Discussion in 'General' started by bigsharn, 29 Oct 2011.
Ah yes, I see it now. Thanks for point that out.
You can clearly see there isn't a straight ahead option unless you want to meet that fence. I've seen the junction myself on google maps, there is a LEFT and a RIGHT, to the left there's a little narrow thing and a bend off to the right but there is no straight ahead. This can clearly be seen in the video(s).
I'm going to take the "there is a straight ahead, the fence doesn't exist" along with the "everyone else is in the wrong, not me" making it invalid.
The roads I've seen it happen on, more so recently, have been resurfaced (And I mean properly, not that tar/gravel ****) within the last three years, and do not have anything that should phase a cyclist. Upcoming parked cars are also very rarely an issue, as there aren't a great deal of houses along most of the roads, and the businesses all have off-road parking.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Country lanes are narrow, the ones I tend to use have just enough room to get two vehicles past. Two cyclists occupying an entire half of the road riding two abreast is not easier to pass than a single file line. Nor is it easier to pass on larger, busier, roads - Because to give the cyclists enough space you need to go further into the oncoming lane. Not safe for anyone involved.
Unless riding two abreast means I can, like some drivers I've seen, pass with inches between the wing mirror and the rider?
I don't sit in rush hour traffic. I avoid congestion like the plague.
Not driving like a complete numpty, I've never been cut up by a truck. Reading the road, being observant, and being courteous to other road users allows me to drive, let people in where they need letting in, all without causing myself any issues what so ever.
If your passing safely on a country lane then I presume you are over taking in the on coming traffic lane? Cycling two abreast makes the object(s) being over taken no wider than a car and since its going much slower its much quicker to pass. Can't say i've ever seen this as a problem, I'd rather be "stuck" behind two cyclist for a minute than a driver doing 50 for an hour.
Having never seen a cyclist do anything stupid prior to this thread (i've never been looking and drive/ride very little in rush hour), I was riding back home this morning at about 8.30am through Guildford on my motorbike, and just as the junction light turned green in front of me, and cyclist flew right past all three lanes of traffic, clearly going through a red at the junction he just came from - all three lanes of traffic erupted in beeping horns (i was filtered in so there were actually 4 vehicles), and off he zoomed. What's most amazing, is he rode past a copper that had stopped at his red light, who didn't do a thing. I caught up with him with relative ease on my motorbike and managed to get a word in, saying "you know you just went straight through a red light in front of a copper and 3 lanes of moving traffic?" and the tool outright denied it repeatedly. I gave him a nice burst of exhaust and off I went. Of course none of the cars could keep up with him weaving about so he got off scott free. Ridiculous.
I can now see why a lot of people hate cyclists.
Edit: and bigsharn - just to extend on the helmet thing. You say helmets make you physically sick? I say you did actually get some damage done when you crashed without one, and now you have some crackpot psychological quasi-placebo effect that means you are subconsciously and consciously convinced helmets are bad and thus you vomit when you get near one. I'm actually laughing out loud while typing this, the reality of it being that ridiculously STUPID! Man alive, you are a grade A muppet to think that a helmet is useless. You're effectively saying it's fine for me not to wear my helmet on my motorbike as long as I don't do more than 20mph, it won't do any harm if I fall.
Hmmm. Yes it will. I suspect 20mph is probably enough to kill with an injury to the head and I wouldn't be surprised if 10mph was too.
I should also point out that I don't have a problem with cyclists - as a motorcyclist I feel like there is probably some inter-cousin love going on between the two groups or something - i've never had a problem with them and doubt I will - so don't pin me as a hater in advance! I just think your helmet rule is bat-**** crazy.
I used to cycle to work and university all the time, so I'm used to riding on the road. What annoys me most nowadays as primarily a car driver is that when I cycle on the road, I always give way to faster moving traffic (i.e. cars, buses, lorries etc). I think I must have seen one other cyclist do that in recent memory. Most will quite happily cause a tailback, rather than do the decent thing and pull over/ride on the pavement to let people go past. It does actually say that slow moving traffic is supposed to give way to faster traffic in the Highway Code.
It's certainly time efficient to cycle to work where I live, because if you drive you tend to get held up by bloody cyclists.
Yes, but going further into the oncoming traffic lane increases the time spent there, where as single file means you spend slightly longer with a smaller footprint in the oncoming traffic lane, as oppose to the entire car footprint.
I don't care how they ride, so long as they are aware that to practice the courtesy they claim is lacking, it'd be nicer if they reduced width (IE filtering into single file) so people could pass them with a little more ease, and a little less need to concern oncoming traffic.
If I'm courteous to them, they should return the favour - And yet, I see common courtesy ignored completely by cyclists riding two abreast.
Gets my back up.
Hey sorry I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
My comment on the front page is an aweful bit of grammar.
What I meant was: "Cars pulling out in front of you happens whether your in a car/bike/walking etc, you just have to deal with it, thats why you have brakes. That guy needed to calm down a bit".
However I think headcams on a bike is a great idea, even if its just to create awarenes and figure out what happened if you are knocked over and killled. Motor vehicles need to remember they are responsible for their driving.
I will have a good read of this later tonight and post some more reply's.
But just on the helmet thing they're a legal requirement in NZ. And I know quite a few people (including myself) that have survived because of them/would have survived if they'd been wearing one.
I love all of my motorcycle buddies, you always give me a cheery nod when I give a cheery wave.
I pulled up alongside a rocket the other day (chuffing enormous!) and had a bit of a chat with the owner. He made fun of the size of my 'engine'
Id also like to thank the chap from yesterday who let me filter through traffic behind him and the lady (or long shiny haired, curvy gent) who challenged me to a race - good times!
I have twice had my life saved by wearing a helmet, anyone that doesn't shouldn't be allowed to ride on the roads.
If you are passing the same lane on a "narrow country road" at any kind of speed you are too close, simples. If the pair of riders are happy enough to be two abreast when you pass them in the other lane that is their business. Many cyclists may filter down to single file but its not required in much the same way that its not required of a slower car to immediately get out of your way.
I see common courtesy completely ignored by drivers every day what ever mode of transport I'm using. I see common courtesy completely ignored by many people every day one might go so far as to say its becoming uncommon.
Poor road use gets every ones back up but riding two abreast is neither poor road use nor illegal and lets face it beyond your perception that it slows you down it doesn't really effect your life so why worry about it?
I think this is a valid point.
Bring Back Tuffty ...
Just to make this clear, most cyclist have insurance through other means, it is so cheap to insure a cyclist because they cause proportionally so little damage it is free with your home and contents.
Obviously identification is a problem but then identifying a car can also be difficult look at the number of hit and runs for an extreme example. My old car was covered and dents and ding and scratches not from kamikaze cyclists filtering up the lane but people parking too close and opening their doors on the car. Did the fact that all of these had number plates help get my car repaired?
I am never too close to cyclists. I don't trust the half cut jackasses that ride around here not to damage themselves on my car, my car, and then blame me. I'm not having that ****.
Let me get this straight.
You think, because it's not illegal, that it's perfectly acceptable for cyclists to ride two abreast, and slow traffic to ~10mph, because it's not safe enough to pass them (As you would be entirely in the oncoming lane, where the oncoming traffic is), yet if they were in single file it would be perfectly safe to go past and not impede the traffic flow?
If you also think that cyclists deserve the entire lane, why does every council disagree with cycle lanes being considerably smaller than motor vehicle lanes?
Cyclists are the slowest traffic on the road, they should not be at liberty to impede the flow of traffic - Much the same way that vehicles limited to considerably below (55mph) the 70mph speed limit are not allowed to be in the outside lane of a motorway.
Your attitude seems very much "Drivers aren't all courteous, so cyclists should be allowed to be shitheads". I've said it before, and I'll say it again: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Perhaps people wouldn't hate cyclists so much if they weren't, by and large, irresponsible dickheads with ideas way above their station.
I've only just seen Pookeyheads post - And I agree. Cyclists should have registrations, and insurance. If they want to be "equal road users" they can abide by our rules, too.
If we are talking about a busy road then no I would say its entirely appropriate for cyclist to be in single file as is recommend by the highway code, but since you earlier post suggest narrow country lanes I had quiet country lanes in mind tbh not major arterial roads. Cross purposes...
Thing is cyclist are traffic and were long before cars came along. Roads are paid for from council tax so on average cyclists pay the same for the up keep of the roads and are entitled to use the whole lane, good manners and fear of bad drivers keeps cyclists on the inside of the lane. Personally I'd get rid of cycle lanes they lead to the impression that cyclists belong out of sight out of mind etc and reinforce that plus the state of them means they are just a waste of money and a general token gesture.
My attitude is that cyclists are people as are drivers. All are shitheads some of the time. I drive as much as a cycle and see all road users behaving irresponsibly.
Ideas above their station like the idea that they own the road, eh?
Cyclists should abide by the highway code but so should drivers, for every red light running unlighted moron there is a **** doing 40 past a school.
Yeah sorry I didn't read the whole thread, just the first few posts, and what the hell is going on in here? It can't be so damn hard to just fit on the same road with each other and deal with it. Some people are assholes, no doubt, but it doesn't necessarily mean you should go "wahh people hate cyclists" or buy a damn helmet camera just to post the stuff on youtube.
No offense to the OP personally ofcourse, but I checked the gaz545's video, and if those are the worst ones during 2 years and 10 k miles in rush hour London then what the **** is actually the problem? He caused most part of the problem on those videos anyway...
(Oh also I'm an avid cyclist, spent ten years cycling to school every day, so don't give me any of that "omg you hate bicycles"-bs.)
Yelling and whining isn't going to solve anything and if you get a car, knowing all the rules and regulations isn't going to help if you're never going to walk again. Be careful and take it easy.
Most of the time they won't be holding you up for a great length of time anyway ...Besides, pavement cycling is illegal.
You mean Rule 169?
"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
If there are no passing points on the road, how are we meant to achieve that? Indicating off into a layby and waiting while traffic lets you out? Let's see how that worked out for me earlier...
And I suppose those 50+ cyclists would be better off in cars, causing further tailbacks?
Most of them only provide insurance against theft or damages to the bicycle itself. They don't provide 3rd party liability insurance.
As I posted earlier I bought the camera as an insurance policy, the posting bits on YouTube is a byproduct.
No, I'm not ignoring the helmet posts, my answer is this...
The only helmets I can physically wear safely are full face motorcycle helmets, and when cycling therse get far too warm. I have a double crown (which for those that don't know is a lump of bone protruding out of the back of the skull where it's developed wrong) and getting a bicycle helmet to fit me correctly is impossible without getting them custom made, which on my wage is NOT going to happen any time soon. My former bike helmet fit until 10 but since then, I've not worn one.
</helmet debate... please?>
No, I'm not ignoring the helmet posts, my answer is this...
I'll post this link just once more...
Ctc membership includes it as do many other things, third party insurance is very very cheap for cyclists
Fixed for you
With the above I did just mean home insurance providers, sorry if I never made that clear.
Thank you, that'll teach me to not check after posting
Separate names with a comma.