Xt500 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 They might not be wider than a car 2 a breast but they are a dam sight slower.Why would you want to purposly not only unessercerily inconveniance others but force them in the path of oncoming traffic when theres no need to? Some idiots used to bleat cycling is greener but how can that be when you slow to a near stop nearly every vehicle that approaches from behind? Its time cyclists were taxed for the increase in Emmisions they cause. ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 15:42 ---------- I think it is awesome that this is now part of the training for HGV drivers. It should also happen vice versa: My eyes really opened when I went on a long haul trip with a friend, I had never been in a lorry before, just seeing how much effort is involved in keeping the thing going in a busy city, all the gear changes involved each time some car driver decided to cut in front 'because there was room'. I don't know how lorry drivers aren't tempted to bring a real shotgun rather than a fella like me... What it did do was show me how to deal with lorries, I now habitually drive my car to expect them to need room, so for example if I am on the M1 and I notice a lorry is going slightly faster than his predecessor, I either stay behind him, creating room for him to use the middle lane if he needs it or I accelerate past rather than hanging about next to him (depending on the space/time he has). If I see a lorry has to make a 90 degree turn into the road I am coming from I stop to give him plenty of room etc. etc. In my opinion it should be compulsory for learners to spend time with a lorry driver and to spend a day on a bike, or at least on the back of a motorbike if cycling is a problem for whatever reason. It might be part of the CPC but as you can do the same module repeatedly until youve done the right amount its not going to help much. I see everyday cyclists coming down the inside of the truck cos they cant be bothered to stop and keep them selfs safe.Unfortunatly many deserve what they get,its just a shame other drivers have to get involved in thier stupidness when they hurt themselfs. Cyclists should be treat like cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 They might not be wider than a car 2 a breast but they are a dam sight slower.Why would you want to purposly not only unessercerily inconveniance others but force them in the path of oncoming traffic when theres no need to? Define "no need to". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 They might not be wider than a car 2 a breast but they are a dam sight slower.Why would you want to purposly not only unessercerily inconveniance others but force them in the path of oncoming traffic when theres no need to? Even if it was a single cyclist, you still have to give them adequate space when overtaking, so it makes no difference unless you are a driver who likes to squeeze past (which is dangerous to the cyclist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 There is nothing wrong with two abreast-they are no wider than a car and it takes less time to overtake them.They could be momentarily and, indeed, I have seen them so on quite a few occasions, where either or both of the cyclists are effectively 'wallowing' (not maintaining substantially the same spacing between themselves as they go). There have been occasions where I had serious misgivings attempting an overtake manoeuvre, in case the 'wallowing' of the cyclist most central might put him into my wing mirror as I passed (fully into the oncoming lane, and you'll have to excuse me for not wanting to use the verge on the other side of the road...FFS!) When there would have been no issue whatsoever and a clear and safe 4ft or so of overtaking clearance, if they'd been in a line instead. The highway is there for all users, not just for their recreational own when it pleases them. Pure, unadulterated selfishness. If you want to natter 2 abreasts on your travel, get in your car or on the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Even if it was a single cyclist, you still have to give them adequate space when overtaking, so it makes no difference unless you are a driver who likes to squeeze past (which is dangerous to the cyclist). Exactly. It's only the dangerously impatient drivers who have a problem with cyclists 2 abreast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ok, so cyclists should get off the road when they slow up traffic. So what about slower cars, lorries, tractors, caravans. Off the road too? And to reverse the idea, what about when cars slow up cyclists and motorbikes, all in a line queueing to go no where and creating gridlock. Maybe they should get off the road to allow the 2 wheelers to progress. And cats? what have they done to outrage some? me, me, me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmack Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Why would a motorist have to "convert" to be able to understand the dangers that cyclists can face. That's like saying a motorist has to convert to be able to understand that small children can be endangered by cars. Most of the time the road system actually works it's only when some idiots mess it up- on whatever mode of transport that maybe. Personally I believe the most annoying thing on the roads are motorists that drive really close behind you when your already doing the speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The study doesn't claim to show that wearing hi-viz you are no more visible than not. It shows that drivers notice cyclists who aren't wearing hi-viz anyway. If you are visible enough to be seen, wearing something to make you more visible doesn't provide a benefit. That may be so, but to the lemmings that read it, they may take it that wearing Hi-viz isnt necessary, when in reality that is ludicrous. Anything that assists in road safety is a bonus, and I stand by my post that CycleWeekly have made a mistake in running with it. Its all well and good for us cyclists to have a go at the motorist, but with so many idiot riders amongst us, the notion of NOT wearing visable clothing is scary. It may be sunny when we go out, but British weather has a habit of changing very quickly. As an avid cyclist, I can only apologise to the motorist who knocks someone off their bike, because he/she truly didnt see them. It really is no wonder there is such a love/hate relationship between these two groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 It ISN'T necessary. I won't be wearing hi viz in a few minutes. I do have reflective patches and a total of 5 lights about myself and my bike. If someone doesn't see me then they have no business driving a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipspice Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Headphones are not really a problem either-you just make sure to look around. They have stopped me from swerving into traffic when a pedestrian tries to make me jump by a sudden shout as I cycle past (that has happened at least 3 times now and I have no idea why!) this has happened to me many times, also idiots who think its funny to stick their arm out so i have to quickly swerve out of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.