Well depends on their road positioning and by not wanting to accelerate a couple of ton of 4x4 inches away from the soft squishy bodies as they seemingly refuse to move over when they could but choose not on tight country roads because they imagine they are on some Yorkshire stage of the tour de France
I pretty much agree with Volant, but this guy... ... thoroughly deserves a stick poked in his front wheel
That’s fair enough but that doesn’t mean there’s going to be exceptions and again my question is who’s more responsible? The cyclist causing someone to grind too a halt on a 50 mph road or the people crashing into each other because someone’s had to grind to a halt because of said cyclist? When I was on my bike test, if I caused someone to brake because of my actions it was an automatic fail. What’s the difference apart from cyclists get to go and do as they please?
Where I live in Fareham we have cycle paths.....put there for the safety of cyclist....yet we still get idiots cycling on the road....I accept cyclist have a right to be on the roads, as it is the law...I don't like it, as above says, it causes a lot of problems...however, we have to put up with it....yet a cyclist, not using a cycle path!!!!! That really pisses me off....there are 3 blokes who refuse to use it, cos they'd have to stop to cross the road and turn left at the roundabout....that to me is totally selfish....it backs the road back all the way into the village....agreed, not all cyclists are the same...most of us have used one and still do at times, but be considerate for other road users... Sent from my iPad using 675.cc
Yes, you are not supposed to take any action that would cause another road user to alter their course or speed. but that doesn't mean you do have to do something to avoid another road user from altering their course or speed. So, a cyclist is not allowed to pullout into the middle of the road which would cause another road user to alter their course or speed, but they can continue along the road at a steady course. But, they can't be expected to accelerate to 50 mph just so that someone doesn't have to slow down for them. But also, you should make an allowance in case they wobble etc.
I am all in favour of minimum speed limits* being enforced and the law being changed that if you don't adhere to those minimum speed limits and someone crashes into the back of you then it is your fault, but sadly that is not the case and I can't see it ever being the case. *I imagine it would be mostly applicable to outer lanes and slower traffic could use inner lanes.
in which case let them on the motorways and lets have us some cyclist cleansing (without want to come over all adolf)
sorry mate, but in that case you will almost certainly be upset, based on those particular circumstances. if you cannot see that obstruction around the bend, effectively a blind bend, then you should be going at a speed where you can stop where you can see. until you have hit or almost hit something on a blind bend, then you will always try to go around it at the limit of your experience, capability, or to your vehicle capability, because you know how the bend goes and do not consider the risk of something stopped where you cannot see it. its human nature to push your boundaries. this has come up on other threads before, assessment of risk to the circumstance. people do not always consider that risk in their assessments, until the risk has been presented to them at least once
Great post. On a similar vein.; There is a road a mile or so from my home. It's only just two cars wide (no centre markings, & plenty of potholes & flat grass verges at least 10 feet wide each side). I use it regularly, for running, walking my dog & riding my horse. The other evening I was driving along that road & there were two "joggers" tottering along THE ROAD. I rarely use the road itself unless I'm in my car, but these two dayglow twunts were merrily jiggling along towards me, as a car was coming the other way. Common sense would say; trot up onto the verge (where I would have been anyway) so that the two vehicles could pass unimpeded. :evil: Common sense is not so common these days.! As Volant points out; the problem is not "cyclists" per-say. It's peoples attitudes in general IMHO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32105681 Basically you’ve just got to let them get on with it havent you – eventually (and it’ll be sooner rather than later) there’ll be so many of these idiots having accidents/getting killed, it’ll take the attention away from motorcyclists and all the PC dickheads will come down on them like a ton of bricks instead of us. Everyone wins.
I own a couple of bicycles, a motorbike, two cars and have worked driving buses and artics. I've driven and ridden all of the above like a tw@t too. But I understand that when a truck is stuck in the outside lane, when a bus pulls out, when a motorcyclist filters through traffic and when a cyclist rides out from the gutter and dodges the traffic at lights, they do it for a reason. Sometimes its a mistake on their part, sometimes they need to and sometimes they're just a c£nt. But we're all like that sometimes
