Two cyclists just gave me some verbal

[Dr Who]

Hold you up. You mean it takes you an extra 30 secs to get somewhere.

Well done for quoting a dictionary perfect definition of holding you up.

If I was out in my car and slowed to a speed that held up cyclists, they would be gesturing me to get out the way as well. Simple fact is Cyclists are the slowest moving road users and to go 2 abreast, uphill, to maintain a conversation with no regard to other road users is selfish and contrary to what the highway code suggests is good practice.

If the driver had to speed past close to the outside cyclist he would have received abuse as well. In this case he correctly indicated his presence and gave to cyclists the opportunity to move to a safer road position. As a result he was verbally abused. Much like the lorry driver in the other cyclist thread who tried to indicate it was unsafe for the cyclist to pass (allegedly).

 

[Dr Who]

No wonder they didn't hear you the first time if you were over 190 feet away the 2nd time

So how far were you really

Your horn doesn't carry 190 feet? Wow I would get that seen to if I was you.

 

[Dr Who]

What we need is a picture of the road in question to decide whether the OP could've overtaken safely anyway or if the cyclists were the ones being inconsiderate.

Surely that depends on other factors such as oncoming traffic?

 

[mattyg]

Your horn doesn't carry 190 feet? Wow I would get that seen to if I was you.

I'm sure it does, However a car beeping his horn from nearly 200 feet away doesn't indicate anything.

 

[Dogbreath]

But youre not showing them consideration
Hold you up. You mean it takes you an extra 30 secs to get somewhere.

Maybe 30 seconds, maybe 15 minutes as per a journey I made recently. Massive tailback on a B road with the traffic crawling along for miles until finally I reach the cause of the problem: two lycra clad road warriors (aka dick heads) riding abreast, removing many overtaking opportunities.

 

[Threepwood]

Cyclist riding side by side [no more than two] is perfectly legal, and SAFER for all involved.

I will never understand people who cannot grasp this.

Two cyclists are no wider than a car. Do idiot car drivers beep at cars for not folding up into half the size before over taking them?

 

[The Running Man]

Cyclist riding side by side [no more than two] is perfectly legal, and SAFER for all involved.

I will never understand people who cannot grasp this.

Two cyclists are no wider than a car. Do idiot car drivers beep at cars for not folding up into half the size before over taking them?

Two bikes side by side is far harder to pass than one single bike. You should always give way if you are doing substantially lower speed than those overtaking and certainly not make it more difficult to pass than necessary - which the pair of cyclists here have tried to do.

 

[Thomas. PLease.]

I just do not understand some of the attitudes in this thread. Why is it you are bothered about being held up for a matter of seconds when there are peoples lives at stake. It just blows my mind. Its as if as soon as somebody steps into a car they feel they need to drive at the speed limit everywhere they go, and god forbid them being held up by anything.

Relax, and think for a second. Sure it could be seen as a little inconsiderate to ride two abreast, but in actuality it is usually much safer for the cyclists because it makes cars slow down and overtake in a safer manner using the other side of the road when its possible to do so.

 

[shauncr91]

I just do not understand some of the attitudes in this thread. Why is it you are bothered about being held up for a matter of seconds when there are peoples lives at stake. It just blows my mind. Its as if as soon as somebody steps into a car they feel they need to drive at the speed limit everywhere they go, and god forbid them being held up by anything.

Relax, and think for a second. Sure it could be seen as a little inconsiderate to ride two abreast, but in actuality it is usually much safer for the cyclists because it makes cars slow down and overtake in a safer manner using the other side of the road when its possible to do so.

So what you're saying, is that by giving cars less space to pass is actually safer? Just because someone is overtaking slower doesn't means it safest, it's better and safer to go past at 30 and be facing oncoming traffic for 2 seconds than 10mph with less space on the road for 6 seconds. If you feel vulnerable being passed by fast moving traffic then you shouldn't be riding a bike.

 

[Thomas. PLease.]

So what you're saying, is that by giving cars less space to pass is actually safer? Just because someone is overtaking slower doesn't means it safest, it's better and safer to go past at 30 and be facing oncoming traffic for 2 seconds than 10mph with less space on the road for 6 seconds. If you feel vulnerable being passed by fast moving traffic then you shouldn't be riding a bike.

In my experience yes. There's something about a single cyclist that car drivers seem to think they can squeeze past without moving onto the other side of the road. Depending on rider placement obviously. Speed isn't the factor here, nor is space. There is ample room on a road for the driver to pass, usually they choose not to use it if it inconveniences their progress. They'd rather chance killing another human for the sake of a few seconds. Go figure.

If the riders are two abreast it forces the car driver to slow down, and usually to overtake when oncoming traffic allows, in a safer manner leaving a wider berth using the opposite side of the road.

 

[sharpygsxr]

no matter what you drive your always gonna get idiots on the road, and your always gonna remember those people more than the huge majority who cause no issues whatsoever.

As a motorcyclist ive noticed so many road users are considerate, when they see a biker coming along they move to the side to let me go past, if im filtering you see some drivers actually move slightly to give you some space.

On the flip side ive seen quite a few actually try and close the gap so you cant get through, or some actually drive with their wing on the middle road markings to try and make as much an obstacle as possible.

Happens to us all mate, cyclists are generally the least of my worries on the road.

As a motorcyclist im generally not taking any risks when riding as i know in the event of any accident with a motorist im always gonna come off second best. I can only imagine that feeling is magnified further by a cyclist knowing that they are more vulnerable than i am. At least i have the power and speed to get around most obstacles, they dont so i always give cyclists more due care and attention.

I sorta treat them as passing some horse riders, i reduce my speed, pass them when i have a clear view of the road ahead and generally be a considerate road user, only difference is the cyclists are dropping smaller piles of manure on the road surface

Love ya guys, 2 wheels stick together until im sitting at traffic lights in a cyclist box and one has a go at me, sigh

 

[ShiWarrior]

I just do not understand some of the attitudes in this thread. Why is it you are bothered about being held up for a matter of seconds when there are peoples lives at stake. It just blows my mind. Its as if as soon as somebody steps into a car they feel they need to drive at the speed limit everywhere they go, and god forbid them being held up by anything.

Relax, and think for a second. Sure it could be seen as a little inconsiderate to ride two abreast, but in actuality it is usually much safer for the cyclists because it makes cars slow down and overtake in a safer manner using the other side of the road when its possible to do so.

I am not going to argue in this thread, but +1 to Thomas

 

[Dr Who]

If the riders are two abreast it forces the car driver to slow down, and usually to overtake when oncoming traffic allows, in a safer manner leaving a wider berth using the opposite side of the road.

Actually the reverse is true, it increases frustration and cause drivers to take more risks, looking for the tiniest opportunity to get past. They will accelerate hard leaving them little time to react to any changes. It is that belief you have that makes cyclists think otherwise.

If the driver has to cross over the centre he is more likely to have to cut back quickly putting the cyclist at even greater risk.

On most roads there is plenty of wiggle room within the lane to pass leaving a cyclist plenty of space unless he is a metre+ from the kerb which appears to be the place of choice for many cyclists these days. Quite simply the cyclist is the most vulnerable road user so should act like it and not aggravate other road users into taking unnecessary risks. I have been cycling for 35 years and rarely, if ever had any issues with other road users that made me feel unsafe when I was riding sensibly.

Frankly what we really need is more cycle ways to get the cycles off the road as much as possible. A cycle shares more in common with a pedestrian from a vulnerability point of view so keeping them off the road would be safest for all.

Sadly the reality is we do not spend enough on all forms of infrastructure including cyclists, if we did, maybe more drivers would use cycles?

 

[Dr Who]

Love ya guys, 2 wheels stick together until im sitting at traffic lights in a cyclist box and one has a go at me, sigh

Well on a motorcycle you shouldn't be in a cycle box unless you had to stop there as the light changed to red.

Motorcyclists are no more allowed in a cycle box than a car.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400018009433

 

[sharpygsxr]

if the light turns red while im filtering then ill be in that cyclist box, rather than sitting between two rows of traffic, effectively blocking any cyclists from getting through.

Havent seen one incident of a mototcyclist been given a fine for that tho, so cheers for the link, maybe a bit more strict on that elsewhere as never seen it a problem in Belfast. Probably jinxed myself now tho

Altho sayin that ive never seen a cyclist penalised for running through red lights either.

 

[mattyg]

Actually the reverse is true, it increases frustration and cause drivers to take more risks, looking for the tiniest opportunity to get past. They will accelerate hard leaving them little time to react to any changes. It is that belief you have that makes cyclists think otherwise.

If the driver has to cross over the centre he is more likely to have to cut back quickly putting the cyclist at even greater risk.

On most roads there is plenty of wiggle room within the lane to pass leaving a cyclist plenty of space unless he is a metre+ from the kerb which appears to be the place of choice for many cyclists these days. Quite simply the cyclist is the most vulnerable road user so should act like it and not aggravate other road users into taking unnecessary risks. I have been cycling for 35 years and rarely, if ever had any issues with other road users that made me feel unsafe when I was riding sensibly.

Frankly what we really need is more cycle ways to get the cycles off the road as much as possible. A cycle shares more in common with a pedestrian from a vulnerability point of view so keeping them off the road would be safest for all.

Sadly the reality is we do not spend enough on all forms of infrastructure including cyclists, if we did, maybe more drivers would use cycles?

Take that situation.

Its the driver who is causing the issue not the cyclists.

If your behind them your getting annoyed.. If I'm behind them I'm not.
So its you who's the issue NOT the cyclist.

"You" as in the angry motorist not necessarily YOU

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

Personally I think if cylcists want to ride on the road with other cars they must have:

1. Insurance
2. Mirrors

Why they don't have have actual insurance is absolutely beyond me.

I'm with you on this one.
I really don't understand the insurance stance tbh.
If you have an accident with a cyclist and its your fault I bet they would do eveythign possible to claim from your insurance.

If it's deemed their fault, not a single **** would be given no doubt from what I've seen posted before.

I do understand however that some cyclists have bike insurance as some bikes are silly expensive, not sure how it works in case of an accident or even if its the same as car insurance tho

 

[Participant]

Because when you take your five year old out onto the cul-de-sac to give them cycling lessons, you'd have to buy insurance for it. It's the floodgates argument.

Simple fact is Cyclists are the slowest moving road users

That's simply not true. Horses walking and tractors are generally slower. Do you drive up to their arses beeping and overtaking 2 feet from them?

Treat cyclists on the road like you'd treat horses on the road and we'll all get along just fine.

 

[Dis86]

I'm with you on this one.
I really don't understand the insurance stance tbh.
If you have an accident with a cyclist and its your fault I bet they would do eveythign possible to claim from your insurance.

If it's deemed their fault, not a single **** would be given no doubt from what I've seen posted before.

I do understand however that some cyclists have bike insurance as some bikes are silly expensive, not sure how it works in case of an accident or even if its the same as car insurance tho

Should every pedestrian that crosses the road have insurance? You know, in case it's their fault when they step out in front of a car without looking?

 

[mattyg]

Should every pedestrian that crosses the road have insurance? You know, in case it's their fault when they step out in front of a car without looking?

Actually I think we ALL should have some liability insurance or something.

I had a kid scrape down the side of my car with his bike about 15 yrs ago.

Had to pay for it myself