Cyclists two abreast on busy 'A' road, selfish?

[mattyprice4004]

Of course not, i just think they should pay tax regardless of the emissions they throw out.

Safety comes first as always, and it's a hell of a lot safer for a pushbike to be on the pavement than on the road. Yes, i understand they aren't allowed on the pavement unless it's a cycle lane, but i think the law should be changed so that they must use the pavement instead of the road. Would save a lot of lives and mostly eliminate the war between car and bicycle users. Obviously there would be exceptions where there are no pavements and the cyclist is forced to use the road and it is permitted to use the road in these circumstances.

It's a daft old fashioned law that needs updating. As daft as these farty 10m cycle lanes on the pavement that lead back on to the road. Waste of time spending money painting cycle lane lines in an attempt to increase the safety of the cyclist, but those lines then lead them back on to the road anyway. Just let them cycle on the pavement and be done with it.

Not appropriate, play nice or you won't be playing. So if I'm walking my 18 month old daughter on her reigns (who naturally will wander about as kids do) how will you account for that while doing 15-20mph on your bike?

What if a kid wanders about on the pavement, or someone walks out of an entry, or someone crosses the road and steps onto the pavement and you happen to come speeding along?

This world would be so much better if people thought before they spoke...

 

[Bobcat]

Why should a vehicle that doesn't emit any CO2 pay tax?

It still pays mandatory insurance to be on the road, what mandatory insurance does a bicycle pay?

 

[Phantom Shadow]

Haven't read every single post in here but have read a few pages.

Cyclists and VED? Fine, put cyclists under the same taxation system as cars - based on CO2 output the charge would be £0 per year, no change from now.

Insurance - usually 3rd party liability insurance will be held as part of home insurance, members of british cycling also get 3rd party liability insurance as part of membership.

Riding 2 abreast - not against the highway code. Would you be more annoyed at 2 bikes riding side by side causes a tail back, or a car driving at 15mph causing a tail back? Chances are the bikes will annoy you more, yet both require the same overtaking procedure. If the road is too small and twisty to safely overtake 2 cyclists riding abreast without the fear of oncoming traffic - then can you explain to me what difference them riding single file will make? Maybe you now think you can overtake and if a car comes the other way you will just squeeze past? You should still be giving the cyclist the space of a car, and if you are then 1 or 2 cyclists riding abreast will have no impact on the overtake, both require you to drive along the wrong side of the road for a short distance. Riding in single file actually increases this distance for which you must drive down the wrong side of the road.

Riding on pavements - how would you feel walking down a pavement with cyclists whizzing past you? Probably the same as cyclists now feel with cars whizzing past way too close. How about if you are walking your dog or have your son/daughter with you? Then you will be complaining about all these cyclists and how they should be on the road.

Think those are the main points, any other complaints from anyone?

and yes I do also drive so do pay insurance, VED, have passed a driving test and understand all the problems from both sides.

Personally I feel bikes should be licensed the same way as cars and motorbikes, requiring a license plate. On a bike you are practically anonymous, in a car you have a number plate people can keep record of if you do something stupid. Cyclists are quite often insured, but it should also be a requirement in my opinion that all cycles also have third party insurance.

 

[Burnsy2023]

When I cycle now, it's normally two abreast, because that's what I've been trained to do. It's certainly not illegal or against the highway code.

If anyone had a problem with me doing that, they certainly haven't had the stupidity to voice it yet.

 

[Lethagized]

So if I'm walking my 18 month old daughter on her reigns (who naturally will wander about as kids do) how will you account for that while doing 15-20mph on your bike?

What if a kid wanders about on the pavement, or someone walks out of an entry, or someone crosses the road and steps onto the pavement and you happen to come speeding along?

This world would be so much better if people thought before they spoke...

Great. Someone has to come in with the name calling. Grow up. I'm not even going to answer you other than this reply.

 

[Lethagized]

Riding on pavements - how would you feel walking down a pavement with cyclists whizzing past you? Probably the same as cyclists now feel with cars whizzing past way too close. How about if you are walking your dog or have your son/daughter with you? Then you will be complaining about all these cyclists and how they should be on the road.

Personally I feel bikes should be licensed the same way as cars and motorbikes, requiring a license plate. On a bike you are practically anonymous, in a car you have a number plate people can keep record of if you do something stupid. Cyclists are quite often insured, but it should also be a requirement in my opinion that all cycles also have third party insurance.

I agree about the license plates on bicycles. As for the danger on the pavement, there are plenty of people that go wizzing about on pavements with their bikes, How many young kids do you see driving in the road? Have you ever heard of anybody dying because a bicycle ran into them? Compare that to how many cyclists have died because they've been hit by cars/lorries.

I also have a mountain bike and i drive on the pavement because i don't fancy trusting my life to some careless driver on their mobile phone. There is so much that can go wrong. I don't want to take a gamble with my life, so i take the safest route, and that is the pavement every time.

 

[dunker]

^get on the road, ride like you would if on a motorbike, fear will make you pedal faster. specially round those slow blind uphill bends, you wanna live forever?!

 

[Rimsy]

When I cycle now, it's normally two abreast, because that's what I've been trained to do. It's certainly not illegal or against the highway code.

If anyone had a problem with me doing that, they certainly haven't had the stupidity to voice it yet.

You say normally - when wouldn't you ride two abreast?

 

[Tefal]

i do think cyclists should have mandatory insurance

 

[Lopéz]

I guess it could be argued that whilst it may not be emitting CO2 it's still causing wear to the roads?

This is completely off topic though.

It's not relevant either - given that VED isn't ringfenced for paying to repair wear to roads, so it doesn't matter if vehicles are causing wear to roads or not.

 

[oli collett]

The idea of bikes having license plates is completely unworkable and pointless.

 

[Nexus]

I agree about the license plates on bicycles. As for the danger on the pavement, there are plenty of people that go wizzing about on pavements with their bikes, How many young kids do you see driving in the road? Have you ever heard of anybody dying because a bicycle ran into them? Compare that to how many cyclists have died because they've been hit by cars/lorries.

I also have a mountain bike and i drive on the pavement because i don't fancy trusting my life to some careless driver on their mobile phone. There is so much that can go wrong. I don't want to take a gamble with my life, so i take the safest route, and that is the pavement every time.

Riding your license plate shod mountain bike on the pavement would make it substantially easier to charge you with the offence of cycling on the pavement. Smart.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

172 posts on a topic which comes up about once every two or three weeks and what have we learned?

Nothing :smart:

 

[One More Solo]

I think that's unfair Magnolia, we have learnt the majority of posters in here are still knobs.

 

[Lakeland]

Simply bad manors if cyclists stay two abreast while there is traffic being held up behind them.

Sometimes I will ride side by side for a quick chat but as soon as I hear a car coming I'll drop back to single file.

 

[Jonny69]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[newbiejim]

When I cycle now, it's normally two abreast, because that's what I've been trained to do. It's certainly not illegal or against the highway code.

If anyone had a problem with me doing that, they certainly haven't had the stupidity to voice it yet.

Who trained you?

Would you go single file if there was a substantial traffic queue building up?

When you say about anyone voicing an opinion regarding this it sounds like you would react aggressively?

 

[arknor]

some of the stuff in here is ridiculous it's clear a lot of people in cars do think they own the road.....
Put your L plates back on your clearly a liability

 

[uvarvu]

Never mind the roads, I get fed up with cyclists riding two abreast on the cycle path between Bristol and Bath. Some will revert to single file when they see you coming the other way but most expect you to pass right on the edge of the path brushing against the thorns and nettles.

 

[arknor]

Never mind the roads, I get fed up with cyclists riding two abreast on the cycle path between Bristol and Bath. Some will revert to single file when they see you coming the other way but most expect you to pass right on the edge of the path brushing against the thorns and nettles.

one thing I hate about shared footpaths is the pedestrians always go to the outside of the path so I have to ride where all the sticks and thorns are scattered on the floor