Bad Name

[apollo179]

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

Cyclksts can't hold up traffic. They are traffic.

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

 

[ttcycle]

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

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

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

 

[apollo179]

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

Correct

 

[Noodley]

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

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

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

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

 

[4F]

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

But one is breaking the law and one is not.

 

[apollo179]

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

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

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

 

[ttcycle]

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

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

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

 

[apollo179]

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

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

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

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

 

[apollo179]

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

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

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

 

[ttcycle]

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

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

 

[apollo179]

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

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

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

 

[ttcycle]

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

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

Route checking etc who knows?

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

 

[MontyVeda]

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

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

 

[youngoldbloke]

But one is breaking the law and one is not.

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

 

[apollo179]

Inspector Terri Poulton of the Surrey Police has backtracked on that one and apologized on the Cycling Weekly website for the blunt and inappropriate wording of the threatening leaflet.

Perhaps she took into account motorists unthinking but persistent driving two abreast in inappropriate circumstances.

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