Another idiot cyclist

I'd just like to say thank you to yet another cyclist who rode up the line
of traffic to the red lights which I was sitting at, plonked himself right in
front of me then when the lights went green proceeded to ride at a snails pace
in the middle of the road holding up myself and every single vehicle behind me.

I wouldn't condone it but I'm beginning to understand why some drivers have
rammed cyclists in the past.

B2003

wrote in message
...
I'd just like to say thank you to yet another cyclist who rode up the line
of traffic to the red lights which I was sitting at, plonked himself right
in
front of me then when the lights went green proceeded to ride at a snails
pace
in the middle of the road holding up myself and every single vehicle
behind me.

I wouldn't condone it but I'm beginning to understand why some drivers
have
rammed cyclists in the past.

Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:48 +0100
"Mr. Benn" wrote:
Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.

I wonder if its occured to these numbnuts that if they didn't ride to the
head of the queue in the first place then drivers wouldn't need to overtake
them.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:48 +0100
"Mr. Benn" wrote:
Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The
idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be
dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.

I wonder if its occured to these numbnuts that if they didn't ride to the
head of the queue in the first place then drivers wouldn't need to
overtake
them.

They are probably not going to save themselves much time by moving to the
head of the queue. I don't do that when cycling..

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:48 +0100, "Mr. Benn" wrote:

wrote in message
...
I'd just like to say thank you to yet another cyclist who rode up the line
of traffic to the red lights which I was sitting at, plonked himself right
in
front of me then when the lights went green proceeded to ride at a snails
pace
in the middle of the road holding up myself and every single vehicle
behind me.

I wouldn't condone it but I'm beginning to understand why some drivers
have
rammed cyclists in the past.

Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.


I do not think that it is legal - just because they have made up a "name" for
it.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:05:25 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:48 +0100
"Mr. Benn" wrote:
Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.

I wonder if its occured to these numbnuts that if they didn't ride to the
head of the queue in the first place then drivers wouldn't need to overtake
them.

Do you think that a cyclist arriving at stationary traffic, say five
vehicles back, would not be overtaken by vehicles (possibly a left
turning tipper truck) arriving at the traffic queue behind the cyclist
sometime after the lights had changed?

Perhaps a solution would be for all drivers to have Bikeability cycle
training as a compulsory condition for holding onto their driving
licence, so they are aware of and understand the needs of cyclists
(alternatives could be provided for registered disabled motor vehicle
drivers). This would have the added benefit of showing motor vehicle
drivers the alternatives to using a private motor vehicle for short
trips, such as the weekly shopping trip to a local supermarket, or for
the school run. This would ease congestion and save whinging motorists
thousands of pounds a year in saved fuel costs.

It sounds to me that the cyclist in the example you cited was safe,
while perhaps delaying your journey by a second or two. Indeed, you
probably wasted more time composing and posting your rant than 100 of
these 'idiot cyclists' could ever waste. It certainly seems that
someone was an idiot over the incident, but that someone was not the
cyclist!

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
I'd just like to say thank you to yet another cyclist who rode up the
line
of traffic to the red lights which I was sitting at, plonked himself
right in
front of me then when the lights went green proceeded to ride at a snails
pace
in the middle of the road holding up myself and every single vehicle
behind me.

I wouldn't condone it but I'm beginning to understand why some drivers
have
rammed cyclists in the past.

Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The
idea is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be
dangerous to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that
when it is likely to antagonise drivers being held up.

Why would a cyclist choose to put themselves in a position that they
consider dangerous in the first place? If they don't like being up ahead,
then stay on the left where they seemed perfectly happy when undertaking the
queue of stationary cars (in the single lane). If they stayed over to the
left where they have already demonstrated that they have room (by passing
cars), then the cars could continue on with their day!

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:34:19 +0100
Bertie Wooster wrote:
Do you think that a cyclist arriving at stationary traffic, say five
vehicles back, would not be overtaken by vehicles (possibly a left
turning tipper truck) arriving at the traffic queue behind the cyclist
sometime after the lights had changed?

The further back they are the less vehicles they hold up when the lights
change. If they want to go to the front then fine but stay out of the
bloody way of faster traffic.

Perhaps a solution would be for all drivers to have Bikeability cycle
training as a compulsory condition for holding onto their driving
licence, so they are aware of and understand the needs of cyclists

Perhaps cyclists should be aware that motor vehicles that are taxed and
insured are the primary users of roads.

drivers the alternatives to using a private motor vehicle for short
trips, such as the weekly shopping trip to a local supermarket, or for
the school run. This would ease congestion and save whinging motorists

Oh grow up. We don't all live in some Ms Marple village where the local shop
300 metres away and we only need to by 2 carrots and a tin of beans.

It sounds to me that the cyclist in the example you cited was safe,
while perhaps delaying your journey by a second or two. Indeed, you

More than a second or 2 and probably a hell of a lot more for the people
who didn't make it across the light before it went red again thanks to
this idiot.

probably wasted more time composing and posting your rant than 100 of
these 'idiot cyclists' could ever waste. It certainly seems that
someone was an idiot over the incident, but that someone was not the
cyclist!

So if a car went slow in front of you and blocked you from going past then
that would be fine would it? No? Why not, whats the difference? Or are
cyclists angels who always have the moral high ground?

B2003

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:52:48 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
I'd just like to say thank you to yet another cyclist who rode up the
line
of traffic to the red lights which I was sitting at, plonked himself
right
in
front of me then when the lights went green proceeded to ride at a
snails
pace
in the middle of the road holding up myself and every single vehicle
behind me.

I wouldn't condone it but I'm beginning to understand why some drivers
have
rammed cyclists in the past.

Cyclists call that "taking the lane" or riding "primary position". The
idea
is to prevent following traffic from overtaking where it would be
dangerous
to overtake. I'm not sure it's always a good idea to do that when it is
likely to antagonise drivers being held up.


I do not think that it is legal - just because they have made up a "name"
for
it.

The Highway Code instructs road users to keep left and for slow-moving
traffic to pull over to allow faster-moving traffic to pass. I believe this
applies to all road users and not just to a subset.

wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:34:19 +0100
Bertie Wooster wrote:
Do you think that a cyclist arriving at stationary traffic, say five
vehicles back, would not be overtaken by vehicles (possibly a left
turning tipper truck) arriving at the traffic queue behind the cyclist
sometime after the lights had changed?

The further back they are the less vehicles they hold up when the
lights change. If they want to go to the front then fine but stay out
of the bloody way of faster traffic.

Indeed. As a cyclist, if there's a left hand turn at the lights I'll join
the back of the traffic queue and wait my turn. I will "take the lane"
because I don't want some numpty in a car overtaking and cutting me up, but
as soon as I'm past the left hand turn I'll move to the left.
If there is no left hand turn I might (depending on available room, vehicle
types etc) go up the left of the waiting vehicles, but not if there's not
enough room for them to overtake afterwards.



Perhaps a solution would be for all drivers to have Bikeability cycle
training as a compulsory condition for holding onto their driving
licence, so they are aware of and understand the needs of cyclists

Perhaps cyclists should be aware that motor vehicles that are taxed
and insured are the primary users of roads.

Immaterial. Cyclists and motor vehicle drivers are both allowed to use the
roads. Consideration for others is the key that many cyclists *and* drivers
are missing.