Two cyclists just gave me some verbal

~Divine~Wind~ said:
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
Click to expand...

a lot of cyclists will be members of british cycling purely for the discounts at wiggle and halfords ,the lowest membership starts at £32 a year and has Up to £10m third party liability insurance
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/memst-Third-Party-Liability-Insurance-0

Reading some of the comments from cyclists, has shown why they are such a pain in the bum on the road. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Just stay out of the way.
Click to expand...
They are entitled to ride in the centre of the road if they choose to.
nothing says they are forced into the gutter where they are likely to get punctures from all the crap that gathers along them

I bet the cyclists would have fallen into single file when they heard his car coming if he wasn't beeping like a mad man
 
Last edited:
Slam62 said:
Reading some of the comments from cyclists, has shown why they are such a pain in the bum on the road. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Just stay out of the way.
Click to expand...

They're equally entitled to use the roads as anyone else.
You're the one showing your perceived sense of entitlement.

Why don't you stay out of the way of other road users including cyclists for that matter? That's right, because you have equal rights to them!
 
Thomas. PLease. said:
It works both ways! Cyclists are just as much entitled to use the road as cars, motorbikes, horses and any other mode of transport!
Click to expand...

I think I'd be happy if the playing field was level.

I don't thrash it past cyclists, I don't honk at them and I don't curse out the window at them.
However I do feel helmets, number plates, some form of CBT and insurance need to be used. I feel it is these reasons why motorists dislike the cyclist. There are many poor drivers out there, but I'm genuinely surprised at the attitude of some cyclists when they have zero protection against an impact - It is the lack of safety why I don't cycle on the roads myself. I genuinely feel that if I cycled to work every day then it is only a matter of time until I get knocked off and the air ambulance has to come along to scrape me and my mangled legs off the road.

OP: I think I'd have given a suitable window of time for the cyclists to move out the way before honking the horn as I'd only use it as a last resort. Especially if you get held at some lights just up ahead one of the cyclists could 'accidently' key your car with his handlebars.
 
Last edited:
As a cyclist myself (in the summer :D) Threads like this do really boil my ****.

Unless it is a single track road, use the other side of the road, wind your ****ing neck in and get on with your journey / life.
 
Not the old "TWO ABREAST" is wrong, while i sympathies with the response given by the cyclists as the OP passed its hardly surprising if your sounding your horn. I ride quite frequently and when ever someone sounds there horn next to me it scares the life out of me, whilst i expect to hear the cars and lorries i don't expect to hear the sound of a horn so close to me unless there is real danger. Me riding my bike 2ft from the kerb does not present a danger to anyone. Riding two abreast would take up the same if not less space on the road as a car so there so be no difference overtaking them than a slow moving vehicle or even a horse, i bet the same people sounding their horns at cyclist would not sound their horns at a horse and rider..........the point being is that generally motorist sounding their horns at cyclists do so in anger. If your in your car and someone sounds their horn at you whats the first thing that happens, it generally startles you so why should a cyclist be any different.
 
miniyazz said:
Lol :rolleyes: I've yet to see you come up with a valid argument for why it's safer for cyclists to ride two abreast vs single file



I especially enjoyed the part where you describe blind dips as 'will at least be visible' but your utter faith in the road signage also provided amusement if slightly concerning that you're presumably one of those people who drive at the posted speed at all times regardless of weather/road conditions, since because the sign says so it must be safe.



Really? What counts as 'many'? There are certainly too many roads that are wide enough to pass in the same lane for me to be bothered to list them.
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I stated that argument. I've just stated it's perfectly legal for them to do so. So again, try harder.

You can see a dip in the road, therefore making a logical leap one can assume there is a possibility of it being blind and therefore a dumb place to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre.

The argument in question is about narrow country roads so one can assume that not many narrow country roads are going to be wide enough...
 
Gribs said:
It's safer because people will generally take more consideration when overtaking. A normal road user doesn't want to hit someone so if they have to move into the opposite lane they'll wait until it's clear and there's plenty of room as they consider that to be reasonably dangerous. Riding in single file there may be enough room to physically pass when there's oncoming traffic so cars will pass much closer as there's less risk to them.
Click to expand...

When cycling if I'm two abreast I always slow down/speed up when cars approach because being two abreast is inconsiderate. If I'm concerned about the space available to overtake and car drivers taking risks with my safey two abreast is IMO even worse as it will pee off the drivers and lead to more risk taking, plus realistically it decreases the amount of space I have to avoid hazards.
The correct thing to do in these situations, which neither I nor many other cyclists have any hesitation in doing (reading this and other such threads), is to use road positioning to achieve everything two abreast manages without 90% of the added risks.
Thus e.g. approaching roundabouts I will position myself in the centre of the lane I wish to be in, this way cars will treat me as a 'proper' road user and my intentions are crystal clear as an added bonus.
 
Dis86 said:
Nowhere have I stated that argument. I've just stated it's perfectly legal for them to do so. So again, try harder.

You can see a dip in the road, therefore making a logical leap one can assume there is a possibility of it being blind and therefore a dumb place to attempt an overtaking manoeuvre.

The argument in question is about narrow country roads so one can assume that not many narrow country roads are going to be wide enough...
Click to expand...

What is it with this try harder rubbish? I'm not arguing a legal point, I'm arguing a safety point. If you want to disagree and say that it's safer to ride two abreast, please do so and actually say why instead of simply disparaging my comments for what appears to be a reason I'm not even arguing.

The whole point with signs warning of a blind dip is that you might not otherwise notice a) a dip (and therefore potentially blind) or b) a blind dip (and therefore a dumb place to overtake). If everyone is always able to notice a blind dip in advance there would be no need for the signs.. anywhere. Besides, a blind dip is just one of a number of risks - e.g. a layby or junction where cars might pull out from unexpectedly (guess what, not all junctions are easily visible either).

Where has this narrow country roads come from? Certainly nothing I've said. While the thread discussion is vaguely about rural cycling there are as many if not more roads in the country wide enough to pass a cyclist without crossing to the other lane - mostly A roads, some of which used to be three-laned - clearly if you are going to specifically preclude wide roads from this particular argument by specifying 'narrow country roads' then shock as these roads are not wide enough to pass a cyclist without moving into the other lane.
 
Dolph said:
But you should allow a cyclist the same space as a car according to the highway code, so that is twaddle because the distance between car and cyclist is much closer than it would be if they were riding sensibly.

The sheer ability of cyclists to try and justify being ****s on the road never ceases to amaze me, the mental gymnastics, double standards and so on involved suggests some sort of mental impairment must be involved.
Click to expand...

Can you remind the forum how you got your medal of Honor? You come across as the Russell Brand of the forum using a wide range of vocabulary to try and justify your strong opinions :rolleyes:
 
Dolph said:
The sheer ability of motorists to try and justify being ****s on the road never ceases to amaze me, the mental gymnastics, double standards and so on involved suggests some sort of mental impairment must be involved.
Click to expand...

True Dolph, we motorists are complete ***** who think we own the road.
 
About a week ago I was on a narrow road. Spent absolute ages looking for a safe enough opportunity to overtake a cyclist, found one took it. I was happy at this point even though I'd been behind him for ages. A minute later pedestrian crossing. Knowing how inconsiderate most cyclists are I decided to stop as close to the stop-line threshold as possible; the ****ing ******** decides to sweep through and wait ON the crossing right in front of my front bumper. Not only did the **** force me to drive at his tenth-of-a-horsepower speed for miles, he forced me to do it TWICE, and then also forced pedestrians to go around him at the crossing.

I have rarely wished death upon another human being, but I just couldn't help it in this case. I would have been quite content seeing him under a bus.

On the other hand, in a similar situation a few months back, one way road, it was impossible to overtake anywhere without putting the cyclist at risk, so I stayed several metres back... The cyclist actually stopped between some parked cars on the side and waved me though. Put my window down as I was passing gave him a thumbs up and shouted "thank you so much".
 
Even more concrete proof that cyclists roam around our streets looking for motorists to attack.
 
Surely the situation dictates how cyclists ride? If it's dangerous to ride on the edge of the road, I'd expect a cyclist to ride closer to the centre of the lane - I don't want them falling off and putting me in a position where I could potentially injure or kill them. As any road user, I'm supposed to wait for a safe opportunity to overtake - not just the moment at which I catch up to them.

Don't really see what the issue is, tbh.
 
You guys want to come down here and drive. We have cyclists, horse riders and tractors with whopping trailers! Guess what, the tractors don't pull over on my work commute as there isn't anywhere to do so!

I also only pass a cyclist in the other lane. I think trying to overtake one even in single file configuration in the same lane is downright dangerous. What if the cyclist wobbles as you go past and loses balance?

Some cyclists do have bad attitudes, but I think most of their upset comes from inconsiderable car drivers. Also - for the record I do not ride a push bike, if my knees allowed me I probably would though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom