Suicidal Cyclist

tripled

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?

The afformentioned farm machinery would probably not be going much quicker than a cyclist - if you think riding two abreast is suicidal because you might plow into the back of them rounding a blind bend, you might need to consider your suicidal tendancies for when you "plough" into the back of a harrow which takes up considerably more room.

Having said that, round my way, only the occasional person like you crashes into the back of tractors (and even less into push bikes), so that's relatively low risk to a cyclist. Most accidents occur being impatient, overtaking tractors (and over road traffic) dangerously and crashing head on into oncoming traffic, or skidding on mud they leave behind and taking a trip into a field/stream/wall.

BeenThroughItAll

tripled wrote: »

...skidding on mud they leave behind and taking a trip into a field/stream/wall.

Mud that those depositing it are supposed to clean up...

zaax

hi viz vest are only £2 on ebay they also come in quiet a lot of colours as well., and they make cyclist much more visable even in bright sun light I always wear one when I cycle so why can the rest?

Retrogamer

peachyprice wrote: »

You'd be amazed how difficult it is to see a black dressed cyclist on a black bike against dark hedgerow, even in daylight

More difficult to see that someone on a black motorcycle wearing black clothes
If you don't have confidence in your ability to see other road users in daylight, perhaps it would be safer if you didn't drive.

peachyprice wrote: »

who would even try to over take a whole peleton oanyway

Most motorists

peachyprice wrote: »

but 2-3, no.

[/QUOTE]

Whether it's 2, 3 or 10 you'd still be going on the other side of the road to overtake them before pulling back in so what difference does it make?

[Deleted User]

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?

I once wrote off a car when I rounded a blind bend and found a lorry on my side of the road as it overtook a parked car. I didn't really have anyone but myself to blame, I should have been travelling within my ability to stop.

[Deleted User]

tripled wrote: »

Having said that, round my way, only the occasional person like you crashes into the back of tractors (and even less into push bikes), so that's relatively low risk to a cyclist. Most accidents occur being impatient, overtaking tractors (and over road traffic) dangerously and crashing head on into oncoming traffic, or skidding on mud they leave behind and taking a trip into a field/stream/wall.

I think it's just 5% of cyclist fatalities that are caused by being hit from behind IIRC. Most cyclist deaths are caused by vehicles pulling out in front of them or cutting across to turn left.

This is interesting:

"If the risk presented to other road users is included, the risk of a fatal traffic accident is virtually the same for cyclists and car drivers."

Hartog et al.

wheelz

zaax wrote: »

hi viz vest are only £2 on ebay they also come in quiet a lot of colours as well., and they make cyclist much more visable even in bright sun light I always wear one when I cycle so why can the rest?

No car drivers should look better and respect vulnerable road users.

Car drivers have been known to drive into police motorcyclists all in their hi-viz. Eyes, you have them, use them. Scan the road, or do a course IAM ROSPA and all of that if you forgot what you're meant to be scanning the road for.

It should not be up to the vulnerable road user to protect themselves, send car drivers on a motorcycling course, that will show them how they can drive/ride to survive. It will do away with their feeling of safety causing them to be lazy and drive into cyclists and motorcyclists. Until car drivers have done everything they can possibly do to become a better driver there should not be an onus on the vulnerable road user to make themselves visible. It's your own choice.

[Deleted User]

lemontart wrote: »

Pedalists do not pay to use the road in answer to one post here.

Personally I feel they should all be required to pass a proficiency test and some sort of test in relation to the highway code as well as have insurance. Yes a lot are respectful of the rules and other road users but equally there are a lot of idiots in lycra out there who act with out care or caution and pure bad manners putting both themselves and others at risk

I think it would be a major improvement if Vehicle Excise Duty was renamed Environmental Damage Tax. The majority of cyclists do pay VED because they own a car as well.

There are good road users and bad road users, and the difference has nothing to do with whether they're cyclists or motorists, and everything to do with impatience and lack of respect for other road users. Bad cyclists aren't a danger to anyone else much other than themselves, bad motorists are a danger to everyone who uses the roads. If motorists are so law abiding why do they get so agitated about speed cameras and traffic wardens?

brat

peachyprice wrote: »

You'd be amazed how difficult it is to see a black dressed cyclist on a black bike against dark hedgerow, even in daylight

If you find it so difficult, then the problem may be yours not his. I have no difficulty seeing such a cyclist.

brat

zaax wrote: »

hi viz vest are only £2 on ebay they also come in quiet a lot of colours as well., and they make cyclist much more visable even in bright sun light I always wear one when I cycle so why can the rest?

Because they're not cool.