How to Overtake a Cyclist

[perseus]

Have to say I'm confused by what exactly you are trying to point out. You refer to a statement on a wiki page but exactly which one are we supposed to be reading carefully.

Secondly, you refer to the numberwatch link and presumably this is where the suggestion comes from that walking per km is more dangerous than cycling. That data is 15 years old! That said, as the author points out, people quote statistics to suit their agenda. Of the three categories, Km, Hrs and Journeys, walking is safer in two of them by some margin. You then question government figures but give no indication as to the basis of you challenging them which suggests it is just supposition.

Pedal cycle deaths have decreased virtually year on year despite the increase in the number participating. Could there be a link to the reduction in fatalities with the an increase in the usage of helmets?

2000 are the latest figures. I went to an Adur Council cycle meeting where we could pick up huge documents with lots of stats.

Cyclist deaths are increasing. 10 a year may be saved by cycle helmets. I bet the pedestrians figures will be much higher and a handful of deaths could be saved if young kids wore cycle helmets in their house.

It is ridiculous picking on cyclists compelling them to wear them when cycling. Would that be on roads only?

 

[perseus]

Fat cars are a nuisance. With thinner cars, cyclist could be passed more easily.

 

[drew]

2000 are the latest figures. I went to an Adur Council cycle meeting where we could pick up huge documents with lots of stats.

Cyclist deaths are increasing. 10 a year may be saved by cycle helmets. I bet the pedestrians figures will be much higher and a handful of deaths could be saved if young kids wore cycle helmets in their house.

It is ridiculous picking on cyclists compelling them to wear them when cycling. Would that be on roads only?

There are stats for fatalities much more recent than that, ridiculous to suggest they are the most recent unless it is that they are the most recent that present themselves in the format that suits your arguments. Also, since 2000, the trend for cycling fatalities has been downward.

You seem to have a massive persecution complex. I cycle and I wear a helmet. It's not picking on cyclists. Motorcyclists have to wear a helmet, motorists have to wear seat belts. They even have to get a test to make sure their cars are roadworthy (once a year though). Cyclists are far from being persecuted. In 2013 there were 109 deaths. Using your suggesting, almost 10% of them could've have been saved if they were wearing a helmet (of course, the stats don't state if they were wearing a helmet and they certainly don't show how many lives were saved by people that were wearing a helmet!)

Have to say your arguments seem all over the place and seem to boil down to the fact you don't like being told what to do by the government, even if it is for your own safety!

 

[Wrong-Direction]

https://youtu.be/o9pmw2ckQSU

What a load of bollox this video is!
If they used their designated paths everything would be fine!
[emoji468] [emoji590] [emoji592] [emoji594] [emoji595] [emoji597] [emoji598] [emoji604] [emoji603] [emoji602] [emoji600]

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

What a load of bollox this video is!
If they used their designated paths everything would be fine!
[emoji468] [emoji590] [emoji592] [emoji594] [emoji595] [emoji597] [emoji598] [emoji604] [emoji603] [emoji602] [emoji600]

Your'e back then

 

[OzMike]

Where does it say in the highway code that they should ride at least 2 x abreast.
They should be in single file, especially on narrow roads.
The pack mentality takes over and they think they f*****g own the road.
I've got no problems when they ride in single file, it shows that they are considering other road users, but when they are 2 or 3 abreast they can f*** **f.

 

[sten_super]

Where does it say in the highway code that they should ride at least 2 x abreast.
They should be in single file, especially on narrow roads.
The pack mentality takes over and they think they f*****g own the road.
I've got no problems when they ride in single file, it shows that they are considering other road users, but when they are 2 or 3 abreast they can f*** **f.

It's rule 66;

You should
keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

I find this idea of a 'pack mentality' rather funny. A cyclist could say exactly the same thing about cars - they tend to stick together and 'think they own the road'. Incidentally, do you expect cars to pull right over for you to overtake, or are you fine with them taking the lane and willing to go onto the other side of the road to overtake them? What's the difference between overtaking a car and overtaking two cyclists side-by-side?

 

[ChickenBaltiPie]

I love all these weak, moronic justifications why if you're a scumbag you can treat a cyclist however you choose, (coincidentally in a manner which is most convenient and beneficial to you) with a complete disregard for their safety.

I've not heard one reason yet why it's OK not to treat a cyclists vulnerability on the road with the absolute patience and consideration that is always required no matter what.

A cyclist can be a complete **** on the road and it still doesn't give you the right to treat their life with anything less than 100% respect at all times.

There is no grey area when it comes to a tonne of fast moving car vs a bicycle!!

You're all so put out by having to use your breaks, slow down a little, or even steer around someone that you will create the most selfish, ignorant excuses why you can do so however you chose with such an insane disregard for another persons life!! It's sickening!

 

[OzMike]

It's rule 66;



I find this idea of a 'pack mentality' rather funny. A cyclist could say exactly the same thing about cars - they tend to stick together and 'think they own the road'. Incidentally, do you expect cars to pull right over for you to overtake, or are you fine with them taking the lane and willing to go onto the other side of the road to overtake them? What's the difference between overtaking a car and overtaking two cyclists side-by-side?

Re. my comment on narrow roads, this just confirms it.
2 abreast would be ok on a dual carriage way,but not on a single lane road, as it clearly states that.
Try driving through the single narrow lanes in Kalmunda over here on a Sat am, 4 or 5 abreast and giving you the finger.
They can just f*** **f.

 

[OzMike]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

 

[Woodchip]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

I think you'll find you pay registration fees, not road tax.

 

[Stat Brother]

You're all so put out by having to use your breaks, slow down a little, or even steer around someone that you will create the most selfish, ignorant excuses why you can do so however you chose with such an insane disregard for another persons life!! It's sickening!

A good driver rarely brakes.
That'll be slowing down - to the speed limit.
There's plenty of room for everyone, when the road is used properly.

The fact that Sussex's roads are not a bloodbath, would suggest the usual drongos don't actually have a problem with each other.
They just prefer to desperately cling onto the odd 'moment' they can use to point the finger elsewhere, because they are far too scared of looking at their own deficiencies.

 

[sten_super]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

Can't comment on the situation in Oz, but in the UK currently all roads are funded through general taxation. Even when Osbourne's hypothecation of VED comes into effect, it will form a fund for the upkeep of roads which Highways England are responsible for, which is about 3% of the road network consisting of motorways (which cyclists and pedestrians are banned from) and major A roads. It won't contribute to the remaining 97% of the network, which is the responsibility of local authorities.

Paying Vehicle Excise Duty gives you permission to use a specific motor vehicle on the road, alongside pedestrians and bikes, neither of which require a license. Apart from that, carry on.

 

[ChickenBaltiPie]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

I pay the highest rate of road tax on all three of my cars... I'm willing to bet that is considerably more than 99.9% of motorists on the road! I don't think I need to be concerned about how much tax I pay for the insignificant bit of contact my bicycles wheels make on the roads. [emoji106][emoji3]

.....but again, not sure I understand why the amount of tax I pay (more than you!) makes it all right for you to be a ****?!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We do own the f****** road, as we pay road taxes and charges, you pay f*** all and expect a free run, you can all just f*** **f.

Out of interest where do you draw the line? Someone who earns more than you will pay plenty more to the roads directly via their income tax and indirectly via general consumer purchases. Maybe they "own the f****** road" and you with you paltry contribution should "just f*** **f?"

 

[hans kraay fan club]

In Holland, helmet use is almost unheard of, but the cycling death and injury rate is the lowest in the World.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets.html

So to me, he speaks sense. Helmets, or not wearing helmets, is not the reason why cyclists are in danger. Attitudes of other road users are the main problem.

Such a bullshit argument. The reason Dutch cyclists don't (need to) wear helmets, is that they have an absolutely fantastic network of dedicated cycle (and scooter) paths, which mean they barely ever evn come into contact with motorised vehicles.

 

[ChickenBaltiPie]

They also have a huge amount of respect of cyclists in Europe! I ride there and here, the difference is UNBELIEVABLE

 

[sten_super]

Such a bullshit argument. The reason Dutch cyclists don't (need to) wear helmets, is that they have an absolutely fantastic network of dedicated cycle (and scooter) paths, which mean they barely ever evn come into contact with motorised vehicles.

They also have a huge amount of respect of cyclists in Europe! I ride there and here, the difference is UNBELIEVABLE

Seems to me it's all a bit of a virtuous circle, facilitated by infrastructure - dedicated off road cycle infrastructure means more people cycle, which mean the average driver is much more aware of the experience of cyclists, which means they are more considerate, which encourages more people to cycle, etc. The infrastructure (which wasn't built over night, and hasn't always been there) kicks the whole thing off and seems to have massively changed their road culture.

 

[teaboy]

The reason Dutch cyclists don't (need to) wear helmets, is that they have an absolutely fantastic network of dedicated cycle (and scooter) paths, which mean they barely ever evn come into contact with motorised vehicles.

Indeed they do, and it's something this country should build. Drivers of the "get off the f***ing road" variety should fully support it too - that way people in bikes CAN get off the road and onto more appropriate infrastructure.

Why do you think a helmet is only required when people come into contact with motor vehicles - how much use is one likely to be if someone gets run over (this also applies to pedestrians), and shouldn't the collision be prevented in the first place anyway?