Rant Silly Cyclists

I've done the London to Brighton, I live on the London to Brighton route, I watch the London to Brighton every year and I have NEVER seen anything like that.

 

I never said it was I was just providing information.

 

Then don't ride 2 abreast to make a point. It's dangerous in heavy traffic.

 

But why? It's clearly not a great idea to ride 2 abreast... why disseminate information that could encourage the practice? Would it not be be better to advocate that cyclists just don't do it.. in the interest of safety?


[edit]

Just a note on the video from the OP. While I do not in any way defend the driver's actions, or advocate such behaviour, there was no justification for that cyclist to shout out to that motorist. Yes, he cut the corner, but there was clearly good visibility for that motorist, and there was no safety issue that the cyclist needed to be concerned about: Cutting the corner was irrelevant to the cyclist. I do not understand why cyclists are defending him, when he is just doing NOTHING for you and your cause. He's making cyclists look like jumped up, opinionated pricks (which the cyclist in the video patently is). I do not agree that all cyclists have cams in order to do this. I do not think all cyclists are like this (I know tons of them). I DO however fail to see why there's such an allegiance of cyclists defending this behaviour... unless they also behave like this themselves... in which case, you're really not doing yourself any favours. If the driver in that video really did place him in danger through unsafe driving, then there may well be some justification for it, but all I saw there was an opinionated little dweeb hiding behind a camera and shouting self-righteous abuse at people.

I don't think there's any such thing as "road rage" either. There's just "rage". That motorist would have reacted like that if you'd have said something he didn't like in a pub just as readily as he did behind the wheel. Some people react violently because they are violent people. Which is why it's clearly not a great idea to shout anything at anyone unless there's an absolute need.

 

Car drivers are by far the worst road users, they should be forced to resit the test every 5 years or so ...every single day I see car drivers driving dangerously, most of them don't even understand the rules at simple junctions, choosing instead to conform to a nebulous 'rules of the road' version of the highway code.

Before people start banging on about cyclists being dangerous as well, a car is far more dangerous by default when compared to a bike(less opinion more physics), so car drivers should be expected to be much more careful & always give way to pedestrians and cyclists ....no excuses.

 

"Car drivers"...


So, you are saying that all car drivers are terrible?

I agree however, that the test should be resit every 5 years. I have no issue with this, because I'd pass it. Those who object probably do so because they seriously doubt their ability to pass it again (reason enough to have mandatory resits in my opinion).

However.... you can't say that "Car drivers" are the worst. That just makes you look rather silly. You're probably likely to see more bad behaviour from car drivers, because they are the MASSIVE majority of road users.

Stop generalising. I'm a superb driver. I had to be in order to be so qualified to teach others to drive. I'm not immune to mistakes, no... which is one reason why I'm so good (comparatively): There's no machismo involved. I know what the limits are; I'm aware of how I can (and do make mistakes... and more importantly, mitigate for my limitations), but above all, I have been trained to recognise hazards and drive accordingly. ANY student who learns to drive is taught this way. Some carry on driving in such a manner. (Good drivers).. some however, don't (crap drivers).

Please stop demonising ALL car drivers though.

 

Can you quote me saying that? ...if not your going to look rather silly.

If you go back and read what I actually said: "...every single day I see car drivers driving dangerously, most of them don't even understand the rules at simple junctions, choosing instead to conform to a nebulous 'rules of the road' version of the highway code."

Comparatively, I see a dangerous cyclist maybe 2-3 times per year, so the generalisation is valid, the fact that YOU are a good driver does not mean anything.

 

If you'd have said "Car drivers, by the sheer numbers of them compared to other road users are the worst danger", then I'd have not responded. Your statement implies that anyone who drives a car is by default the worst. Choose your words more carefully if you don't wish to be misunderstood.

Whether I'm a good driver or not changes nothing, no.. except to demonstrate that there are probably LOADS of great drivers out there (as I'm nothing special.. ex ADI or not) - just to add some balance to your sweeping generalisation.

 

Can you not tell the difference between those two statements? ....cos they each mean completely different things, maybe you need to take more time & read properly rather than the knee jerk reaction to what you think is being said.

 

Yes. One is a statement that seems to suggest that car drivers are not only the worst behaved road users, but are so BY FAR, and the other is a question, asking you to qualify your statement.

 

If you were asking for clarification, ...can you explain why you then started complaining straight after in the same post, instead of waiting for me to answer & clarify my statement?

...& yes I stand by my original statement, based on daily observation, Car drivers are by far the worst road users, the ratio of cars to other type of vehicles doesn't come into it or change this fact.

 

All I was suggesting was that had you worded it appropriately in the first place, no clarification would have been necessary.


[edit]

34 million cars vs. 750,000 daily commuting cyclists. Of course the cyclist's perception will be that more bad behaviour is demonstrated by car drivers. It's a no brainer, and a totally redundant thing to say.

 

Wow pookey, take a chill pill. Out of interest do you cycle regularly?

First of all I'm not blocking the road, I'm generally behind someone like my dad who is not as confident cycling and about a meter out from the pavement, for the (as above) oh s**t space. This is also useful as the closer you are to the edge of the road, the worse the surfacing gets making it increasingly dangerous at high speeds.

Second I'm not waving them through (that would be pretentious) I'm just making sure that I have oh s**t space until I know they're there. If they overtake me when I'm a meter out from the kerb there must have been lots of space, so good, we both win. If not I tuck in and prepare myself for the potential crash that being overtaken can cause, i.e. drive defensively.

This is what I am worried about.
being crushed as a driver gets too close to the kerb. Regardless of whos in the right or the wrong, that space can disappear in seconds, and with an extra foot of space there that guy wouldn't have been killed.

You can make assumptions about anyone and anything car drivers, cyclists etc. But come on, as we said "there are **** cyclists there are **** drivers" get over it.

 

Maybe you should be more observant then You a bike rider by any chance?

 

As I've already illustrated, it was worded perfectly, the only defect was your understanding, which was largely hindered by your knee jerk reaction ...your failure to understand the written word is not my responsibility.

As a car driver, I wouldn't know if that's true or not ..but wait!!!!!!! did you just sweepingly generalise the perception of ALL cyclists?????????

 

I used to cycle regularly, yes. I stopped when I realised that it was actually becoming more dangerous to do so. This is no one's fault. I'm not blaming anyone. It's merely a fact. Until all roads can segregate cycle traffic safely, there is inherent risk - one I decided I wasn't prepared to take.

Your above statement reads totally differently from the post I responded to, which implied that you rode two abreast to control the traffic... to control who overtakes you or not. I never assumed you were waving them through. I assumed you rode to abreast to prevent cars from passing you.... which would be horrifically dangerous.

Riding wide to "shield" your Dad from cars because he's not confident is just a ridiculous thing to do. You are placing yourself, and other road users in danger. You then say you tuck in if there's no room... in which case, you are no longer shielding your Dad from anything are you. Why not just ride single file in the first place?

No.. I merely rationalised that a cyclist is obviously more inclined to believe that car drivers are the worst road users. I never implied that you were either a cyclist or a car driver.

[edit] I actually assumed you were both if it helps to clarify things.. not that it would have any bearing on the point I was making.

 

So Yes, you are making sweeping generalisations about cyclists & how they perceive car drivers. ...that called hypocrisy in case your wondering.

 

No I'm not. I'm saying that you are far more likely to see car drivers behaving badly, no matter whether you are a cyclist or a driver. That in itself doesn't demonstrate that the percentage of car drivers who are bad is any greater than the percentage of cyclists who are bad... merely that you are more likely to encounter bad drivers than you are cyclists.

 

Because it means that someone has already taken the time to slow down and is also making a controlled maneuver past us rather than a fly past at top speed.

I'm not placing anyone in danger, apart from possibly myself if someone goes roaring around a corner. As I said it gives me room to dive into space if someone gets too close. It gives me room to crash into the pavement instead of under a wheel if they do hit me. That 1 meter of space is literally a life saver.

 

It's you I'm concerned about. I'd rather not kill you thanks