Bad Name

[Noodley]

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

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

 

[twobiker]

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

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

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

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

 

[John the Monkey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My objection to the original post is twofold;

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

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

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

 

[4F]

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

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

 

[John the Monkey]

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

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

Gah, rarely has my signature here seemed so appropriate.

 

[freecyclist]

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

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

 

[Noodley]

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

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

 

[youngoldbloke]

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

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

 

[Noodley]

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

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

 

[Origamist]

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

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

 

[John the Monkey]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hip Priest]

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

Fin.

 

[Norm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[youngoldbloke]

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

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

 

[Origamist]

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

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