One lucky cyclist.

[PeteMorris 10]

You do realise that nobody has suggested that riding three abreast is OK? It seems like you're arguing with yourself at the moment.

 

I don't know what you're getting at. A group of cyclists riding two abreast is not a lot different from, say, a tractor towing a trailer, in terms of the amount of road it takes up and likely speed. People can pass in the opposite direction, and if there is nothing coming in the other direction and the road can be seen to be clear, then there's no reason why a following car cannot overtake. Probably a lot easier than overtaking a car, as differential speeds are likely to be higher.

 

No, I was merely quoting something I witnessed, and asked if there was any precedent or logical reason why they were three abreast.

 

It struck me at the time as being dangerous for the reasons I've explained.

 

I wasn't speculating how someone could overtake them, as clearly, nobody could.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 15:51 ----------

 

You are not understanding what people are saying. People are saying that the space you gave the cyclist and where you decided to overtake was entirely within your power.

 

Yes and I've agreed (in hindsight) it maybe wasn't the best option. What more do you want me to say?...I was deliberately trying to kill the bloke?

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

You are not understanding what people are saying. People are saying that the space you gave the cyclist and where you decided to overtake was entirely within your power.

I think Mr Pete is only too aware of what people are saying!

 

Think about it...

 

... he's once again single-handedly kept the forum ticking over by attracting posts from concerned (and gullible) posters who actually believe all they are reading.

 

Just my opinion of course...

[PeteMorris 10]

I think Mr Pete is only too aware of what people are saying!

 

Think about it...

 

... he's once again single-handedly kept the forum ticking over by attracting posts from concerned (and gullible) posters who actually believe all they are reading.

 

Just my opinion of course...

 

Oh dear...You're such a cynic!

[LifeJunkie 10]

I cant see stupidity or carelessness on either part. Its obvious the cyclist slowed down quickly, turned his head and his body followed (as an unconscious reaction to the other guy taking a spill) and at the pace the driver was going (if the cyclist hadnt slowed) he would have overtook quite safely after the island. If there was a collision it would have been a pure accident!

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No, I was merely quoting something I witnessed, and asked if there was any precedent or logical reason why they were three abreast.

 

It struck me at the time as being dangerous for the reasons I've explained.

 

I wasn't speculating how someone could overtake them, as clearly, nobody could.

 

On some roads two abreast is accepted, three is inconsiderate. What more is there to say?

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 15:58 ----------

 

I think Mr Pete is only too aware of what people are saying!

 

Think about it...

 

... he's once again single-handedly kept the forum ticking over by attracting posts from concerned (and gullible) posters who actually believe all they are reading.

 

Just my opinion of course...

 

Click bait?

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 16:00 ----------

 

Yes and I've agreed (in hindsight) it maybe wasn't the best option. What more do you want me to say?...I was deliberately trying to kill the bloke?

 

So nobody has said that the incident was entirely your fault, which is what you claimed.

[PeteMorris 10]

On some roads two abreast is accepted, three is inconsiderate. What more is there to say?

 

I was hoping someone would admit that it's actually dangerous. But no matter, it's off topic anyway.

 

So nobody has said that the incident was entirely your fault, which is what you claimed.

 

Well you have to admit, I've been given a lot of stick for the incident, and very little apportioned to the cyclist.

 

As for click bait...Mr B is renowned for his humour and witty comments, which I don't mind at all...I don't believe he ever says anything maliciously. At least he does have a sense of humour! Which sadly is more than I can say for 'some' posters.

[Chelle-82 10]

Changing topic slightly!! but driving along penistone road last night around tea time towards the wednesday ground and whilst in the queue of traffic and man and a woman on their bikes came tootling passed and i didnt think anything of it until i took a second look and on the back of the mans bike was a baby!!!! in a seat of course but a very young child... ON PENISTONE ROAD IN TEA TIME TRAFFIC!!!

 

Now, maybe it's my own incompetence as a cyclist but isnt that just pure madness? So dangerous and reckless IMO

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 16:18 ----------

 

I was hoping someone would admit that it's actually dangerous. But no matter, it's off topic anyway.

 

 

 

Well you have to admit, I've been given a lot of stick for the incident, and very little apportioned to the cyclist.

 

As for click bait...Mr B is renowned for his humour and witty comments, which I don't mind at all...I don't believe he ever says anything maliciously. At least he does have a sense of humour! Which sadly is more than I can say for 'some' posters.

 

I wasnt giving you stick Pete.. I just think everyone should be more careful of cyclists full stop.. Don't forget, we're surrounded by the metal cage not them, so if it means we have to hang back and give them space then that's got to be better than a squished cyclist and 12 points on your licence

Edited March 2, 2016 by Chelle-82

[Obelix 11]

If its in a proper baby seat on the bike why is it a problem? They are built quite sturdily from the few that I've seen.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

If its in a proper baby seat on the bike why is it a problem? They are built quite sturdily from the few that I've seen.

That's little comfort if Mr Pete is following you!

[Eric Arthur 10]

No, I was merely quoting something I witnessed, and asked if there was any precedent or logical reason why they were three abreast.

 

It struck me at the time as being dangerous for the reasons I've explained.

 

Just stop with the whataboutery. Three cyclists abreast takes up about as much space as a Smart Car with one person in it and takes about as long to overtake. How much danger is a Smart Car at 20mph? Bugger all danger is the answer.

 

As your driving instructor probably said, put brain in gear before engaging first.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Well you have to admit, I've been given a lot of stick for the incident, and very little apportioned to the cyclist..

 

If the cyclist came on here and said that he pulled out in front of you without checking to see if it was safe or signalling, and then proceeded to argue that he didn't think that he did anything wrong. Imagine the stick he would have got, it wouldn't have been pretty.

 

I know I've hammered on about this, and if you feel I've gone too far I am happy to apologise. As someone who loves nothing more than being out on my bike, it feels horrible when due to motorists' disregard a ton of metal passes you far too close, and it's hard not to take it personally.

 

It was only the threat of snow today that stopped me taking advantage of some free time to cycle around Hope Vally and up Mam Tor.

[Chelle-82 10]

If its in a proper baby seat on the bike why is it a problem? They are built quite sturdily from the few that I've seen.

 

It's not the seat that bothers me! It's the whole 'hit by a car' that bothers me..

 

If you are familiar with Penistone Road at Tea time it is full of cars/buses/lorrys and it is stop start stop start all the way up Halifax Road and beyond...

 

1, Having to manouver between vechicles is scary enough on it's own on a bike.

2, The car fumes must be wonderful for the baby to breath in and before anyone says anything, no it's not got some extra special oxygen helmet on it's little head!

3, Buses and Lorrys