming towards each other and squeezing past slowly; or are we talking about a safe overtake which is completely different? I'm assuming the former here), then the road is about 4.5 metres wide.
I just measured the bars on my MTB which are 60cm wide (about 50cm on the road bike), but the average cyclist probably has wider shoulders than that. Allowing for space between cyclists, and assuming the nearside rider is riding in secondary, then one cyclist will take up about 110 cm (just measured it!). Two cyclists will occupy roughly double that, maybe a little more for clearance from each other - but at least 2.2 metres. That means a single cyclist + 1 car = 2.137 metres, leaving about 2.38 metres clearance for a perfectly safe pass. Car + 2 cyclists abreast = 4.227 metres. So about 20cm to spare; no chance of a safe pass!

The end?


----------



## benb (13 May 2016)

Not really, as when riding 2 abreast the left cyclists will typically ride much closer to the edge than a standard secondary, plus the second rider would be closer to their buddy than you are calculating


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2016)

benb said:


> Not really, as when riding 2 abreast the left cyclists will typically ride much closer to the edge than a standard secondary, plus the second rider would be closer to their buddy than you are calculating


My point is that the safety of the pass depends very much on the width of the road. As others have pointed out, sometimes it is perfectly safe to pass a single cyclist, but not if they are two abreast. Sometimes it makes no difference, and sometimes it isn't safe to pass a single cyclist. @gavroche was there, we weren't; it was his call and he is getting flack for a situation in which his annoyance looks reasonably justified.


----------



## jefmcg (13 May 2016)

hatler said:


> Extraordinarily entrenched views here. I think it's too late for any realistic prospect that anyone is going to be hauled out of their own trench to a different place, but I like a challenge. And I know I'm treading in some well-worn footsteps here.
> 
> 
> This one line should be sufficient for anyone with any sense to draw all the necessary and relevant conclusions about the appropriate behaviour of the cyclists and driver concerned.
> ...


That's a TMN to me, then. I said basically the same on page one


jefmcg said:


> Sorry to be dense, but if it is only just wide enough for two cars to pass then surely it's not wide enough for 2 cars and a bicycle, but plenty wide enough for 2 bikes and a car. I real have no idea what they did wrong.


that got this non-answer 


gavroche said:


> I also said that the road was twisting a lot and may be should have added very few long straights to overtake safely.


----------



## doog (13 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> But the slightest disturbance - and he's back to being fierce and feral!  Yup, @doog - that's you.



Thats nice but when did this place start being a popularity contest ?

Pop over to touring mate, you will see me at my absolute fiercest amongst sensible folk with no agendas...


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2016)

User said:


> The cyclists were there, and it was their call.


Perhaps they called it wrong? Cyclists have been known to make mistakes too!


----------



## Scoosh (13 May 2016)

*MOD NOTE:*
We've gone round the houses a few times on this thread and it's not going to get any better, so time to close.


----------

