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

[AmyRichardson]

Riley Blue said:

Not when there's a strung out group riding two abreast with insufficient room to pull back in between them.

That is poor form, there's no hard rule but groups are supposed to stay tight and subdivide when they exceed ~2x8.

I'm not sure what the whole "selfish" thing comes from; they've decided to use a public asset in a permitted fashion, as has the motorist, and there are rules as to how they should interact. No party has any particular additional entitlement and all but a handful of journeys are no more deserving ("but work" - is not.) That's about it.

[ChocolateFrog]

vikingaero said:

There's a certain small but hardcore UK demographic - chavvy/gobste arrogant geezers and gals - you know the sort that say: "YOU DON'T PAAAY ROAD TAAAX!!!!" who behave abysmally to cyclists and incorrectly think they have more rights over cyclists or pedestrians. Their tiny minds can only compute that they have been delayed by other road users, rather than them being the moron for not leaving earlier, because watching Strictly or Futbal was more important than being on time.

It's not even that small a demographic.

>50% of PH for a start.

[ChocolateFrog]

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.

Classic victim blaming.

Why do you in your 2t vehicle have more right to that space than someone without the protection of a few tons of metal.

Single or two abreast shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your ability to overtake. You still need a gap in the traffic coming the other way.

[kambites]

I prefer to encounter two cyclists abreast of each other than two cycling in line because I only have to perform one overtake.

[Roger Irrelevant]

A lot of places are better but I imagine a lot of places are far worse. I can well imagine the US is generally pretty bad - in vast swathes of it they've elevated the sort of third-world redneck 'might is right' thinking that you see quite a bit of on here to an art form, and the only things that seem to register on their radar when driving are big rigs and fast food outlets - anything else gets blithely ignored and quite possibly driven into. Having said that in the small bits where they realise that bikes are a thing - e.g. Moab, Boulder etc, it can be brilliant.

[ChocolateFrog]

Rich Boy Spanner said:

I don't know if it is the worst, but the parade of anti-cycling bell ends that these topics bring out is astonishing. I seriously wonder sometimes how the British managed to get down from the trees.

It's really depressing.

I'd love to take my boys out on the road when they're a but older but knowing they'll be sharing it with the majority who post on these threads is enough to think why take the risk.

[ChocolateFrog]

AmyRichardson said:

Riley Blue said:

Not when there's a strung out group riding two abreast with insufficient room to pull back in between them.

That is poor form, there's no hard rule but groups are supposed to stay tight and subdivide when they exceed ~2x8.

I'm not sure what the whole "selfish" thing comes from; they've decided to use a public asset in a permitted fashion, as has the motorist, and there are rules as to how they should interact. No party has any particular additional entitlement and all but a handful of journeys are no more deserving ("but work" - is not.) That's about it.

I've been driving for 25 years now and I've never ever coming upto a group of cyclists bigger than say 20ish. I can count on one hand the number of times I've encountered a group of more than 8-10.

Where are people driving that they're so regularly inconvenienced by huge groups of cyclists?

I must be averaging atleast 100000 miles per >10 group of cyclists.

And I've obviously never been held up by them because I always catch up the next slower moving vehicle within a few minutes of overtaking them anyway.

People who get angry at cyclists are just aholes, probably the type who gasp for air walking up the stairs type aholes.

[ChocolateFrog]

kambites said:

I prefer to encounter two cyclists abreast of each other than two cycling in line because I only have to perform one overtake.

And it halves the distance and reduces the time exposed to danger as already highlighted in this thread.

The people who that doesn't apply to are the types who overtake without crossing the white line. The ones who want cyclists to ride within 3 inches of the cracked edge of the tarmac.

[kambites]

ChocolateFrog said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

I don't know if it is the worst, but the parade of anti-cycling bell ends that these topics bring out is astonishing. I seriously wonder sometimes how the British managed to get down from the trees.

It's really depressing.

I'd love to take my boys out on the road when they're a but older but knowing they'll be sharing it with the majority who post on these threads is enough to think why take the risk.

The thing is, despite the morons (who to be fair make up a VERY small proportion of drivers) cycling is statistically safer than not cycling, in that the average cyclist lives considerably longer than the average non-cyclist. I'd bet they average far better health (both mental and physical) over the course of their life too.

[ChocolateFrog]

Roger Irrelevant said:

A lot of places are better but I imagine a lot of places are far worse. I can well imagine the US is generally pretty bad - in vast swathes of it they've elevated the sort of third-world redneck 'might is right' thinking that you see quite a bit of on here to an art form, and the only things that seem to register on their radar when driving are big rigs and fast food outlets - anything else gets blithely ignored and quite possibly driven into. Having said that in the small bits where they realise that bikes are a thing - e.g. Moab, Boulder etc, it can be brilliant.

I know a few people who have done Race Across America and a couple who have cycled top to bottom on the West Coast.

I don't think it's as bad. Generally quieter and generally wider roads.

I also don't think the angry, self important types are quite as prevalent.

[Kerniki]

ChocolateFrog said:

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.

Classic victim blaming.

Why do you in your 2t vehicle have more right to that space than someone without the protection of a few tons of metal.

Single or two abreast shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your ability to overtake. You still need a gap in the traffic coming the other way.

It was more a question about wether the two abreast has in fact made it safer for cyclists or not since it’s advent, I don’t know as it’s hard to decipher from the stats available..

You can’t escape the difference of mass and vulnerability, irrespective of rights, more about self preservation tbh, having common sense to not put yourself in more dangerous situations, I’m very self aware of this when riding

[nickfrog]

Riley Blue said:

nickfrog said:

Two abreast often makes overtaking easier as it shortens the thing to overtake and reduces TED.

Not when there's a strung out group riding two abreast with insufficient room to pull back in between them.

Would you prefer a group twice the length with insufficient room to pull back in between them?

[LRDefender]

spookly said:

I'm always very considerate of cyclists and give them plenty of room.

But.... they annoy the sh*t out of me regularly. No problem with people using them for transport, but when it's gangs of them on country roads they are deciding to inconvenience other people for their hobby. I've never had a cyclist or group of cyclists pull over to let traffic pass. It is a very selfish hobby when they are riding routes that they will get in the way of others. That in no way excuses the muppets who shout abuse or unsafely pass cyclists, but I totally understand why the average motorist finds cyclists annoying because they are annoying and selfish.

I feel your pain brother, it’s so inconsiderate of cyclists refusing to pull over so to not impede my rapid progress across the roads of the United Kingdom…..

Although when I think about it, neither do cars retreat to the pavements or verges to allow my unrestricted access to said same roads..!!

People eh!!

[ChocolateFrog]

Kerniki said:

ChocolateFrog said:

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.

Classic victim blaming.

Why do you in your 2t vehicle have more right to that space than someone without the protection of a few tons of metal.

Single or two abreast shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your ability to overtake. You still need a gap in the traffic coming the other way.

It was more a question about wether the two abreast has in fact made it safer for cyclists or not since it’s advent, I don’t know as it’s hard to decipher from the stats available..

You can’t escape the difference of mass and vulnerability, irrespective of rights, more about self preservation tbh, having common sense to not put yourself in more dangerous situations, I’m very self aware of this when riding

If you ride in the gutter it encourages dangerous overtakes at inappropriate places and times.

You should try conducting your own experiments. The more space you give up the more space 10% of ahole drivers will take.

[ChocolateFrog]

nickfrog said:

Riley Blue said:

nickfrog said:

Two abreast often makes overtaking easier as it shortens the thing to overtake and reduces TED.

Not when there's a strung out group riding two abreast with insufficient room to pull back in between them.

Would you prefer a group twice the length with insufficient room to pull back in between them?

Why would there be room if the riders are single file?

What you mean is why should I be put at risk and not the cyclist.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

redrabbit29 said:

Labelling people who enjoy cycling as "a parade of lycra fanatics" does nothing but divide people more.

No, but "fanatics" do exist, and don't help.

(Maybe sliding O/T here)

We have a local cycle "campaign" (as if it's a war!!) who are incredibly vocal about any and every roads scheme that is brought to administration. I could write reams about the number of schemes in which they have demanded absolutely ridiculous concessions for cyclists, threatening to write to (and in several cases, actually doing it) the DfT, Michael Gove, etc etc. One of the head honchos of this campaign doesn't work, doesn't drive, has no kids to get to school, etc etc but thinks nothing of trying to disrupt delivery of improvement schemes (which may be there to tackle a specific problem for cars, or to improve bus travel, etc), just so he can crow about it in his newsletter.

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.

So no, not the worst place to cycle, but it is certainly NOT helped but the blinkered cycling lobby.

Edited by Rusty Old-Banger on Thursday 6th June 09:33

[Xenoous]

I regularly cycle a 22 mile round trip on my work commute, with some on and off road sections. I can't say I've ever had any issues big issues. 1 minor irritation a few weeks back where a fat slob of a woman in a Ford Kuga tried to overtake me at a set of lights, in a narrow lane on our pitted Cambridge city roads, and would have gained nothing as there was traffic a couple of hundred meters ahead.

I always wave cars to pass me when I can, usually get a thanks. I cycle on the proper cycle paths when I can, and try to keep a decent enough speed up when on the roads to not hold up traffic too much.

I don't see why we just can't get along. There's enough anger and hate in the world and our day to day lives, no need to get angry at someone on a bike, or likewise a car, for lets be honest, no real reason.

[PlywoodPascal]

Castrol for a knave said:

If a few cyclists turn you into a dribbling apoplectic moron, then maybe driving is beyond you as a pastime

Have you thought about cross stitch or jam making?

I tried jam making but those people who make marmalade really fking put me off, idiots, with their stupid different spoons and doing it all at the wrong time of year, too.

Edited by PlywoodPascal on Thursday 6th June 09:36

[kambites]

Xenoous said:

I don't see why we just can't get along. There's enough anger and hate in the world and our day to day lives, no need to get angry at someone on a bike, or likewise a car, for lets be honest, no real reason.

And 99% of people both in cars and on bikes do just that - from what I've seen the huge majority of poor driving around cyclists is incompetence not malice. Sadly a disproportionate number of the 1% of idiots seem to be on Pistonheads though.

[MrBig]

It's a strange phenomenon. Can only surmise that it's a "when aholes collide" situation.

I've been driving 27 years and cycling big distances for more than 30. All over the place too, Chiltern Hills, Midlands, Central London...

I've never felt the need to shout abuse or "punishment pass" a cyclist, nor have I ever had it happen to me. Yet in the reported story the daughter was shouted at 7 times in one day? I feel like these situations occur when the worst people from both sides encounter each other