Is the UK the worst place in the world to cycle?

[Julian Scott]

Rough101 said:

It’s the worst in Western Europe.

USA is definitely worse, France, Spain etc. miles better.

I've ridden quite a lot in the US and all the states I've had have been better than the UK on the whole, partly as the provision for cycle lanes is better than a thin white line in the main road.

It does get worse the deeper into 'Trump' areas though.

I've also ridden in, I think, every country in western Europe and they are all miles better than the UK.

[Julian Scott]

mac96 said:

Going back to the initial example, regardless of fault for the initial collision, what sort of st leaves an injured woman in a country lane, and then decides to go back, not to help, but to be rude and offensive ?

An utter c*nt who should be up for attempted murder.

[Julian Scott]

911Spanker said:

Is riding 2 abreast just so they can have a chat?

Partly, but it's also safer, faster, more enjoyable and stops idiots from trying to squeeze past to save a handful of seconds.

[ChocolateFrog]

andyb said:

-Lummox- said:

...

Yeah, but then we wouldn't get great comments like this:

A500leroy said:

Roads are used for business travel and more cyclists seem intent on going out for a leisure ride at peek commute time which doesnt help.

Yep - that one is special. I do hope that poster only ever uses his car during the week to go to work, never to take the kids to school, do the shopping or (god forbid), go for a hoon. And his mind is going to be blown when he finds out most cyclists during 'peek commute' time are actually cycling to work !!

Not at all surprised he couldn't even spell peak correctly.

[Julian Scott]

Rusty Old-Banger said:

768 said:

CellarDoor said:

What should happen in these instances? Driver waits behind cyclists for x miles until road widens, driver beeps to indicate their presence, cyclists ride single file, cyclists pull over, etc?

Whatever works to ensure the slow moving vehicle doesn't hold up traffic. I'd think single file would be sufficient in the image, but they should pull over if not.

Highway Code rule 66, specifically under the "Rules for Cyclists" heading addresses this.

"You should be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so"

The bold bit is interesting as it gives the cyclist licence to decide when the driver can overtake, which I feel is firstly not very widely known, and secondly open to a fair bit of contentious interpretation.

Awaiting the "yeah but drivers..." comments.

And in my experience the vast, vast majority of groups cycling will do just that with a shout of 'car back' then 'passing' so that everyone is aware.

[ChocolateFrog]

Julian Scott said:

Terminator X said:

Tbf most cyclists don't seem to give 2 fks about drivers either. Given the new laws I regularly see massive tail backs caused by cyclists riding with no thought at all about the chaos behind them. If getting abuse from that then I'm not surprised.

TX.

Most?

Most cyclists are drivers.

Have to laugh at the chaos behind them comment.

[Pit Pony]

RizzoTheRat said:

Rusty Old-Banger said:

An example. We have a road that has on average 7 bikes/day. There is a parallel route through a park that cyclists (including my kids) use, that adds 200m on to a 2km journey, but it is a much more pleasant route. They want us to add measures to reduce vehicles on this route from 10k/day, to 2k/day, and add provision for 600 cyclists PER HOUR. Sod the impact putting 8k cars on alternative routes will have. They want it, and if they don't get it they will speak to everyone from the leader of the council to the SecState for Transport. Utterly unreasonable, and puts everyone's backs up - drivers, bus companies, taxis, people on school runs, commuters, everyone. For 7 cycles a day who have a lovely, green, alternative route.

The Dutch approach to narrow roads where there is a decent cycle path alternative is to ban bikes from that section of road. That sound like an ideal candidate road for that sort of setup, not sure you legally can in the UK though.

I'm sure a council can make any laws they want.

[Daveyraveygravey]

Kerniki said:

When did the two abreast thing start?

Records show serious injuries have steadily climbed since 2004 but not sure if the % of population cycling on the roads has increased which could account for the number increase, helmet use has increased at the same time so would help curtail the serious injury count, lots of factors i guess but i cant see riding two abreast as helping the cause to avoid accidents / injury tbh, certainly antagonises drivers which cant be good when you’re on a bike vs 2t of metal.

Cycling two abreast has been in the Highway Code at least since I learned to cycle at school, probably around 1977. If you think about it, 5 riders in single file could be strung out over 10-15 metres, which is always going to be harder to overtake than if they were two abreast...assuming you are driving like a decent human being.
There is NO EVIDENCE anywhere that cycling helmets do any good at all. Except to make drivers take more risks around riders with helmets, because drivers seem to think riders with helmets are taking more care of themselves. Bike helmets are tested by putting one on a dummy, holding it upside down and dropping it on the floor. Which is hardly how you hit your head when you come off your bike. They are also only rated up to 12 mph, which is about what an Octagenarian might be happy with, but well below what a reasonable cyclist can manage on a flat road.
If what you say is true about records showing serious injuries are on the up since 2004, that's as much to do with how terrible people are at driving.
Nobody makes any effort to improve their driving. Everyone picks and chooses which driving laws suit them, and when.

Compare what happens when a cyclist kills someone in an "accident" - it's national news, we all know about it. When a driver kills someone? Barely a murmur, nobody passes any comment.

The level of ignorance and stupidity just 5 posts into this thread is shocking. The OP is right, and unless you ride on UK roads regularly you won't have a clue about how scary it can be. There's no tolerance at all. Which you can see in the first few posts.

[Julian Scott]

Pit Pony said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Rusty Old-Banger said:

An example. We have a road that has on average 7 bikes/day. There is a parallel route through a park that cyclists (including my kids) use, that adds 200m on to a 2km journey, but it is a much more pleasant route. They want us to add measures to reduce vehicles on this route from 10k/day, to 2k/day, and add provision for 600 cyclists PER HOUR. Sod the impact putting 8k cars on alternative routes will have. They want it, and if they don't get it they will speak to everyone from the leader of the council to the SecState for Transport. Utterly unreasonable, and puts everyone's backs up - drivers, bus companies, taxis, people on school runs, commuters, everyone. For 7 cycles a day who have a lovely, green, alternative route.

The Dutch approach to narrow roads where there is a decent cycle path alternative is to ban bikes from that section of road. That sound like an ideal candidate road for that sort of setup, not sure you legally can in the UK though.

I'm sure a council can make any laws they want.

The issue is the 'decent cycle path' alternative.

[Tindersticks]

Incredible isn’t it. Every day drivers sit behind other cars all meek and obedient. The moment they see a cyclist they lose their minds because they might need to lift their ickle foot 5mm and slow a little. Sometimes, gasp, actually brake.

These threads are useful for seeing just who should hand their licence in as they’re clearly unable to navigate the roads properly.

[CellarDoor]

Antony Moxey said:

CellarDoor said:

But why doesn't this happen?

When cyclists ride two abreast on narrow lines and go past one layby after another whilst a line of traffic forms behind them what is the solution? Are they not aware of vehicles behind them, if so, would a beep be courteous or is that aggressive? Or is it a case that cyclists have a different view and therefore believe that riding in manner that prevents vehicles overtaking is the correct use of the road?

But you could say the same about the old dears bimbling along to the farm shop doing two thirds the posted limit. Why don't they ever pull over and let faster traffic past? Or caravans? Motorhomes? Cars towing trailers? Horseboxes? Basically anything motorised holding traffic up. As far as my experience goes, tractors are the only ones that ever pull over, yet I've been stuck for miles behind caravans doing 30ish on 60mph roads.

Yet we expect cyclists to get out the way as soon as something's behind them...

But when cyclists do ride two abreast and ignore traffic behind them on a country lane, what is the correct response from the motorist? Is a toot of the horn appropriate or too aggressive? Is there another approach?

[Rick101]

People just can't overtake but they're expert at moan and grumble.

Not cycling, but out for a drive today, barrelled around a fairly sharp 90 degree to find a very unusual queue of traffic in front.
Tractor doing grass cutting, easily 3/4 on the verge, stuck out about 2ft. None of the cars were confident to pass it despite being in the middle of nowhere and nothing oncoming whatsoever.

[otolith]

CellarDoor said:

But when cyclists do ride two abreast and ignore traffic behind them on a country lane, what is the correct response from the motorist? Is a toot of the horn appropriate or too aggressive? Is there another approach?

Overtake them where you would have overtaken a single file cyclist, your road position will be the same either way.

[Siao]

Tindersticks said:

Incredible isn’t it. Every day drivers sit behind other cars all meek and obedient. The moment they see a cyclist they lose their minds because they might need to lift their ickle foot 5mm and slow a little. Sometimes, gasp, actually brake.

These threads are useful for seeing just who should hand their licence in as they’re clearly unable to navigate the roads properly.

I'm trying to view this from both sides, as a cyclist and as a driver. I think it is fair to give this to the drivers; it is annoying to have to stop or slow down. It just is. But drivers have to do this for many other things on the road, vehicles, traffic lights, roundabouts, whatever.

But the difference with the other vehicles is that the bike is narrower, so drivers think that it is ok to squeeze past, they should move over for the cars. This is what is happening in my view. They should realise and treat the cyclists like any other vehicle, but with even more care.

In my experience lately, the drivers have been quite nice towards me. I normally cycle around Brighton and they mostly respect me as a cyclist and stop to let me go when I'm on the main roads. I am always nice, I nod to them and we all get on. It helps to be a little be nice and we can all get on with our days. I let people cut me off when I can see that they'll join behind me and immediately try to overtake me, so I just nod to them to go ahead in front of me, it's fine, I'm not that precious about these things.

Of course I get the idiotic ones that think they can cut you off so I have to slam on my brakes sometimes, but this is mostly due to the fact that they don't realise how fast a bike can go, not because they want to be nasty to me personally.

Overall, I don't think it is that bad. Maybe I'm in the right place or maybe I have been lucky so far. But a little bit of good will goes a long way, from all sides.

[Siao]

CellarDoor said:

Antony Moxey said:

CellarDoor said:

But why doesn't this happen?

When cyclists ride two abreast on narrow lines and go past one layby after another whilst a line of traffic forms behind them what is the solution? Are they not aware of vehicles behind them, if so, would a beep be courteous or is that aggressive? Or is it a case that cyclists have a different view and therefore believe that riding in manner that prevents vehicles overtaking is the correct use of the road?

But you could say the same about the old dears bimbling along to the farm shop doing two thirds the posted limit. Why don't they ever pull over and let faster traffic past? Or caravans? Motorhomes? Cars towing trailers? Horseboxes? Basically anything motorised holding traffic up. As far as my experience goes, tractors are the only ones that ever pull over, yet I've been stuck for miles behind caravans doing 30ish on 60mph roads.

Yet we expect cyclists to get out the way as soon as something's behind them...

But when cyclists do ride two abreast and ignore traffic behind them on a country lane, what is the correct response from the motorist? Is a toot of the horn appropriate or too aggressive? Is there another approach?

Ignore traffic??? Why would you pull on the side or a layby when being overtaken? I do not get this logic, if someone behind you is faster, that is not your problem; you are supposed to keep a steady speed and course and they have to overtake responsibly. And that is on the HC. It also says that you should not obstruct drivers that wish to overtake you, but this does not mean jump out of their way. It simply means that you should not make it difficult for them to overtake. This notion that you have to somehow disappear is just nonsensical.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

Billy_Whizzzz said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

I fear the OP is not going to get the responses he expects. Which is unsurprising considering this is a motoring website.

Perhaps Mumsnet or a cycling forum would be a better option?

I absolutely despise cyclists that ride with an arrogance of self entitlement. I have no problem with cyclists who are aware of where they are cycling, aware of the queue behind them and pull over or make space for traffic to overtake. Much the same as tractors and farm machinery on the road.

This was exactly the response I expected. Words such as ‘arrogant, entitled and despise’. Sneering comments re mumsnet. Prejudices about meat headed UK motorists very much confirmed.

Shame you didn't also quote my retraction. You know, for balance. But hey, score your cheap points and feel all smug with yourself.

[Roger Irrelevant]

Julian Scott said:

And how often have you been stuck in traffic jams caused by bikes Vs vehicles? Who is the worst inconvenience-r?

I used to cycle into York quite a bit for work, which meant 12-ish miles of good fast NSL roads and then 3-ish miles of town. Quite often I'd be passed by a car right at the start of my ride in which I'd then go past again towards the end of it (and if they passed me within 5 miles of the centre I could absolutely guarantee I'd be passing them again if they were headed that way). So that's got to be a good 15 minutes that the car had been delayed just by other traffic. Loads of people must do that day after day yet I never saw any sign that anybody was overly bothered by this, everybody seemingly accepts that that's the way it is and anyway they're sitting there nice and warm listening to music/podcasts/whatever. However I don't doubt that were they to be 'held up' by a cyclist for thirty seconds a good few would be moved to a spluttering, road-tax induced rage. Makes no sense.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

It's not the "being held up for 30 seconds" that's the problem. It's the middle aged, middle management types with their lycra and wrap around sunglasses that take delight in filling the whole lane to prevent a quick and safe overtake. It's almost like they take perverse pleasure in how long a queue they can get to form.

[Tindersticks]

Yes. They’re almost certainly doing it to wind up due to your fearsome ability to have determined what they do for a living simply from a glance.

[Siao]

Tindersticks said:

Yes. They’re almost certainly doing it to wind up due to your fearsome ability to have determined what they do for a living simply from a glance.

Most certainly this