Suicidal Cyclist

peachyprice

Why do cyclists insist on riding side by side, two or three abreast, instead of single file along 60mph country roads with blind bends, concealed entrances and slow moving farm machinery ahead?

Why do they also insist on cycling in black clothing with no lights and no ho vis?

It really isn't the minority either, I see it time and time again, cycling on my way to and from work I come across packs of these !!!!!, they're especially lethal when they leave the pub after lunch time.

The sad thing is that it will be the motorist who will be found at fault if there is an accident.

ratrace

peachyprice wrote: »

Why do cyclists insist on riding side by side, two or three abreast, instead of single file along 60mph country roads with blind bends, concealed entrances and slow moving farm machinery ahead?

Why do they also insist on cycling in black clothing with no lights and no ho vis?

It really isn't the minority either, I see it time and time again, cycling on my way to and from work I come across packs of these !!!!!, they're especially lethal when they leave the pub after lunch time.

The sad thing is that it will be the motorist who will be found at fault if there is an accident.

I have no idea, when you see them next time ask them all above and you will find out and also share the answers on here id love to know

brat

peachyprice wrote: »

Why do cyclists insist on riding side by side, two or three abreast, instead of single file along 60mph country roads with blind bends, concealed entrances and slow moving farm machinery ahead?

Arguably two abreast would make them twice as visible, and often prevents injudicious overtakes on blind bends.

Why do they also insist on cycling in black clothing with no lights and no ho vis?

They're really not hard to see in the daylight. At night time it makes no sense.

The sad thing is that it will be the motorist who will be found at fault if there is an accident.

Only if the motorist is to blame.

JustinR1979

brat wrote: »

Arguably two abreast would make them twice as visible.

And more like a car, which you don't expect to be doing 10mph whilst you're doing 60mph...

brat

JustinR1979 wrote: »

And more like a car, which you don't expect to be doing 10mph whilst you're doing 60mph...

But you do, or you should expect a cyclist to be doing that speed or thereabouts. And if you did as the HC asks when overtaking cyclists and give them as much room as you would a car there should be no problem.

verybigchris

peachyprice wrote: »

Why do cyclists insist on riding side by side

Aretnap

JustinR1979 wrote: »

And more like a car, which you don't expect to be doing 10mph whilst you're doing 60mph...

As you can see to and beyond your stopping distance at all times, someone doing 10mph shouldn't really be a problem, whether they're on a bike, in a tractor or in a car.

dotdash79

The worst thing is that drivers don't think cyclist are going that fast when even moderately peddling cyclist could be doing 15 - 20 mph.

Iceweasel

Nothing is valid in the OP's post #1 except the bit about wearing dark clothing and having no lights. That is stupid and thoughtless.

But it is irrelevant whether cyclists are in single file or 2 or even 3 abreast echelon style.

It is also irrelevant what speed they are travelling at - but as dotdash79 says, it is usually in excess of the 10mph that JustinR suggests.

Why are these things irrelevant?

That's easy -because of Highway Code Rule 126.

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

If a driver comes round a corner and happens upon a lone cyclist, or a group of cyclists, there should be no problem.

It most definitely would be the motorised vehicle driver's fault if there was an accident.

We all pay to use the roads and no-one group has priority over another.

Richard53

Also, riding two abreast is perfectly legal:


Highway code rule 66: "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends".


People need to remember that cycles are vehicles, and are legitimate road users along with lorries, vans, horses, motorcycles, invalid carriages, scooters, tractors, horse-drawn carts, caravans, mopeds, tricycles, removal lorries, fairground rides, cranes, milk tankers, herds of cows, flocks of sheep and of course pedestrians. Good drivers anticipate that they may encounter any of these sharing the road with them quite legitimately, and behave accordingly. Not everything on the road is a car, or behaves in a car-like way.


Drive so you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear, treat cyclists with consideration as if they were your kids, or wife, or best mate, and all will be well.


And cyclists, if a car driver treats you with consideration, a wave of thanks costs nothing, but is somehow a very rare occurrence.

bartelbe

I hate meeting cyclists while driving, because too many of them do have a deathwish. To be generous, if they don't drive, they don't understand about visibility from a car and stopping distances.

I have had a cyclist ignore a give way line from a minor road and turn directly in front of me. The only reason I didn't hit him, was I saw him approaching the junction, and half suspected he would do something stupid, so was ready to stop.

Cyclist jumped red lights on busy crossroad, almost got himself flattened.

Just to show it isn't just the men, female cyclist in central box on 40 limit road, wanting to cross from one minor road to another. I don't know if she got impatient, but she just crossed the lane directly in front of me. I had to do an emergency stop, if there had been a car close behind it could have been nasty.

My nightmare would be to injure or kill a cyclists, so now I treat any cyclist as a mobile hazard that could do something insanely stupid at any moment..