Near Miss of the Day 652: Driver overtaking group ride almost causes head-on crash (includes swearing)

Nigel Garage wrote:

Honestly, on a road like that, I wouldn't fancy going out in more than a pair. And even then I'd probably want to avoid that road if I could or go out at a quieter time. Casting aside the moral problem with large cycling groups for a moment, if I wanted to be safe going out in a group of 6 or more I'd stick to a different tried and tested route, with easier passing places and/or quieter/slower traffic.

When I'm driving, I tend to do my best to avoid roads like that. But if I get 'stuck behind' a cyclist or farm vehicle or find I need to stop or reverse a long way back - I console myself with the fact that I've chosen to use an oversized form of transport on an undersized road.

May I suggest that all motorists who are not on the road 'for a utilitarian purpose' make a point of pulling over, whenever they encounter another motorist who is more utilitarian than they are - and commuting cyclists, too.

Really..... you're full of it mate!!!

 Cycling Common sense learned from a lifetime of cycling - about 500,000 miles worth - is that what you mean?

kingleo wrote:

I think the cyclists are stupid riding in a group like that on a narrow busy road - before you have a go at me, I've been a club cyclist for 64 years and done thousands of club runs, cycling like that is very selfish and dangerous.

Surely cycling alone would be selfish...

And would the outcome have been any different if it was one rider?

Before you have a go at me I've been a driver for less than half the time you've been a club rider, and I would never overtake in that situation - it would be selfish and dangerous.....

It's a 30 MPH speed limit

Where should they cycle - only in a 20 ?

There were only 3 or 4 vehicles behind - hardly busy.

Hang on, you are the bloke who a few months ago claimed in one thread you could hardly walk, then the next day in another how you go jogging with your mates.

Another fantasist/wum.

Not very consistent are you

kingleo wrote:

As I have stated before on this website, greedy selfish motorists want all the roads all to themselves all of the time. They had the Hasting 10k running race stopped because as the police said "it was too popular".

Also worth pointing out of course (to them not you) that the speed limit is a limit, not a target, and that all road users are entitled to progress at the speed they see fit, within reason, and 20mph in a 30 zone falls well within that remit.

A road user can only be charged with moving too slowly if "they are a hazard to other road users". Clearly 20mph in a 30mph zone does not cause a hazard, the only hazard created is by a driver trying to make a dangerous pass. If you can find me a single instance of a road user being sanctioned for travelling at 20mph in a 30 zone, I'd be most interested to see it.

Rendel Harris wrote:

A road user can only be charged with moving too slowly if "they are a hazard to other road users". Clearly 20mph in a 30mph zone does not cause a hazard, the only hazard created is by a driver trying to make a dangerous pass. If you can find me a single instance of a road user being sanctioned for travelling at 20mph in a 30 zone, I'd be most interested to see it.

I think all drivers going less than flat out at all times are dangerous. And don't get me started on sitting stationary in traffic jams. Bloody cyclists

Too bloody right! Driving a portly diesel MPV style car I cannot tell you the number of times I have been caught by a minimum speed camera while accelerating away from a stationary start to reach the target speed.

And as for driving into the back of unexpected cyclists going slower than the limit round a blind bend? Why sometimes, and I am ashamed to admit, that I'm not driving fast enough and have to close my eyes instead.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Also worth pointing out of course (to them not you) that the speed limit is a limit, not a target, and that all road users are entitled to progress at the speed they see fit

Afraid not - going too slowly is an offence and dangerous to boot. See https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/slow-drivers-creating-dangerous-driving... for more.

And yet

Licence Categories for mopeds and motorcycles
Category AM (moped) – minimum age 16

two-wheeled vehicle with a maximum design speed of 45 km/h (28 mph)

So it is, in the minds of motorists and their sympathisers, an offence to travel below the speed limit, and yet the let 16 year olds ride motorbikes or scoooters on all roads other than motorways, but limit their vehicles to less than 30mph ?

Tractors, illegal on national speed limit roads? No

Horses ? no

Milk floats - just about evrywhere? no

mobility scooters? no

Your road safety website doesn't look very offical, but also makes no mention of there being an offence except where minimum speed limits exist. In fact it doesn't look to disimilar to the roadsafety twitter account that got removed after losing an argument with the surreypolice twitter.

I'm nearly sure the only time the police will pull you for being too slow is a motorway. I've yet to see 'slow' drivers being pulled on either A roads or B roads.  

On top of that, larger vehicles are required to drive 10 MPH slower than cars and motorcycles are permitted to on national speed limit single carriageways... up to 20 MPH slower in Scotland. They must be hit from behind nearly constantly!

(and dual carriageways)

Rendel Harris wrote:

Also worth pointing out of course (to them not you) that the speed limit is a limit, not a target, and that all road users are entitled to progress at the speed they see fit, within reason, and 20mph in a 30 zone falls well within that remit.

Bloody marxists

Both comments are correct. Cycling like that gives a lot of motorists more than enough reason to use their car as a weapon to teach cyclists a lesson. Ride in single file if there is traffic queuing up behind you on a club run.

Do you agree with my comment that you have quoted and do you agree

with my comments about the cyclists, if not, why not?- It looks very dangerous to me.

Your issues have already been discussed and comprehensively answered by posters in the thread.

You are also victim blaming.

kingleo wrote:

Cycling like that gives a lot of motorists more than enough reason to use their car as a weapon to teach cyclists a lesson.

It's really quite simple - cycling in a group does not justify criminal behaviour. Those with a short enough fuse to use their car as a weapon will find something to complain about however we ride - there's not a lot we can do about them. But riding in a group at least provides some protection from the merely incompetent who might otherwise try to squeeze past a single line when there's not space.      

I think it is worth pointing out that in the clip attached to this story, that there are 8 cyclists and 5 car drivers including the one coming the other way who narrowly avoided a head on collision. So which minority road user group is causing the most nuisance to the majority?

How does riding in single file help when there is insufficient space to pass with oncoming vehicles.

Generally on those roads, there is enough room to pass when two abreast, the problem is there is insufficient visibility to see far enough ahead to pass even a single cyclist.

The question is therefore, are you saying cyclists should ban themselves from specific roads where using them could cause delay for motorists?

If so, I suggest you get the OS map out and suggest routes that you can cycle from say Meriden to Atherstone without ever going on such a road. I don't think you'll find one.

As a cyclist, I don't take joy in impeding others' progress and we seek to minimise the impact, but the reality is that there are times when for a minute or two motorists are going to have to accept that they need to wait for a safe place to pass because certain sections of road are never safe places, regardless of riding configuration.

Riding alone does not solve it - it actually encourages drivers to take a risk. The worst are nervous drivers who don't pass at a place where a firm decisive pass is ok, then they panic as a car comes up behind them and guilt overrides driving ability and they then overtake in poor positions.

I believe the idea is to squeeze through with mm to spare.

Our British roads are built to such a standard that there is no risk from a pothole or other poor surface.

This roman road is still in pristine condition, centuries later.

hirsute : you are a liar, I did not state that I go jogging with my mates - I'm nearly 80 and have been seriously ill, I can hardly walk upstairs but I can do very short rides on my bike - about 30 to 60 min.

I try to help you young cyclists but you keep turning it into a, I'm better than you are competition.

kingleo wrote:

hirsute : you are a liar, I did not state that I go jogging with my mates - I'm nearly 80 and have been seriously ill, I can hardly walk upstairs but I can do very short rides on my bike - about 30 to 60 min.

He's not lying, I remember very clearly you making that claim and how you were roundly called out as a bullshitter at the time.

Go back to the Daily Mail comments website where you trolls belong - what article was that comment made in? I bet you a £1000 that you made it up?

I was an elite veteran runner for 35 years - I was never a "jogger", won a fun run when I was 61.

Does one 'win' a fun run? (Also, "Won a fun run when I was 61" sounds like a song lyric. Is it Blur? That one about knowing claret from beaujolais?)

Yes, me.

Good. Good. You have a real skill for understanding and persuading people.

Time you went in to politics?

You did say that.

In fact it started with how you laid someone out with a punch when you were young but you couldn't do it now due to your age/physique then the next day you talked about your jogging with your mates.

Your last sentence does not relate to anything I have written.

hirsute wrote:

You did say that.

In fact it started with how you laid someone out with a punch when you were young but you couldn't do it now due to your age/physique then the next day you talked about your jogging with your mates.

 

Your last sentence does not relate to anything I have written.

Oh yes. I remember now