I've been told that riding 2 a breast forces car users to treat the cyclists like a car doesn't let them overtake until it's safe to do so. Would you believe the cheek of it!

First posters message was simple. Overtaking a cyclist is dangerous unless you wait until it is safe to do so.

I dont ride two abreast because i think its a bit dangerous on our roads, if the one on the outside needs to move in... problems!

But i do cycle further out into the road to force drivers to overtake only when it is safe to do so! If the road is wide enough for a cyclist and a car then obviously i will cycle further in so that cars can pass, but if a road is not wide enough, cars will often try to overtake very closely. This means that i have to protect myself by refusing to let them past until it is safe to do so!

Lets be honest, even when the traffic is heavy its going to add a max of 1 minute to your journey time...

Problem is even when riding two abreast some drivers will still try to overtake which makes it even more dangerous for the cyclist on the outside.

There are various comments regarding cyclists and overtaking them. Certain people are forgetting that cyclists have as much right to be on the road as a motorist, also motorists should be considerate to people who use a much more dangerous form of travel. The cyclist, once knocked over cannot be sent to the body shop for panel beating and a respray. So for those motorists who are so lazy they refuse to use public transport or a bike then they should try to be more vigilant and considerate to pedestrians and other slower road users. After all when you were doing your driving lessons your instructor will have shown you all how to pass safely and correctly. And most certainly not to force cyclists into the gutter and think F***k them they dont pay road tax. Also once annoyed some cyclists can cause your car to need panel beating and a respray!!

Besides, the road is built for cars,

Incorrect. Most of the roads in sheffield were laid out over 100 years ago when cars were extremely rare. The main mode of transport was horse. This is one of the main reasons why we have such narrow roads.
Roads are not the exclusive preserve of cars, they are highways for all forms of transport, most arterial road bridges are high enough to get the old trams under, and lane widths are calculated to allow adequate room for an HGV or large BUS to get around bends without crossing into the oncoming lane. If you don't know this you should send your driving license back.

As to why you should leave a great deal of room when overtaking a bicycle, because it is the safest way. Same as a motorcycle.

When overtaking you must make sure that your intentions are obvious to all other road users and pedestrians. If you are too close and you are going too fast you could cause wind which might knock the cyclist off balance. A Bicycle or Motorcycle has to pay extremely close regard to the state of the road surface, which is terrible in this city. It is essential to weave around potholes overbanding, tram tracks, metal covers and flaws in the road surface, which can damage your wheel rim or even cause you to fall off.
This is not very important in a car because it has wider wheels and is more stable due to there being 4 of them, car drivers often do not realise how terrible a road is for a two wheeled vehicle.
And they should always give 2 wheeled vehicles the courtesy of the width of a car because if they have to skip around a road drain or pothole they could move a foot in either direction, and if they miss it and fall off you don't run over them.

I am in favour of making people drive mopeds and bicycles for 6 months as part of the car driving test, then we wouldn't get such stupid car drivers asking questions like this, and being naive enough to belive that the roads were built solely for the use of them and their car alone. :rant:

Incorrect. Most of the roads in sheffield were laid out over 100 years ago when cars were extremely rare. The main mode of transport was horse. This is one of the main reasons why we have such narrow roads.
Roads are not the exclusive preserve of cars, they are highways for all forms of transport, most arterial road bridges are high enough to get the old trams under, and lane widths are calculated to allow adequate room for an HGV or large BUS to get around bends without crossing into the oncoming lane. If you don't know this you should send your driving license back.

As to why you should leave a great deal of room when overtaking a bicycle, because it is the safest way. Same as a motorcycle.

When overtaking you must make sure that your intentions are obvious to all other road users and pedestrians. If you are too close and you are going too fast you could cause wind which might knock the cyclist off balance. A Bicycle or Motorcycle has to pay extremely close regard to the state of the road surface, which is terrible in this city. It is essential to weave around potholes overbanding, metal covers and flaws in the road surface, which can damage your wheel rim or even cause you to fall off.
This is not very important in a car because it has wider wheels and is more stable due to there being 4 of them, car drivers often do not realise how terrible a road is for a two wheeled vehicle.
And they should always give 2 wheeled vehicles the courtesy of the width of a car because if they have to skip around a road drain or pothole they could move a foot in either direction, and if they miss it and fall off you don't run over them.

I am in favour of making people drive mopeds and bicycles for 6 months as part of the car driving test, then we wouldn't get such stupid car drivers asking questions like this, and being naive enough to belive that the roads were built solely for the use of them and their car alone. :rant:

Got to agreed with this. I used to ride a motorcycle (I also have done some motorcycle instruction) and know just how bad the standard of driving is both in cars on on motorcyles. I actually stopped riding a motorcycle because I think its getting too dangerous.

I still however think that cyclists should bear in mind that on fast roads they are dicing with death when riding two abreast. It makes no difference to many car drivers whether there is one, two or three cyclists riding abreast they will still try and overtake.

I still however think that cyclists should bear in mind that on fast roads they are dicing with death when riding two abreast. It makes no difference to many car drivers whether there is one, two or three cyclists riding abreast they will still try and overtake.

Totally agree with you. I spend less time each year on the motorbike because it is very dangerous. Volume of traffic,roads in bad condition and car drivers trying to enforce their own version of the law regarding motor vehicles, and how they should be used on the roads. As part of the driving test everyone should be made to use a moped if they dont like it, once behind the wheel of a car they may have some consideration for 2 wheeled road users!

Motorists pay road tax and fuel duty to drive on the road, which cyclists do not. Motorists also have to have a licence and insurance; the licence ensures that they can drive to a sufficiently safe level, and the insurance means that, should an accident occur, then they are covered against having to pay out for damages themselves, which they may not be able to afford.

And cyclists have... oh yes, that's it - a higher-than-normal sense of smugness that they're not causing pollution, which seemingly allows them to go straight through red lights, or treat the roads like they're their own private domain.

Motorists pay road tax and fuel duty to drive on the road, which cyclists do not. Motorists also have to have a licence and insurance; the licence ensures that they can drive to a sufficiently safe level, and the insurance means that, should an accident occur, then they are covered against having to pay out for damages themselves, which they may not be able to afford.

And cyclists have... oh yes, that's it - a higher-than-normal sense of smugness that they're not causing pollution, which seemingly allows them to go straight through red lights, or treat the roads like they're their own private domain.

Your point being?

rich makes some good points !

Cyclists should stop whinging, or start to take notice of the rules of the road.

... If you are too close and you are going too fast you could cause wind which might knock the cyclist off balance...

I had assumed it was something I ate. I can't imagine letting rip so hard I fell off my bike though :|

Cyclists should stop whinging, or start to take notice of the rules of the road.
Your ever so slightly off thread here mate. (1) the thread is regarding overtaking of cyclists (2) there arent any cyclists whinging here. (3) I choose to ride my bike to stop me from getting frustrated in traffic jams. I hold a full uk driving licence I am also licensed to ride any motorcycle. I insure 2 cars and a bike and they are all taxed. So Ill ask you again Your point being?

I was explaining why I dislike cyclists, as have many people on this thread. You can ride your bike for whatever reason you want, 'mate'.

Well done on insuring and taxing 2 cars and a bike; doesn't make any difference to my argument regarding cyclists being untaxed and uninsured though.

I was explaining why I dislike cyclists, as have many people on this thread. You can ride your bike for whatever reason you want, 'mate'.

Well done on insuring and taxing 2 cars and a bike; doesn't make any difference to my argument regarding cyclists being untaxed and uninsured though.

We obviously dont need to be insured or taxed "mate" otherwise the government would have made it so years ago! Wouldnt you think?

We obviously dont need to be insured or taxed "mate" otherwise the government would have made it so years ago! Wouldnt you think?

Who would pay for the roads if we all "got on our bikes" eh? Cyclists would be made to pay then!

By that argument, raping your wife was perfectly acceptable up until it was made illegal in 1991.

I'd hate for a cyclist to crash into my car by their own fault and damage it, as they wouldn't pay for the repairs, would they?

Who would pay for the roads if we all "got on our bikes" eh? Cyclists would be made to pay then!

Twinkle as you have stated previously. You certainly wouldnt "get on your bike" would you. So thats not really going to happen is it?Lets be realistic here.

By that argument, raping your wife was perfectly acceptable up until it was made illegal in 1991.

I'd hate for a cyclist to crash into my car by their own fault and damage it, as they wouldn't pay for the repairs, would they?
Even further off the thread now rich! Having never studied rape or its legalities i cannot comment, However it is possible to claim against someone for damage incurred to your own personal property. Anyway thats why we have comprehensive insurance isnt it?

Yes, it is. And I'd lose my no-claims bonus, or at least my no-claims protection. How's that fair?

And my point about rape was just to show that just because something isn't bound by law doesn't mean anything. Times change.

Motorists pay road tax and fuel duty to drive on the road, which cyclists do not. Motorists also have to have a licence and insurance; the licence ensures that they can drive to a sufficiently safe level, and the insurance means that, should an accident occur, then they are covered against having to pay out for damages themselves, which they may not be able to afford.

And cyclists have... oh yes, that's it - a higher-than-normal sense of smugness that they're not causing pollution, which seemingly allows them to go straight through red lights, or treat the roads like they're their own private domain.

What he said!!

And the highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file not two or more abreast. Not that cyclists take any notice of the highway code because they don't have to!!

No licence to lose, no insurance premium to worry about, no test to pass so no reading up beforehand. no police waiting to nick you and the cameras don't work on cyclists. No wonder the're smug.

Last summer I bought a bike and cycled to and from work. From Lodge Moor to Crookesmoor took about 15 to 20 minutes and was a doddle as it is all downhill. However, not being the fittest person on earth, getting back home was a 35 minute climb and I finally packed it in.

However, just that short spell was enough for me to realise how poorly treated cyclists are by Sheffield's motorists. Many drivers seemed to almost panic in an attempt to overtake me. Some simply couldn't wait and would just go for it, irrespective of any oncoming traffic and the width of the road. Others couldn't gauge how much room I needed and also how far I could travel before they cut across me in order to turn into a side road.

It did little to convince me otherwise that I firmly believe the driving standards in this city are amongst the worst in the country. It taught me to calm down when waiting to overtake other cyclists (when back safely behind the wheel) and to give them as much room as possible.

Yes, cyclists still can be a right pain, especially those who come up on your nearside and clip your wing-mirror (!). But I'm staggered by how poor some drivers are at simply controlling their vehicle.

I wonder if the lady in the little car managed to get to her destination yesterday. The one who drove all the way down High Street, on the TRAMLINES totally oblivious to the fact that cars aren't allowed down that stretch!!!

Yes, it is. And I'd lose my no-claims bonus, or at least my no-claims protection. How's that fair?

And my point about rape was just to show that just because something isn't bound by law doesn't mean anything. Times change.
I think soon it will be a legal requirement to have third party insurance for cyclists too. My question here is has anybody ever had a cyclist crash into their car and it was the cyclists fault? If so how much did the repair cost? I think these cases will be so few and far between. That this will be the reason for not introducing insurance for cyclists in the first place.

I'd hate for a cyclist to crash into my car by their own fault and damage it, as they wouldn't pay for the repairs, would they?
Why ever not.
If a cyclist or pedestrian crashes into your car and damages it, they are legally liable. You can sue them for the repairs.

There are many touring cyclists who have insurance incidentaly, and a few commuting cyclists too. Cycle insurance is avaiable. While it is not a legal requirement to have 3rd party libility insurance for a push bike, it is available, and a cyclist is liable for damage.

What he said!!

And the highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file not two or more abreast. Not that cyclists take any notice of the highway code because they don't have to!!

No licence to lose, no insurance premium to worry about, no test to pass so no reading up beforehand. no police waiting to nick you and the cameras don't work on cyclists. No wonder the're smug.
Well when they nail the ex cyclists coffin shut I dont think he or she will be so smug then! I think its a minority of people who do this it is annoying and very dangerous. Sometimes you just cant educate pork! i mean folk.

I hope it is, yes, and that a basic cycling proficiency test (including a theory test on the highway code) is introduced as well. Added to this, cyclists should be obliged to have lights on their bikes (which I believe they already are at night, even though many cyclists ignore this) and to wear helmets.

I would imagine that people have had bicycles crash into them, yes, and the way a lot of cyclists treat the road I would imagine that at least some of the time it's their fault.

Whether the repair cost is high or low is not really the point, it's the principle of liability and the loss of the no-claims bonus.

You need to give a cyclist a good 6 feet clearance when overtaking. I'm six feet tall and if I am riding one foot from the kerb and I came off for whatever reason then my head could be seven feet from the kerb.

What he said!!

And the highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file not two or more abreast. Not that cyclists take any notice of the highway code because they don't have to!!

No it doesn't it says that you can ride two abreast

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm

51: You should

not ride more than two abreast


If you are going to start spouting about highway code you should actually read it first.
You should not ride more than two abreast means that you can ride single file or two abreast.

Now go and buy a highway code and read it. :roll:

, and that a basic cycling proficiency test (including a theory test on the highway code)

That'll be the newly and nattily entitled (it is SO today) 'bike ability'.

Yup, that's what the cycling proficiency test is called nowadays.

Even chavs might understand it. Oh I see; that's the whole point.

Who would pay for the roads if we all "got on our bikes" eh? Cyclists would be made to pay then!

Aren't the roads around the city maintained by the council? So cyclist who pay council tax do pay for road maintenance...

It did little to convince me otherwise that I firmly believe the driving standards in this city are amongst the worst in the country. It taught me to calm down when waiting to overtake other cyclists (when back safely behind the wheel) and to give them as much room as possible.

Bit off thread but have to agree here, Sheffield drivers are appalling. I think its to do with getting so frustrated with the gridlock when they see an open bit of road that have to get up to 50 mph+ as fast as possible regardless of their own or anyone elses safety.

No it doesn't it says that you can ride two abreast

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm


If you are going to start spouting about highway code you should actually read it first.
You should not ride more than two abreast means that you can ride single file or two abreast.

Now go and buy a highway code and read it. :roll:

It also says .......

51: You should

* ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

why dont cyclists do this on their way out to the Peak district on the A57 for example ? This is a very busy road

Aren't the roads around the city maintained by the council? So cyclist who pay council tax do pay for road maintenance...

That is right. And they didn't have council tax when we had the old pack horses. Roads (and motorways) are built for specifically for the car user, the car user is the one who needs to pay.

Motorists pay road tax and fuel duty to drive on the road, which cyclists do not. Motorists also have to have a licence and insurance; the licence ensures that they can drive to a sufficiently safe level, and the insurance means that, should an accident occur, then they are covered against having to pay out for damages themselves, which they may not be able to afford.


There is no such thing as road tax - you pay vehicle excise duty. You also do not pay fuel duty to drive on the road, you pay it FOR THE FUEL THAT YOU BUY. How you use the fuel is up to you.

What a load of tosh. Whatever you call it, the point of vehicle excise duty is to fund the repair and maintenence of the public highways.

And don't be so stupid; what else are you going to use the fuel for? Barbequeing?

some fair points made. if cyclists don't pay anything then they shouldn't be able to use the road.

They should in fact be very grateful that motorists have the kind hearts to overtake dangerously close by, when drivers would be well within their rights to run them straight over if they got in the way.

No one is suggesting that at all. All motorists want is a level playing field. Cyclists want respect from motorists? Fine. Start obeying the traffic laws yourselves and make insurance, tax and licensing mandatory.

Some of you are saying that bicycles should have some duty to pay road tax.
When you consider that in the main, vehicles pay road tax in proportion to the damage they do to the road surface and pollution they cause.

Lorries and busses pay hundreds in road fund tax, cars with very large engines pay more than regular cars which pay less, and small motorcycles pay a very small amount.

On that scale bicycles do so very little damage to the road surface and cause no exhaust emmision at all, and collecting 13p a year from each cycle would cost much more than the administration charge would be.

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

some fair points made. if cyclists don't pay anything then they shouldn't be able to use the road.

They should in fact be very grateful that motorists have the kind hearts to overtake dangerously close by, when drivers would be well within their rights to run them straight over if they got in the way.

So would you run pedestrians over for commiting the crime of crossing the road, if there was no designated crossing point?

No one is suggesting that at all. All motorists want is a level playing field. Cyclists want respect from motorists? Fine. Start obeying the traffic laws yourselves and make insurance, tax and licensing mandatory.

Good idea, as soon as cyclists stop cycling on the pavement and stop jumping red lights, then I'll overtake safely. Until then though, they're just gonna have to accept the risk that I might try to get round them a bit earlier than might be comfortable.

let's make them earn this respect that they want.

car users do have to pay to use the roads so you would think that would mean we have priority over cyclists. But NO!! like hell we do. They don't even move in a straight line. Just swerving all over the place! like they own it or something. really p***es me off!

Glad it's not just me who dislikes cyclists!

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

You shouldn't at all! your money would be better spent building more roads instead.

Good idea, as soon as cyclists stop cycling on the pavement and stop jumping red lights, then I'll overtake safely. Until then though, they're just gonna have to accept the risk that I might try to get round them a bit earlier than might be comfortable.

let's make them earn this respect that they want.

I wonder if you are aware that sometimes pavements are designated cycle ways?

"Cycling is permitted in most bus lanes in the city and there are some shared use routes with pedestrians. These routes can be useful as part of a journey."

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/cycling-and-walking/cycling/sheffield-cycle-routes#roads

And of course there are the 'Advanced Stop Lines' which you will find at some traffic signals. These are one of a suite of measures designed to improve safety and journey times for cyclists. (The cyclist is actually allowed to move off early proving it is safe.)

The advanced stop line is used to create a special area at traffic signals where cyclists can wait in front of other traffic. This enables cyclists to avoid potential collisions with left turning traffic and enables right hand turns to be made more safely. A major cause of accidents to cyclists is vehicles turning left across them. The cycle advance area allows cyclists to move away from the junction ahead of other traffic and without holding the traffic up.

Hooray! Another thread about cyclists!
How about a thread about the recent smoking ban?

I wonder if you are aware that sometimes pavements are designated cycle ways?

"Cycling is permitted in most bus lanes in the city and there are some shared use routes with pedestrians. These routes can be useful as part of a journey."

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/cycling-and-walking/cycling/sheffield-cycle-routes#roads

but surely the pedestrian causalities are multitudinous in these areas? we've heard many a time about the gruesomeness that ensues when cyclists ride on the pavement. Old ladies knocked down, babies run over etc. etc.

you can't surely be saying that it's actually viable for pedestrian and cyclist to share an area? the place for the unprotected and squishy cyclist is amongst the heavy goods vehicles, buses and cars, not amongst fellow squishies.

but surely the pedestrian causalities are multitudinous in these areas? we've heard many a time about the gruesomeness that ensues when cyclists ride on the pavement. Old ladies knocked down, babies run over etc. etc.

The pavements are marked with different colored flags, one part for pedestrians and the red lane for cyclists. I don't think pedestrians understand why they are there and they wander anywhere. But of course when the pavements are busy with pedestrians the cyclist is always considerate towards the pedestrians just like car drivers are towards the cyclist. :)

No problems here with cyclists and I dont have any problems overtaking them. They dont hold me up. Its the car in front that I soon catch back up too that does that.

Diesel car drivers (any type) are my least favorite road user.

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

Well they are basically pavements with the odd bicycle symbol painted on them aren't they, so after they have been set up practically nothing. Because beforehand it was just a wider pavement, which required the same maintenance.

Mod Note:


Ladies and Gentlemen... please don't feed the trolls.

Let's face it, there's nowt more annoying that being stuck behind a cyclist. Especially when they don't seem to wait for anything themselves i.e. jumping red lights, using the footpath to take short cuts. Quite rightly I think, I pass them at the first available opportunity, which sometimes means they have to 'squeeze' in a little bit to the side. For the cyclist I can imagine this makes it quite exciting as sometimes this makes the road quite narrow for them. Add into the equation that my car weights about 2000kg, they weigh maybe 80kg and there's a row of parked cars on the other side of them and it starts to sound like an extreme sport. Heaven forbid that someone parked up should open their car door at this moment, it would cause quite a mess.

You'll understand then to my disbelief that you should allow a cyclist at least as much room as you do when overtaking a car or other vehicle. They're much smaller than cars so why should they have equal room. Besides, the road is built for cars, having to pass them like this would bring every road to a standstill, traffic jams are bad enough as they are. Does anyone actually do this? or do you try and get past asap and in the meantime leave less then a desirable amount of room.

Don't even get me started about cyclists that ride TWO a breast!

I call troll (or maybe idiot).

I treat a pedal cyclist the way I'd treat a horse.

I approach them from behind, quietly and gently, without unnecessary revving of the engine and then give them a wide berth when it's safe to pass.

See I can be nice, I just reserve my ire for motor cyclists, the most dangerous drivers on the roads imo, fools to themselves.

I call troll (or maybe idiot).

I call 'complete absence of sense of humour' (or maybe idiot).

its normally horse riders people have to overtake round these parts, and the odd herd of sheep / cows

dont overtake them go straight over them :hihi::hihi:

No it doesn't it says that you can ride two abreast

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm


If you are going to start spouting about highway code you should actually read it first.
You should not ride more than two abreast means that you can ride single file or two abreast.

Now go and buy a highway code and read it. :roll:

I have a copy of the highway code and have read it, the link you so kindly provide says you should not ride more than two abreast it also says you should ride in single file on busy or narrow roads, so perhaps we can call that a draw seeing as the OP was about overtaking cyclists.
Now perhaps you can get down off your high horse (or should that be high bicycle) and justify why cyclists break just about every other rule/guidance in the link you posted.

Some of you are saying that bicycles should have some duty to pay road tax.
When you consider that in the main, vehicles pay road tax in proportion to the damage they do to the road surface and pollution they cause.

Lorries and busses pay hundreds in road fund tax, cars with very large engines pay more than regular cars which pay less, and small motorcycles pay a very small amount.

On that scale bicycles do so very little damage to the road surface and cause no exhaust emmision at all, and collecting 13p a year from each cycle would cost much more than the administration charge would be.

Motorists pay far more in taxes specific to motoring than is spent on roads why should cyclists be exempt?

Why do many cyclists feel the need to squeeze down the side of the car when I'm waiting at lights, only for me to have to overtake them 5 secs later once its on green, I dont think many feel its dangerous being overtaken of they would just wait the 5 feet behind :) I would sooner have cyclists though than having some young tw@t buzzing about on a scooter.

Ok lets clear the whole road tax thing up once and for all. First of all as already said its called VED and not road tax and remember if you buy a car the churns out a lower amount of C02 you pay less VED infact if you get a car that produces a real low amount or non at all you pay no VED at all, bicycles when ridden produce no C02. Next thing if all the cash raised by VED was used for the upkeep of the roads why are many of our road in such a bad state. I dont have a number off hand but the vast majority of monies raised by VED just goes into a big pot down at number 11 Downing Street never to be spent on the upkeep of our roads.

Motorists pay far more in taxes specific to motoring than is spent on roads why should cyclists be exempt?

Who says cycling is free, it's blinking hard work, if you want comfort and to be taken around without exerting yourself you have to pay for the luxury. :)

I call 'complete absence of sense of humour' (or maybe idiot).

You think it was funny, or just that it was supposed to be funny? :loopy:

You think it was funny, or just that it was supposed to be funny? :loopy:

what are you trying to say about my post?

It doesn't fit in with Cyclone's strict view of what is good and what is not, therefore it is wrong and anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't understand or is a mental.

Yes byevilroot and rich c stop trolling your arguments are flawed, even though byevilroots arguments are quite funny. :hihi:

I hate cyclists, but I'd hate to knock one off and kill them! They're a nuisence and should buy a car is my usual line, but I'll hang back and only overtake when its safe to do so, leaving plenty of room!


CAR OWNERS ARE THE NUISENCE

especially women drivers putting their make up on in the car whilst swerving to miss the cyclist hehe

Yes byevilroot and rich c stop trolling your arguments are flawed, even though byevilroots arguments are quite funny. :hihi:

I'm not trolling, and my arguments aren't flawed. I thought the point of a public forum was to allow people to air their views; clearly this is not the case.

some fair points made. if cyclists don't pay anything then they shouldn't be able to use the road.

They should in fact be very grateful that motorists have the kind hearts to overtake dangerously close by, when drivers would be well within their rights to run them straight over if they got in the way.

?????????? at least cyclists are fit and healthy unlike fat slobs that sit in cars with their bellies hanging down near the floor.

sounds like sour grapes to me, and i hope 1 day i come across you whilst riding my bike :D

Don't be ridiculous; not all motorists are slobs, in the same way that not all cyclists have the figure of a bronzed Adonis.

I treat a pedal cyclist the way I'd treat a horse.

I approach them from behind, quietly and gently, without unnecessary revving of the engine and then give them a wide berth when it's safe to pass.

See I can be nice, I just reserve my ire for motor cyclists, the most dangerous drivers on the roads imo, fools to themselves.

:banana:

Thanks ruby!

I nearly got mashed last night by some &*^%&%^ driving like a "£$%%^&% I don't think he was out to get me, he jsut wanted to get past slow moving traffic by under-taking them using the bus lane :rolleyes:

I'm not trolling, and my arguments aren't flawed. I thought the point of a public forum was to allow people to air their views; clearly this is not the case.

I didnt say you couldnt air your views, all im saying is that your views arent very good. And i can say that because this is a public forum:hihi:

Nice one. I wish I were as intelligent and magnanimous as you are. I wish you continued luck in riding your bicycle in Sheffield.

Thank you its nice to be appreciated:hihi:

?????????? at least cyclists are fit and healthy unlike fat slobs that sit in cars with their bellies hanging down near the floor.

sounds like sour grapes to me, and i hope 1 day i come across you whilst riding my bike :D

If you read some of my previous posting on other threads, you'll actually discover that I am an avid cyclist. I thought that the thread would be an interesting way to draw attention to our plight. Although there are many threads on cyclists, none really draw attention to the overtaking point, which is a major cause of injuries to cyclists. I though this should have been obvious, indeed the second poster thought it was.

You think it was funny, or just that it was supposed to be funny? :loopy:

Yes, to both questions.

If you read some of my previous posting on other threads, you'll actually discover that I am an avid cyclist. I thought that the thread would be an interesting way to draw attention to our plight. Although there are many threads on cyclists, none really draw attention to the overtaking point, which is a major cause of injuries to cyclists. I though this should have been obvious, indeed the second poster thought it was.

my error!! i find i dont actaully let them over take me, i over take them helps lots

Yes, to both questions.

Oh well, I suppose it takes all sorts.

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

By that logic then, why should I pay for schools? I don't have any kids.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Parents should be taxed more.

on sunday had awalk up eccy rd and the number of cyclists on the footpath is amazing and they are all in the 20 to 40 age and just come straight at you . they dont slow down they just expect you to shift and no one says or does a thing about it most of them i think are student s but they want fineing its wose than dropping a fag end ps have you tried yorkies nr hunters bar . thir food is fantastic the staff are so happy to searve you and its not minty well worth atry fromgrumpy old man dees other half

on sunday had awalk up eccy rd and the number of cyclists on the footpath is amazing and they are all in the 20 to 40 age and just come straight at you . they dont slow down they just expect you to shift and no one says or does a thing about it most of them i think are student s but they want fineing its wose than dropping a fag end ps have you tried yorkies nr hunters bar . thir food is fantastic the staff are so happy to searve you and its not minty well worth atry fromgrumpy old man dees other half

Whaaaa??? :D

Come again?

and breath

car users should do the same then ie try reading the bloody highway code .. especialy older drivers

question ..your about to turn left and theres a cyclist in front of you do you
a.. wait till he has passed the junction then indicate then turn
b.. wait till he has passed then turn
c.. overtake him then without indicating turn so the cyclist has to stop sharply or go over the bonnet

i find that most drivers think its c .. why because there *****

the law says you have to give way

Motorists pay far more in taxes specific to motoring than is spent on roads why should cyclists be exempt?

Because if ALL cyclists bought cars (assuming they don't actually own one already and pay VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY not "Road tax") they would cause far more of a hold-up to you and everyone else in rush hour than going a bit slow up a hill.

So it makes sense to not discourage the use of a bicycle for short journeys to people who may already pay VED on the vehicle they choose to leave at home.

And since I have a bicycle and two cars, pay two lots of insurance and two lots of VED, kindly get out of my way since I pay more than you

if the road agency or who ever the hell owns the roads put a cycle lane on every road inc motorways then i would be more than happy to pay road tax untill then why the hell should we ... oh and its not that most cyclists dont own cars its that most cyclists arnt fat lazy knackers and like the idea of a bit of physical exercise , and road tax is for the wear and tear of the road how much damage does a cycle do ?

The advanced stop line is used to create a special area at traffic signals where cyclists can wait in front of other traffic. This enables cyclists to avoid potential collisions with left turning traffic and enables right hand turns to be made more safely. A major cause of accidents to cyclists is vehicles turning left across them. The cycle advance area allows cyclists to move away from the junction ahead of other traffic and without holding the traffic up.

for car drivers its also a potential 3 points to stop in them:D

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

Doesn't come from general taxation. £3m over the next couple of years is being spent by central government to encourage more people onto bikes:D:D

No one is suggesting that at all. All motorists want is a level playing field. Cyclists want respect from motorists? Fine. Start obeying the traffic laws yourselves and make insurance, tax and licensing mandatory.

So every single motorist sticks to the speed limit, pays their tax, insurance, stops at the scene of an accident?

Tax I pay at same rate as any other zero/low emission vehicle.

Insurance I have thro' CTC and 3rd party liability thro my house insurance.

licence? How'd that work then? 9 year olds with licences?

[QUOTE=RichC;2488504]What a load of tosh. Whatever you call it, the point of vehicle excise duty is to fund the repair and maintenence of the public highways.[QUOTE]

No its to give you the right to put a car on the road. Or your licence to pollute

[QUOTE=RichC;2488217]cyclists should be obliged to .... wear helmets.
[QUOTE]

I do, but there's plenty of evidence to say they aren't necessarily the boon you'd think.

Plus a recent study showed that wearing a helmet caused drivers to take more risks with how they approached and overtook cyclists.

Who would pay for the roads if we all "got on our bikes" eh? Cyclists would be made to pay then!

Its thro council tax, so everyone pays. Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians

Doesn't come from local taxation.

Its thro council tax

Odd contradiction there:D.

They should pay road tax IMO and until then they can shut up moaning on about the roads!

They should pay road tax IMO and until then they can shut up moaning on about the roads!

Then cars should also pay road tax. They don't at present

SCCSUX

Ta, mistake, edited now

I'm a keen cyclist I don't particularly agree with cyclist paying road tax as some people have suggested as a bike doesn't do much damage to the road(the Sheffield roads do more damage to the bikes, potholes and all.).

Though what I would be in favour of is a cyling test, just as car, motorbike, hgv etc drivers have to take a test. Something like the cycling proficiency test a lot of schools used to do. In my opinion this should be done at school in year 10 or 11 encouraging lots of teenagers to take up cycling.

I can honestly say I've never jumped a red light and always stick to the highway code. One of the main reasons for this is I'm currently trying to pass my driving test and find the practice I've had for many years on a bike very useful. When on a bike you have to be even more careful for checking whats behind and if vehicles are pulling out. So when I get in the car I'm used to checking around me and if driving near a cyclist I can see things from their point of view.

PS I’m not a car hater. I’m also a driver. I’ll ride considerately towards drivers and acknowledge that there are a lot of considerate drivers. But there are a lot of drivers who jump in their cars before they’ve even woken up, drivers who think 2” is enough clearance when they overtake and is as far as a cyclist needs to be off the kerb.

Too many that think the speed limit is (if not something to be broken) the speed they should be able to maintain constantly, instead of the maximum speed.

Also too many that passed their test and never looked at the highway code since.

To show how many drive on autopilot, oblivious to their surroundings. How many drivers continued under the wicker arches on Monday? Signs clearly said ‘buses, taxis and access only’, but nearly no one diverted to the right where they were signposted.

Let's be honest, a lot of what you say is generalisation, just as much of the maligning of cyclists is generalisation too. What winds me up is the sanctimonious nature of SOME cyclists who think that they have some kind of priority on the road, particularly the ones who sail blithely through red lights and then shout abuse at car drivers for going too close to them (there's one who does it regularly on Abbeydale Road, near Tesco, between 6 and 7 every week night).

I get wound up by car drivers too, particularly those who pull out without looking, or don't acknowledge when someone has been kind enough to let them out. And motorcyclists, when their idea of 'filtering' is riding up the wrong side of the road. And pedestrians, when they walk out on the street without looking.

I think I just hate everyone.

Let's be honest, a lot of what you say is generalisation, just as much of the maligning of cyclists is generalisation too. What winds me up is the sanctimonious nature of SOME cyclists who think that they have some kind of priority on the road, particularly the ones who sail blithely through red lights and then shout abuse at car drivers for going too close to them (there's one who does it regularly on Abbeydale Road, near Tesco, between 6 and 7 every week night).

I get wound up by car drivers too, particularly those who pull out without looking, or don't acknowledge when someone has been kind enough to let them out. And motorcyclists, when their idea of 'filtering' is riding up the wrong side of the road. And pedestrians, when they walk out on the street without looking.

I think I just hate everyone.

I think what you are trying to say is that you hate all unconsiderate and / or incompetent road users.

No, that's not quite it.

I hate everyone. I'm the most misanthropic person you could meet.

For instance, I also hate people who patronisingly tell me what I'm trying to say.

No, that's not quite it.

I hate everyone. I'm the most misanthropic person you could meet.

For instance, I also hate people who patronisingly tell me what I'm trying to say.

Having a bad day? Have you ever tried to work out why you are so unhappy? Perhaps if you didn't rant so much it would have been easier for me me to understand you.

Remember what yoda said about hate leading to the dark side

I'm not unhappy. Not really having a bad day either, other than the weather.

I'm also not really a fan of the 'spirituality' of Star Wars ;)

Anyway, this is moving off topic.

I'd hate for a cyclist to crash into my car by their own fault and damage it, as they wouldn't pay for the repairs, would they?

If a cyclist was at fault surely your insurance company will take up the case against them to recover the costs

Cyclists are the most self righteous arrogant set of twas to grace the planet. huff and puff they go. arent we good, no polution and no congestion, except whe they dont stick to the kerb. they should pay road tax and should be insured.

Cyclists are the most self righteous arrogant set of twas to grace the planet. huff and puff they go. arent we good, no polution and no congestion, except whe they dont stick to the kerb. they should pay road tax and should be insured.

I'm surprised you haven't got involved in this thread before now :) Of course, you made this post without a hint of irony because no driver ever to get behind the wheel of a car has been arrogant or self righteous, yes?
I'm a cyclist, I stick to the kerb, pay 'road tax' :rolleyes: and am insured. So there :D

Cyclists are the most self righteous arrogant set of twas to grace the planet. huff and puff they go. arent we good, no polution and no congestion, except whe they dont stick to the kerb. they should pay road tax and should be insured.

You say that like you think pollution and congestion are good things, Mikey. Feeling guilty? Jealous?

Wouldn't it be nice if one day a year we all swapped places?

Us cyclists could borrow the motorists' cars and spend all day getting angry, swearing at other road users and chucking pollution into the air while the motorists on this thread could try cycling through Sheffield at rush hour and see just how intimidating it can be?

What I hate is when cyclists stop on that red painty bit at the lights :mad:. They think they're oh so bluddy special just because there's a picture of a bike on the road :loopy:, well they're not, and if me and my pasty-faced lard-arse girlfriend want to pull our crappy little Astra right up to the lights so we can be 6 feet nearer to where we're going, then we will. I pay my taxes and my insurance sometimes :rant: :rant:

Cyclists also put a far greater burden on the health service especially when they get sideswiped by our Channelle in her Suzuki Jimney.

And how much to cycle paths cost to create and maintain? It's surely not free. Why should I contribute to that? I don't ride a bicycle.

I don't need kidney dialysis. Why should I pay for that. The people with no kidneys should pay and them only.
That's irony by the way.

Rich we live in a society where different people have differing needs. We all contribute in various ways to a cental pot and the money gets distributed according to needs. Besides the only reason cycle paths are even needed in the first place is because of dangerous and selfish drivers.

I don't need kidney dialysis. Why should I pay for that. The people with no kidneys should pay and them only.
That's irony by the way.

Rich we live in a society where different people have differing needs. We all contribute in various ways to a cental pot and the money gets distributed according to needs. Besides the only reason cycle paths are even needed in the first place is because of dangerous and selfish drivers.

If, at any point, you have to point out that something you've said is irony, your irony has failed ;)

This argument has been dredged up after a long period of lying dormant, and to be honest, I can't be bothered to get into it again. As I mentioned earlier, there are idiots who drive, idiots who ride bikes, and idiots who do neither. I'm not going to get into another slanging match about it.

I'm not trolling, and my arguments aren't flawed.
:hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi:
Oh sorrry, were you were actually being serious? :P

If, at any point, you have to point out that something you've said is irony, your irony has failed ;)
Not failed, I just pointing it out for the hard of thinking as some people here are so literal, they take even BasilRathbon at face value. The reason being was to save explaining it was ironic when people took it so literally. The [unintentional] irony in your response is kind of funny though as I now have to explain the irony of you missing the point about my irony warning.:rolleyes:


Also bear in mind this thread was started with an very obviously ironic post, that many people took at face value.

Let's be honest, a lot of what you say is generalisation, just as much of the maligning of cyclists is generalisation too. What winds me up is the sanctimonious nature of SOME cyclists who think that they have some kind of priority on the road, particularly the ones who sail blithely through red lights and then shout abuse at car drivers for going too close to them (there's one who does it regularly on Abbeydale Road, near Tesco, between 6 and 7 every week night).

You sound like a stalker.

Do I really? Ah well. The only reason I know is because we go past there in the car at about that time every week night, and see him.

Cyclists are the most self righteous arrogant set of twas to grace the planet. huff and puff they go. arent we good, no polution and no congestion, except whe they dont stick to the kerb. they should pay road tax and should be insured.

If you must troll, at least put some effort in. 2/10 (you get marks for the deliberate bad spelling)

Any chance of someone posting a Cyclists v Motorists poll :)

What winds me up is the sanctimonious nature of SOME cyclists who think that they have some kind of priority on the road, particularly the ones who... shout abuse at car drivers for going too close to them (there's one who does it regularly on Abbeydale Road, near Tesco, between 6 and 7 every week night).
You dislike someone who objects to people driving too close. :loopy: Are you one of those drivers who drive too close and then get shouted at? If so you are the problem, not the cyclist.
If people overtook me in my car as closely as they skim cyclists, I would assume they were dangerous loonies and that's when I'm wrapped in a steel cage and quite protected. You clip a car overtaking and some bodywork may need doing. You clip a cyclist and the bodywork may well be done at the funeral home

I think I just hate everyone.Nuff said.

Right, if you will insist on dredging up old posts...

It's not about driving too close to them. It's about them 'filtering' up the inside of the traffic when there's clearly not enough room, and then complaining about cars being too close to them - especially when the cars are trying to turn. Nice editing of the original post, by the way, to make it look like I've said something different.

I've stated my position, and I've admitted that motorists are often in the wrong as well. Can we leave it at that? I'm tired of arguing with you. You've got your viewpoint, I've got mine, and we're not going to agree.

Dredging up old posts???? I'm responding to a current thread and specifically to a post that you made only yesterday.

I edited post to concentrate on one specific point - it makes no difference to the meaning of your point, whatsoever. I was very careful about that.

As for editing - you've now completely reworded your position and hence the meaning. Changing cyclists getting annoyed "at car drivers for going too close to them" to "them 'filtering' up the inside of the traffic when there's clearly not enough room," is rewriting what you first posted.
You can't even agree with yourself let alone any one else!

As for bikes going on the inside when there clearly isn't enough room - how does that work?:confused: As if there isn't enough room, they cannot by defintion, get past. And from observations from inside a car and outside a car, cyclists probably clear stationary traffic by the same amount as cars give them when they overtake a moving bike.
Also it would be courteous [and sensible] to allow enough room between you and the pavement for a cyclist to get past if you are stationary. Esp on a road as wide as where you mentioned the 'problem'.

Right, ok, you win, argument over.

Somehow I think nothing has changed and you still hate everyone. :P

Right, if you will insist on dredging up old posts...

It's not about driving too close to them. It's about them 'filtering' up the inside of the traffic when there's clearly not enough room, and then complaining about cars being too close to them - especially when the cars are trying to turn. Nice editing of the original post, by the way, to make it look like I've said something different.

I've stated my position, and I've admitted that motorists are often in the wrong as well. Can we leave it at that? I'm tired of arguing with you. You've got your viewpoint, I've got mine, and we're not going to agree.

Motorist should leave enough room, for cyclists to filter past, cyclists should leave enough room for motorists to overtake, many do, but when riding my bike, i notice many drivers will purposefully pull to the left when approcahing traffic lights after havign overtaken me, this sometimes means i have to jump onto the pavement to avoid a collision.

Only last week i was riding up the bochum parkway and a smal van overtook me and he was so close that his wingmirror clipped my elbow. i wobbled and decided to bring myself to a stop.
Normally on that road the drivers are more careful than on the smaller roads.

When riding my bike i stick as far as i can to the left and have to pull out to avoid grates, pot holes etc. car users should take this into consideration, as i did when passing my driving test.

I own a car, a bicycle, and a pair of feet, so I hate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists equally. ;-)

In a vain attempt to make this thread have something of interest in it, here's some amusement for those non-cyclists who imagine that tax money is being spent on cycle lanes for the benefit of cyclists (it is being spent on cycle lanes, but they're of bugger all benefit to cyclists most of the time, they're a cynical excercise in tick box engineering and buearocracy):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

(Edit: July's is even better!)

When riding my bike i stick as far as i can to the left and have to pull out to avoid grates, pot holes etc. car users should take this into consideration, as i did when passing my driving test.
It's actually much safer to ride further out as a matter of course. You shouldn't cycle closer to the curb than a car would drive. It may be counterintuitive, but it is better. Car drivers have to think a bit more before overtaking and when you encounter the loney drivers who will skim you regardless, you now have some room to manouevre.
You also avoid the poorer road surface, grates and broken glass and detritus that ends up in the gutter. Plus you don't wobble in and out avoiding such things, which is better for drivers who won't see the things you may have to avoid.
A cyclist by law is allowed to wobble. Some years ago a driver claimed he only hit a cyclist as the cyclist wobbled. The driver was told he should have anticipated that, as cyclist do wobble, whether say avoiding glass or due to gusts of wind...etc.

Edit - http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/February2006.htm has a guide on how to do it!

I own a car, a bicycle, and a pair of feet, so I hate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists equally. ;-)

In a vain attempt to make this thread have something of interest in it, here's some amusement for those non-cyclists who imagine that tax money is being spent on cycle lanes for the benefit of cyclists (it is being spent on cycle lanes, but they're of bugger all benefit to cyclists most of the time, they're a cynical excercise in tick box engineering and buearocracy):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

(Edit: July's is even better!)

And September's makes you want to round up the people responsible, lay them down in the road and run over them.

October 2006 is the funniest though.

I own a car, a bicycle, and a pair of feet, so I hate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists equally. ;-)

In a vain attempt to make this thread have something of interest in it, here's some amusement for those non-cyclists who imagine that tax money is being spent on cycle lanes for the benefit of cyclists (it is being spent on cycle lanes, but they're of bugger all benefit to cyclists most of the time, they're a cynical excercise in tick box engineering and buearocracy):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

(Edit: July's is even better!)
There are some very amusing err 'facilities' on show there.

Another masterpiece of Sheffield Planning here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2004.htm

all theses people who say they dislike cyclists... maybe if more people actually cycled, there would be less cars on the road, more healthier people, less pollution, safer roads for the cyclists and other drivers... more room to over take cyclists, and if more people cycled then there would be more dedicated cycle lanes, which would remove all the above OP questions...

there

Nothing compares to this one:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/October2007.htm

all theses people who say they dislike cyclists... maybe if more people actually cycled, there would be less cars on the road, more healthier people, less pollution, safer roads for the cyclists and other drivers... more room to over take cyclists, and if more people cycled then there would be more dedicated cycle lanes, which would remove all the above OP questions...

there
And if there were more people cycling I could drive my car faster, rather than being stuck in all that tedious traffic!!
So cycling is actually good for driving.

As for the Sept 2007 picture linked above, the cost of that absurd signage would have probably have paid for a new hospital ward. A new wing even!

:mad:should cyclists pay road tax as they use more road than a lorry

cyclists should pay the same road tax as any other vehicle which makes as much pollution :)

road tax is about repairing the roads

Not noticed cyclists doing much damage to roads - in Sheffield, with the state of the roads it's probably the other way round (you should see the state of my rims :o)

road tax is about repairing the roads

Well in that case we should pay as much as the other vehicles that tear up the roads as much :huh: like erm, pedestrians when they cross it...

Out of curiosity, like you say it is about repairing the roads, so why bring up how much of the road we use:huh::huh::huh:

There's no such thing as "road tax" ...

Not noticed cyclists doing much damage to roads :o)

No I've not noticed cyclists doing much damage to the roads either.
Most of the ones I see are on the pavement.
Perhaps they should be paying pavement tax.

road tax is about repairing the roads

Vehicle Excise Duty is not hypothecated, it goes into a big pot marked 'tax' along with all the other taxes which the muppets du jour in government may waste as they see fit. That not withstanding making cyclists pay any kind of 'road' tax would be a bit daft, since quite a few of them are minors after all.

:mad:should cyclists pay road tax as they use more road than a lorry

I don't understand this argument. Are they wider than a lorry? Heavier than a lorry? What do you mean by 'more road?' :confused:

It's a pointless argument anyway. It would be completely impossible to set up and then police. And the cost of setting it up would probably outweigh the amount that would be collected.

Horray! Another thread about cyclists!! How many is that now? This month, i mean, not in total.

I'm a cyclist and I taxed my car only last week.

If i was still living in Sheffield then I would have second thoughts about paying road tax, I couldn't believe how bad they have got. is there no council in Sheffield anymore???

I think they should have insurance, lights and a compulsory Road Test.
There are very good cyclist, but the number I have seen run red lights, turn without signals and be down right dangerous is staggering.

road tax is about repairing the roads



Thats almost funny.

I wish it was, as we would have the finest road system in Europe.

[QUOTE=holymoses;2677334]
they should have a compulsory Road Test.

QUOTE]



They do, its probably done by their dads when they are 5 years old As soon as the stableisers come off.

road tax is about repairing the roads

nobody must pay a penny where i live..:rant:

I have a car and pay 'road tax' (I presume the OP means Vehicle Excise Duty?). Surely that entitles me to use a cycle on the roads if I wish to. And my spouse? And my children?

I have a car and pay 'road tax' (I presume the OP means Vehicle Excise Duty?). Surely that entitles me to use a cycle on the roads if I wish to. And my spouse? And my children?
Why? If you had 2 cars you'd pay tax on both, even though you could only drive one at a time. If each of your family had their own car they'd have to be taxed individually.There's no real argument about wear and tear on the roads, but why should everyone pay for cyclists to have their own cycle lanes and road markings? Try getting white lines renewed where they're worn out and a possible hazard.It's almost impossible, yet red tarmac and demarcation lines for cyclists are everywhere and spreading like wildfire.

I am a cyclist and pay road tax for my car.

Would you rather I was adding to the already hurendous congestion we have in this city by taking the car or reducing it by taking the bike?