Cyclist'a lack of manners

I've had several scary experiences with horses/cyclists

first one was with a cyclist coming flat out round a blind, downhill corner, with headphones on. I was riding and leading. He slammed his brakes on, lost the bike, came off and the bike span on its side into my lead horse's legs. Lead horse span and legged it back home (thankfully only a few hundred yards).

Cyclist claimed he hadn't heard me (while surreptitiously tucking headphones into his top). I pointed out that since I was walking, he was lucky I wasn't a tractor or car, as he'd be underneath the vehicle by now.

Another time, hacking through the village, cyclists came down the hill, again pretty quick, and came round the corner without stopping at the junction. Met the young horse, and parted either side of her, from behind (!) to pass, silently....... they were lucky not to have been double barrelled.

Ignorance for sure, but in both cases, the cyclists could have been killed. Particularly if the horses had been cars.
 
Damnation said:
Cyclists set off my road rage :o

I get SO ANGRY when they just cycle along, 2 or 3 a-breast. I can't get past, they have NO HI VIS on, they don't thank you and they won't move in. That is when I roll my window down and yell.
Click to expand...

Be careful what cyclists you yell at when driving, in my regular training group there are four serving Police officers. They do not take kindly to being verbally abused when they are cycling within the law.

Just for clarity, riding two abreast is perfectly legal. On a two lane road it is easier to pass a group of 10 cyclists when they are riding two abreast, than it is 10 cyclists riding single file behind each other. In both cases you would have to wait for the opposing lane to be clear (just as you would for overtaking a horse), hence you can overtake in a much shorter distance when cyclists are two abreast than strung out.

On country lanes the advice from British Cycling is to single out to allow following traffic to pass where safe and suitable. Usually a group of cyclists will shout forward that a car is waiting behind ("Car Up") and if the road is too narrow for the car to pass the group safely while they are two abreast they will single out. However, if there is not enough room for a safe overtake or there is enough room but there are oncoming cars preventing the overtake the group will probably not single out.

There is no legal requirement for hi-viz clothing (just as there is not for horse riding on the road). Most good cycling clubs have high contrast cycling kit colours, which is very easy to spot as well. (As is needed for recognition when racing in a bunch).

I get just as frustrated how some 'cyclists' don't do themselves or cyclists in general any favours. One issue that we have to deal with is that any pillock on a bike becomes a 'cyclist'! I recall a newspaper article a few years ago where an armed robber got away on a bike, and was called 'a cyclist', but when an armed robber runs away he is not called 'a runner'!
 
I hate it when cyclists don't wear hi vis or helmets for that matter. Yes it's not a legal requirement but it does give drivers a fright when driving down a road at night at 60 and suddenly there is an idiot on a bike visible with about 2 seconds to react. To be fair I don't like walkers who do the same thing. Guaranteed they will whine that we don't give them a lot of room on the road but how can we when we see you suddenly 10m in front of us?

Wearing hi vis should be a legal requirement by anyone using a road if not in a car. And yeah they should use cycle paths again it's not difficult. I would prefer that cyclists could use paths in cities it would be much safer for them.
 
Darbs said:
Be careful what cyclists you yell at when driving, in my regular training group there are four serving Police officers. They do not take kindly to being verbally abused when they are cycling within the law.

Just for clarity, riding two abreast is perfectly legal. On a two lane road it is easier to pass a group of 10 cyclists when they are riding two abreast, than it is 10 cyclists riding single file behind each other. In both cases you would have to wait for the opposing lane to be clear (just as you would for overtaking a horse), hence you can overtake in a much shorter distance when cyclists are two abreast than strung out.

On country lanes the advice from British Cycling is to single out to allow following traffic to pass where safe and suitable. Usually a group of cyclists will shout forward that a car is waiting behind ("Car Up") and if the road is too narrow for the car to pass the group safely while they are two abreast they will single out. However, if there is not enough room for a safe overtake or there is enough room but there are oncoming cars preventing the overtake the group will probably not single out.

There is no legal requirement for hi-viz clothing (just as there is not for horse riding on the road). Most good cycling clubs have high contrast cycling kit colours, which is very easy to spot as well. (As is needed for recognition when racing in a bunch).

I get just as frustrated how some 'cyclists' don't do themselves or cyclists in general any favours. One issue that we have to deal with is that any pillock on a bike becomes a 'cyclist'! I recall a newspaper article a few years ago where an armed robber got away on a bike, and was called 'a cyclist', but when an armed robber runs away he is not called 'a runner'!
Click to expand...

Since when riding abreast became legal?
 
On my way back from London today I nearly had a heart attack quite a few times just sitting on the bus. 99.9% of cyclists and scooters are having bloody death wish.
 
RaposadeGengibre said:
Since when riding abreast became legal?
Click to expand...

Its always been legal, nothing has changed. Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists should never ride more than two abreast. The Government guidance is that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to ride side by side on most roads, however it may be sensible to cycle in single file on narrow roads or where a car is attempting to overtake.

Here is the road law relating to cyclists https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
 
rachk89 said:
Wearing hi vis should be a legal requirement by anyone using a road if not in a car. And yeah they should use cycle paths again it's not difficult. I would prefer that cyclists could use paths in cities it would be much safer for them.
Click to expand...
My road has no pavement so when we walk the dogs, are you suggesting we and the dogs should wear hi viz?

I never cycle on cycle paths in towns as they are lethal. Pedestrians meandering, too narrow, windy, street furniture in silly places and they abruptly end at roads.
 
case895 said:
My road has no pavement so when we walk the dogs, are you suggesting we and the dogs should wear hi viz?

I never cycle on cycle paths in towns as they are lethal. Pedestrians meandering, too narrow, windy, street furniture in silly places and they abruptly end at roads.
Click to expand...

Of course you should! My drive home from the yard takes in a very narrow country lane with no streetlights. Only a couple of days ago I nearly knocked a pedestrian over - he was in dark clothes and I only spotted him when my headlights hit him, luckily I was going slowly (obviously wouldn't be racing down a road like that anyway!) and I could move over. It really scared me.
 
case895 said:
My road has no pavement so when we walk the dogs, are you suggesting we and the dogs should wear hi viz?

I never cycle on cycle paths in towns as they are lethal. Pedestrians meandering, too narrow, windy, street furniture in silly places and they abruptly end at roads.
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you know how much you can blend into the background even in daylight? If you wear darker clothing or something that makes you camouflage then a driver won't see you until they are too close to react for most drivers. If there is a car coming the other way too unfortunately they will probably do the wrong thing and swerve to avoid the car and end up hitting the pedestrian ie you.

Your choice but I would wear it.
 
rachk89 said:
Wearing hi vis should be a legal requirement by anyone using a road if not in a car.
Click to expand...

Lets remember that would mean everyone, all the time. So it would also mean every horse rider, including those on hunt meets. So no more blazers and jackets, it would mean day-glo yellow for every horse rider that came into contact with a public road. I am not sure that would go down too well with the hunting community.

It would also mean every pedestrian that was likely to use any stretch of road without a footpath, and is crossing a road classed as using a road.
 
Last edited:
Darbs said:
Lets remember that would mean everyone, all the time. So it would also mean every horse rider, including those on hunt meets. So no more blazers and jackets, it would mean day-glo yellow for every horse rider that came into contact with a public road. I am not sure that would go down too well with the hunting community.

It would also mean every pedestrian that was likely to use any stretch of road without a footpath, and is crossing a road classed as using a road.
Click to expand...

So it's ok not to because otherwise you would look stupid? I really don't like that kind of argument it's not a matter of style it's a matter of staying alive. But if looking pretty is more important to some then fine but they can't really complain if they aren't seen. Horses easily blend into the background of trees and with the rider wearing the usual dark clothes they blend in too. Easy for a driver to miss.

No I wouldn't think a pedestrian crossing the road needs to as you tend to be able to find somewhere safe to cross like a pedestrian crossing. You don't use it again that's your choice. It should however be a law that down roads with no paths that you are clearly visible. You wouldn't like it if the driver turned off their lights so you could no longer see them. And with cars getting quieter now soon you won't be able to hear them.

You just need to be sensible about it. I refuse to go out on a hack on a road without hi vis on even if we won't be on the road for long. Not only am I putting my life in danger if I don't but I am putting my horses life in danger. It's a lot to risk for the sake of a few pounds and 10 seconds to put on a hi vis vest.
 
'Taking the lane' is something cyclists do for safety. If you pull right in, cars try to squeeze past you, leaving you about as much room as you leave yourself - a matter of inches at times. So if you meet me on a single track road - no, I will not cycle in the gutter for your convenience, although, in order to get rid of you, I will generally hop into the next passing place.

I cycle to get from a to b, I have hi viz, lights etc but I will not risk my neck for the sake of anyone's convenience. I also drive - and when I overtake anything or anyone it's my job to do so effectively and safely, not their job to help me! If you can't overtake safely, I suggest some extra driver training is needed.
 
Why the hell are people on this forum so obsessed with being thanked for not running cyclists/riders over and following the Highway Code? Jeezo. "I was nice enough to not send you flying headlong into the road. I could have just run you over, but I didn't." Um, ok.
 
Darbs said:
Just for clarity, riding two abreast is perfectly legal. On a two lane road it is easier to pass a group of 10 cyclists when they are riding two abreast, than it is 10 cyclists riding single file behind each other. In both cases you would have to wait for the opposing lane to be clear (just as you would for overtaking a horse), hence you can overtake in a much shorter distance when cyclists are two abreast than strung out.
Click to expand...
So you can't just squeeze past them and rely on them (and any oncoming cars) to move closer to the kerb?? What's the world coming to! :confused3: Listen, I am prepared to slow down for a few seconds, but to have my journey take 5 or even 10(!!!) minutes longer because of cyclists... it's just not on. Cyclists should remember who's paying their road tax. :mad3:
 
fburton said:
Cyclists should remember who's paying their road tax. :mad3:
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as road tax, it is vehicle excise duty, general taxation based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. As cyclists don't emit any CO2 (just like electric cars) they pay no road tax.

The procedes of vehicle excise duty go into the general tax income of the U.K. and are not related directly to the amount that is re-invested in the roads.

If you choose not to ride a bike on the road that is an option that is freely available to everybody which you are not taking up.

On a more personal note, I would suggest that I pay more vehicle excise duty than most people, we have 4 vehicles in the household one of which is a Range Rover, so I certainly pay my fair share. Most people who have a bike in the household also have a car, hence do "pay their share" if it makes you feel better.
 
Darbs said:
Just for clarity, riding two abreast is perfectly legal. On a two lane road it is easier to pass a group of 10 cyclists when they are riding two abreast, than it is 10 cyclists riding single file behind each other. In both cases you would have to wait for the opposing lane to be clear (just as you would for overtaking a horse), hence you can overtake in a much shorter distance when cyclists are two abreast than strung out.
Click to expand...

fburton said:
So you can't just squeeze past them and rely on them (and any oncoming cars) to move closer to the kerb?? What's the world coming to! :confused3: Listen, I am prepared to slow down for a few seconds, but to have my journey take 5 or even 10(!!!) minutes longer because of cyclists... it's just not on. Cyclists should remember who's paying their road tax. :mad3:
Click to expand...

The poor cyclists can't win! You shouldn't be "squeezing past them"! If there isn't time to safely overtake a pair of cyclists side by side there probably isn't time to safely pass a solo cyclist either. Its just been explained why the above arrangement is a sensible balance between safety for the cyclists and consideration for motorists. I just think many car drivers think slower, more vulnerable road users should immediately dive out of their path and never delay them???

I don't cycle but I ride, drive and walk and by far my biggest general gripe is with tradesmen and delivery vans on their missions, not the peddle bikes.
 
Darbs said:
Lets remember that would mean everyone, all the time. So it would also mean every horse rider, including those on hunt meets. So no more blazers and jackets, it would mean day-glo yellow for every horse rider that came into contact with a public road. I am not sure that would go down too well with the hunting community.

It would also mean every pedestrian that was likely to use any stretch of road without a footpath, and is crossing a road classed as using a road.
Click to expand...

I rather wish the hunting community would do this. I hack to hunting and always wear my high vis and have been known to put it back on when we are stuck on a road, no one seems to think this is a bad thing and the hon sec has said to me she does worry about them on the roads without.....
It is just sensible, it amazes me how many pedestrians here will go out in fading light/the dark when the whole village has no footpaths.
 
Darbs said:
Its always been legal, nothing has changed. Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists should never ride more than two abreast. The Government guidance is that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to ride side by side on most roads, however it may be sensible to cycle in single file on narrow roads or where a car is attempting to overtake.

Here is the road law relating to cyclists https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Click to expand...

where states "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

Its not exactly legal wherever cyclists pleased isnt it?
how many complains hve been even in this thread about riding 3-4 abreast or 2 on country lanes or an A road?
 
Just to say, in case there was any doubt, I was being sarcastic - attempting an impersonation of a who knows how typical motorist.

Darbs - I recognize and fully agree with everything you wrote.
 
RaposadeGengibre said:
where states "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

Its not exactly legal wherever cyclists pleased isnt it?
how many complains hve been even in this thread about riding 3-4 abreast or 2 on country lanes or an A road?
Click to expand...

Exactly. 3 and 4 abreast is not on, on any road, but it doesn't seem to stop them round here.
 
Interesting that there appear to be regional variations in politeness, road sense, and cycling style - I have never seen cyclists riding more than 2 abreast here (apart from organized road races of course).
 
fburton said:
Just to say, in case there was any doubt, I was being sarcastic - attempting an impersonation of a who knows how typical motorist.

Darbs - I recognize and fully agree with everything you wrote.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, no problem. However it did give a great opportunity to get the 'cyclists don't pay road tax' issue in while I had chance!!
 
Darbs said:
There is no such thing as road tax, it is vehicle excise duty, general taxation based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. As cyclists don't emit any CO2 (just like electric cars) they pay no road tax.

The procedes of vehicle excise duty go into the general tax income of the U.K. and are not related directly to the amount that is re-invested in the roads.

If you choose not to ride a bike on the road that is an option that is freely available to everybody which you are not taking up.

On a more personal note, I would suggest that I pay more vehicle excise duty than most people, we have 4 vehicles in the household one of which is a Range Rover, so I certainly pay my fair share. Most people who have a bike in the household also have a car, hence do "pay their share" if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Cyclists do omit CO2 or have you forgotten your biology in fact it is more per energy unit than a car just for clarification.

My only gripe with cyclist is so many flout the law when it comes to traffic lights etc (maybe they are all colour blind) and then shout from the roof tops when one gets squashed.
 
I find I get really annoyed at them when I'm in my car, they do seem very inconsiderate. But when I'm riding, for the most part they're really polite, always shout morning and sometimes I get 'Morning Horsey!' from be group :) We're right off a well used cycle path, so come across a fair few.
 
ester said:
Though some of us do wear hi viz, and travel on our own and try our best and just trying to go to work :p.
Click to expand...

And that I admire. I don't think most people have an issue with the single cyclist. The problem seems to be this trend to cycling in large groups more than 2 abreast and not taking consideration for moving over to single file for passing traffic.
 
Nudibranch said:
Exactly. 3 and 4 abreast is not on, on any road
Click to expand...

I completely agree, that's unacceptable. Having said that, even from within the cycling community, this is a problem that raises its head and there is no easy answer. One of the issues is that there are so many 'cyclists' who do not read the cycling press, are not members of cycling clubs or British Cycling and have no idea that what they are doing is illegal and causes a annoyance to following drivers. (Annoyed, frustrated drivers take risks).

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. Even taking the view that when there is an accident and someone is killed things will change, doesn't work. There were 113 cyclists killed and 3401 seriously injured in 2014, this number has been increasing over the past 10 years, and is cycling getting any safer for most UK cyclists...no.
 
Darbs said:
I completely agree, that's unacceptable. Having said that, even from within the cycling community, this is a problem that raises its head and there is no easy answer. One of the issues is that there are so many 'cyclists' who do not read the cycling press, are not members of cycling clubs or British Cycling and have no idea that what they are doing is illegal and causes a annoyance to following drivers. (Annoyed, frustrated drivers take risks).

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. Even taking the view that when there is an accident and someone is killed things will change, doesn't work. There were 113 cyclists killed and 3401 seriously injured in 2014, this number has been increasing over the past 10 years, and is cycling getting any safer for most UK cyclists...no.
Click to expand...

To be brutally honest, I dont care about eejits who cant wait to meet the Creator. Its me, who I worry about. It would be me living with consequences if some silly ****** run under my car hurling around a blind corner or I knock him over because it was impossible to see with no hi viz in ****** weather or any other scenario. It would by my mental state even if it wasnt my fault. Every time I see a push bike or bike in my rear view mirror, my bottom cheeks clench, I dont know what to expect.
The way from Olympia last night was really a mind blowing experience just sitting on top deck of a coach...
 
Darbs said:
Its always been legal, nothing has changed. Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists should never ride more than two abreast. The Government guidance is that it is perfectly legal for cyclists to ride side by side on most roads, however it may be sensible to cycle in single file on narrow roads or where a car is attempting to overtake.

Here is the road law relating to cyclists https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Click to expand...

Its guidance, not the law. I know this as had always thought the Highway code made the same statement for horses. It was a (traffic) police officer who told me I was wrong.
 
Luci07 said:
Its guidance, not the law. I know this as had always thought the Highway code made the same statement for horses. It was a (traffic) police officer who told me I was wrong.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is not correct. To quote: Many of the rules in the Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules in the Highway Code are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. These rules can still be used in the criminal courts as guidance on whether a more general traffic offence has been committed (e.g. 'dangerous driving', 'careless or inconsiderate driving' or 'obstructing the highway'). They can also be used to determine 'negligence' (and hence liability to pay compensation) in the civil courts.

The Highway Code is a mixture of the application of the Road Traffic Acts and advice that can stand up in court. It is definitely not just guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top