congratulations to all this week's cyclists

[Complainer]

When you get on a bike you take your life into your hands ,not the law into your hands.So it's single file and only side by side when it's safe.Next you will be cycling on pavements

Would it be safe to assume that by 'safe' you mean 'don't get in the way of any drivers in their big cars'. I don't think I've ever seen a road where it is unsafe for cyclists to cycle two abreast. It might slow down some cars, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

It certainly doesn't mean that a line of 20 cyclists in single file is safer than a bunch of 20 cyclists in a group. How can a car safely pass a line of 20 cyclists on a narrow, winding country road?

 

[mick1960]

Would it be safe to assume that by 'safe' you mean 'don't get in the way of any drivers in their big cars'. I don't think I've ever seen a road where it is unsafe for cyclists to cycle two abreast. It might slow down some cars, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

It certainly doesn't mean that a line of 20 cyclists in single file is safer than a bunch of 20 cyclists in a group. How can a car safely pass a line of 20 cyclists on a narrow, winding country road?

You have to accept that the law is the law.
You have never seen a road where it is unsafe to ride side by side? most country lanes would qualify there.
20 cyclist in a row (as the law requires) is a lot safer for the cyclist the driver in the car or truck does not die when hitting a bike.
A Lorry on a country road meeting bunched up cyclists coming the other way could potently be a blood bath.If they were in a single line the lorry would have enough space to get by.
A good idea with your 20 cyclist scenario,is for the group to spread out so there are gaps between for overtaking cars to slot into,This way every body gets to where they are going on time and in one piece. what you suggest is akin to saying it is better for people to walk down winding country roads in large groups.

 

[Purple]

You have to accept that the law is the law.
You have never seen a road where it is unsafe to ride side by side? most country lanes would qualify there.
20 cyclist in a row (as the law requires) is a lot safer for the cyclist the driver in the car or truck does not die when hitting a bike.
A Lorry on a country road meeting bunched up cyclists coming the other way could potently be a blood bath.If they were in a single line the lorry would have enough space to get by.
A good idea with your 20 cyclist scenario,is for the group to spread out so there are gaps between for overtaking cars to slot into,This way every body gets to where they are going on time and in one piece. what you suggest is akin to saying it is better for people to walk down winding country roads in large groups.

Well said, a reasonable and balanced post.

 

[Complainer]

You have to accept that the law is the law.

Can I take it that you've never broken a speed limit, or dropped litter, or jay-walked?

You have never seen a road where it is unsafe to ride side by side? most country lanes would qualify there.

You're missing the point. Most country lanes are not unsafe for riding two abreast. They may well be unsafe for a car to overtake two cyclists riding two abreast, but they are not unsafe for two cyclists.

20 cyclist in a row (as the law requires) is a lot safer for the cyclist the driver in the car or truck does not die when hitting a bike.

That's not what the law says.

A Lorry on a country road meeting bunched up cyclists coming the other way could potently be a blood bath.If they were in a single line the lorry would have enough space to get by.

There would only be a blood bath if the lorry is on the wrong side of the road. There would also be a blood bath of the lorry meets a family in their people-carrier, or a mini-bus full of school kids. The problem in this scenario is not the cyclists or the people-carrier or the school-kids. It is the lorry. If the lorry can't drive on his own side of the road, he shouldn't be on that road. That's the law, and you have to accept the law - right?

A good idea with your 20 cyclist scenario,is for the group to spread out so there are gaps between for overtaking cars to slot into,This way every body gets to where they are going on time and in one piece.

Makes sense, and often happens in practice. However, what also often happens in practice, is that regardless of whether there are 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 cyclists together, the car driver often overtakes the cyclists dangerously, where there is no space and no clear visibility to oncoming traffic, putting him/herself and the cyclists at risk.

 

[mick1960]

Can I take it that you've never broken a speed limit, or dropped litter, or jay-walked?

Never when riding a bike it needs full concentration

You're missing the point. Most country lanes are not unsafe for riding two abreast. They may well be unsafe for a car to overtake two cyclists riding two abreast, but they are not unsafe for two cyclists.
That's not what the law says.

Two when it is safe to do so,otherwise single file,If you feel that is safe to
ride side by side go ahead ,see who comes of worse in a rear end or side on.

There would only be a blood bath if the lorry is on the wrong side of the road. There would also be a blood bath of the lorry meets a family in their people-carrier, or a mini-bus full of school kids. The problem in this scenario is not the cyclists or the people-carrier or the school-kids. It is the lorry. If the lorry can't drive on his own side of the road, he shouldn't be on that road. That's the law, and you have to accept the law - right?

Maybe we are imagining different roads and different cyclists,I was thinking of a road where accidents can happen, but has enough space for a lorry and a car to pass.I was thinking of a bunch of cyclists who ride bicycles that do not defy centrifugal forces and meet a lorry on the apex of a bend that turns to the left.You can replace the lorry with any of the other vehicles that you mentioned and the cyclist will come off worse.So as you can see it is not the Lorry/car/tractor at fault,It is the bunch of death wish law breaking cyclists,

Makes sense, and often happens in practice. However, what also often happens in practice, is that regardless of whether there are 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 cyclists together, the car driver often overtakes the cyclists dangerously, where there is no space and no clear visibility to oncoming traffic, putting him/herself and the cyclists at risk.[/quote

]I do agree and

as I said in a previous post cyclists are very brave but I would not give cars ect a bigger target.I would call this common sense

One bad driver hits one cyclist = One injured or dead cyclist

One bad driver hits 20 cyclists = 20 injured or dead cyclists

I do apologise for the fragmented look of the post I am doing it while driving

 

[delgirl]

I think it's ok to knock down the ones on the outside... but you'll need to clarify that before trying it.

Lol!

Seriously inconsiderate bunch - I've been behind groups of 4 or 5 cyclists travelling side-by-side at about 10mph and turning around every so often to laugh and smirk at the even increasing tail of vehicles behind them.

I think most road users, like myself, would never endanger anyone's life, but get really annoyed at the inconsiderate attitude of hobby cyclists.

 

[baldyman27]

I was behind 3 cyclists today on a straight stretch of well-marked road today. Fair play to them, they were in single file with at least 3 inches between them. At every little puddle they would swerve out on the road to avoid it, regardless of the traffic behind. Not only did they not signal, they didn't even bloody well look behind them. Can you imagine how difficult it is to drive a car with a phone wedged between your shoulder and ear, taking notes from that same conversation and trying to light a cigarette and then to have to scan the road ahead for little puddles that might force these clowns to swerve wildly out onto the road to avoid getting their bony litte ankles wet?

I have to confess, I'm one of those people who is often so infuriated by the cyclists who insist on cycling abreast so they can have a little chat, who rolls down the window and shouts abuse at them. Ignorant prats.

 

[Complainer]

Never when riding a bike it needs full concentration

Two when it is safe to do so,otherwise single file,If you feel that is safe to
ride side by side go ahead ,see who comes of worse in a rear end or side on.

Maybe we are imagining different roads and different cyclists,I was thinking of a road where accidents can happen, but has enough space for a lorry and a car to pass.I was thinking of a bunch of cyclists who ride bicycles that do not defy centrifugal forces and meet a lorry on the apex of a bend that turns to the left.You can replace the lorry with any of the other vehicles that you mentioned and the cyclist will come off worse.So as you can see it is not the Lorry/car/tractor at fault,It is the bunch of death wish law breaking cyclists,




]I do agree and

as I said in a previous post cyclists are very brave but I would not give cars ect a bigger target.I would call this common sense

One bad driver hits one cyclist = One injured or dead cyclist

One bad driver hits 20 cyclists = 20 injured or dead cyclists

I do apologise for the fragmented look of the post I am doing it while driving

I really am struggling to understand the 'lorry' scenario that you outline. Surely this can only be dangerous if one of them is on the wrong side of the road?

But let's cut to the chase. I was really challenging the implication in your post that cyclists are 2nd class citizens and should always move out of the way of the 1st class citizens (car drivers). Cyclists are just as entitled to be on the road. Indeed, you could make a case that the group of 20 cyclists are 20 times as entitled to be on the road as the car driver.

And here's the downside of getting the bunch of cyclists to spread out - see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055568567

 

[mick1960]

I really am struggling to understand the 'lorry' scenario that you outline. Surely this can only be dangerous if one of them is on the wrong side of the road?

But let's cut to the chase. I was really challenging the implication in your post that cyclists are 2nd class citizens and should always move out of the way of the 1st class citizens (car drivers). Cyclists are just as entitled to be on the road. Indeed, you could make a case that the group of 20 cyclists are 20 times as entitled to be on the road as the car driver.

On your first point the main thing is that the cyclist would come off worse whatever happened.

I did not imply at any time cyclists were second class citizens, my only concern was for the safety of cyclists.

I have not looked at the link on your post because I have to go to bed and sleep,so that tomorrow when I am driving I am fully alert and able to react with the reflexes of a mongoose on speed if confronted with cyclists n single or double formations or in groups of 20 or indeed any avant-garde formation they can think of to try and catch me out as I propel my van around the highways.

Just a last thought, a lot of cars are going the same way as the cyclists could the cyclists not get a lift?