UKC

Minor abuse from a motorist on the way in from work.

Only afterwards did I think of the best (sarcastic) replies I could have given, rather than the slighlty meek one I gave.

Situation:

Urban dual carriage, not fast moving (traffic lights & congestion). On the far right a two lane cycleway is under construction.

Driver (in car caught in jam), agressive tone: Oh, mate, why aren't you in the cycle path?
Me (surprised, I'm not even affecting his progress): Its not open yet!
Driver: Yes, it is
i cycle off ahead through the jam.

I wish I had said something like: 'Cycled it, have we?' or 'Like you'd f*cking know' or 'thanks, mate, I hadn't noticed it'

In reply to Flinticus:

no, you gave the best response, anything else would have been aggressive or escalated the argument needlessly

In reply to Flinticus:


Thinking of better responses does at least help pass the time for the rest of the ride.

In reply to Flinticus:

How about "why aren't you in the cycle path?" then ride away.

In reply to Flinticus:

Quote whatever bit of the highway code says cyclists are not required to use the cycle paths?
And then cycle off smugly....

In reply to Flinticus:
Next time point in the direction you are cycling and say 'because I'm going ....... this way' with a manic laugh / 1000yd stare to finish

In reply to Flinticus:

I take the standard approach of 'Go f*ck yourself' at all interactions with motorists. Saves thinking on what might have been, and the response is invariably admirably suited to the situation that presents itself.

In reply to Flinticus:

While I was cycling along a dual carriageway in Oxford last year (Sunday afternoon, fairly quiet traffic) I had a driver go out of his way to shout abuse at me for not using a cycle path, including pulling into a layby to get out of his car and shout at me and then, when I didn't stop, he passed me and agressively tried to cut me up to make his point.

As far as I can make out, the cycle path he had in mind was the other side of the dual carriageway and hidden behind a hedge, so I had no idea it was there, even if I'd wanted to use it.

Wished I'd had the GoPro on, though.

In reply to Flinticus:

Best not to encourage them or annoy them.

I got given the finger by a BMW driver (I was moving into the middle of the road to turn right, he was going to fast) and replied in kind. He turned his car around and chased me along the street, I got onto the pavement and across a small childrens' playing area but he mounted the kerb and started to cross the playing area. I am sure he would have tried to knock me off if he could have. I think I only got away because he was going so fast it too him a long time to slow down.

In reply to Flinticus:

I find blowing them a kiss both diffuses the situation and surprises them at the same time.

In reply to Flinticus:

Usually, 'Because it's not going the same way as I am' which has a sort of incontrovertible truth about it

In reply to buzby:

What an excellent idea! I will remember that for the next time

In reply to Flinticus:

No wonder he was aggressive, what with you driving on his roads, causing all the traffics, wasting his precious time...

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Yeah, and posting here has helped diffuse my frustration! Though it may only finally disperse when I *insert violent revenge fantasy*

'Go f**k yourself' has been used before (never with any bad outcome)

I suppose it was the pointlessness and ill-informed nature of the comment take took me by surprise.

In reply to Flinticus:

As no collision took place, no one was inconvenienced and no one was hurt, I would have just smiled and carried on.

It's such a non event it's not worth even getting into a conversation with him.

In reply to Flinticus: I wouldn't be. The guy is a retard and he was driving a lethal weapon., you couldn't iwin, unless you are Ronnie Kray and quite happy to have a war.

You did the right thing.

I often blow kisses, but that's just me and not always when I'm cycling.

In reply to Flinticus:
I do the 'blowing a kiss' thing as well. It helps to laugh off the incident.

A while back a local rider flicked a V at a (close) passing range rover, the guy stopped and beat the crap out the cyclist. The range rover turned out to have been stolen.....

In reply to Flinticus:

I nearly got mown down by the Sunshine bus last night despite my being 10 yards behind the car in front on a fast hill with a blind bend at the bottom. I find thinking of responses is a good way to put in a record time for a ride home as it gets the adrenaline goin!

Incidentally, the only response to any motorist regardless of starting quote is "There is no such thing as Road Tax!!!"

In reply to Flinticus:

just say something completely random like "next Thursday I think" by the time they have thought about your reply you will long gone.

In reply to Flinticus:

"Yea, like I need advice from someone so thick they don't even know when to stop eating" is usually apt

In reply to jasonC abroad:

People like that shouldn't be allowed to drive. I'm not sure they should even be allowed to walk the streets...

In reply to Flinticus:

What you have experienced has a name (I found out recently) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier

In agreement with some of the other replies, I think being rude is self-defeating. Either it encourages further aggressive behaviour, or the driver thinks "What a rude man" and doesn't alter their behaviour.

My son and I recently had a discussion about the use of random replies (blow a kiss, mime "call me" etc.) and we think these are the only valid responses.

In reply to Flinticus:
A mate caught up with me on the ride to work - we cycled next to each other for a bit on a good wide stretch of road. Plenty of room for people to go round, but we got yelled at by someone who took the time to wind down their window and shout at us to go single file. Now, me and Chris both know we were a) safe and b) legal but interestingly we didn't respond at all, not a mouthed swear word, not a hand or finger lifted in anger ... because it's just not worth it. Yes, we could have tried to spend time getting into an argument, we could have reacted, but experience has taught me that just carrying on with the business of getting myself to work and letting that kind of thing float by is best. The only time I ever verbally protested about driver behaviour (over a decade ago), the guy followed me and drove at me, forcing me off the road (fortunately not under his wheels because my response was to get on the pavement behind street furniture asap). I'm vulnerable out there on a bike, and I'm not really up for behaving in a way which has potential to move irrational or crazy people (who knows who is behind the wheel) to anger enough to want to kill me. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong, what matters is getting safely to my destination.

In reply to Flinticus:

I'm beginning to like 'I don't take advice from people who don't know when to stop eating'.

In reply to AlisonSmiles:

Totally agree. Best reaction is just to ignore.

Personally I think that with the increase in the number of cyclists on the road there should be a public information campaign. This is an interesting link that I've used to try to explain to non-cycling motorist colleagues at work:

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html

In reply to exiled_northerner:

The linked blog has an unusual interpretation of rule 66, riding two abreast is not okay most of the time.
I don't do it because it is obviously dangerous, particularly near bends or on narrow roads.
No wonder motorists get annoyed with the attitude on that blog.

In reply to tim000:

Yeah, I like this. Something random to get them perplexed.

What I didn't like about my reply 'its not open yet!' implies that if it was, I should be there and would have no business being on the actual road.

In reply to Gael Force:

The linked blog is bob on. Motorists who get annoyed with cyclists riding defensively also get annoyed with all sorts of other little stuff that really doesn't affect them much at all: for their own peace and sanity they really need to chill out a bit.

In reply to deepsoup:
The blog is wrong because it's interpretation of rule 66 is incorrect, which says in black and white it's not okay to ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads, or near a bend.
The nonsense about riding defensively on a bicycle by being two or three abreast is foolish, inconsiderate and dangerous.
If you do and cause an accident, you may well be found blameworthy unless there are other factors, but even in those cases you may well be found partially responsible in an insurance settlement.
As well as being a keen cyclist I advise on liability in insurance cases.

In reply to Gael Force:

erm .....not disputing your credentials as an insurance claims assessor, but I think you’ll find that riding defensively is commonly thought to be best practice to the extent that I’m 99% certain it’s taught on BC’s bikeability programme.

I was certainly taught it when doing my BC’s MTB Trail Leaders Award.

As a cyclist you have every much a right to be on the road as any other road user and should be treated with the same respect and courtesy.
However, the earlier poster ,is quite correct; motorists who get angry and frustrated by cyclists will also more than likely treat other road users with the same contempt – horses, pedestrians, learner drivers all spring to mind.

In reply to Gael Force:


I'm not sure riding abreast is necessarily a good idea, but I can't think of may circumstances where this could be considered the cause of an accident - if someone is overtaking, their action is of their own volition, surely? No-one has to overtake. The cyclists riding abreast only contribute by being present, which they are entitled to be. One could equally argue that, say, the oncoming car that has a head-on crash with the overtaker is also responsible - which doesn't seem very reasonable either.

In reply to exiled_northerner:


Motorists (me included) don't get angry and frustrated by any other group of road users per se - only the inconsiderate ones.

In reply to GrahamD:


Then why the routine abuse that is dished out against cyclists just riding along minding their own business, horse riders get it in horsey areas too. Or the fabled white van man... like most humans, those behind the wheel of a car tend to generalise about peoples behaviours based on observations. For my dad it was blokes who drove with a hat on in the car.

In reply to GrahamD:


You may not Graham, but you are not all road users, experience and a fair bit of evidence shows that a sizeable minority of road users get angry with other road users for non-rational reasons.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


And what percentage of motorists is that ? Because in my cycling experience its considerably fewer than 1% of them. Abuse from motorists isn't routine - its just that its not worth starting thread saying "I was passed by 123 considerate motorists on my ride today and noone shouted at me...."

In reply to Flinticus:

I would say 99%of road user are ok . the 1%who are dicks will be dicks weather they are passing cyclist , horse rider or other cars . that 1% see something I their way and make bad decisions and get abusive .

In reply to AlisonSmiles:

Yes, I would agree with that.

Road rage is a curious thing, arrives quickly, and encourages us all to take actions which we later regret. No point in encouraging it in others or ourselves.

In reply to exiled_northerner:





^
Unfortunately what may or may not be commonly thought is irrelevant in terms of liability, contravening the highway code is a determining factor in both prosecution or determining liability, in this case rule 66 which advises against riding two abreast near bends and on busy or narrow roads.
Having seen a number of severely injured cyclists and sadly some dead ones in my previous career, I would advise not cycling two abreast, keeping as far away from traffic as possible is much safer, particularly HGV's.
If you are the outside of a pair of cyclists and another driver does a dangerous manouvere you have nowhere to go, if your single file it is easy to get off the carriageway...
No use being in the right and short of a leg or arm....

In reply to Gael Force:



You seem to be saying damned if you do and damned if you don't. As numerous people have pointed out, riding two abreast can help discourage dangerous overtakes. But of course with impatient or ignorant motorists it may leave you in more trouble.

If you have cyclists riding two abreast on a narrow road or approaching a bend (i.e against the advice of the Highway Code) and an overtaking motorist hit one, where would the liability lie?

Got to ask where do you lot cycle? just so I can avoid the place my commute and rides are practically stress free and with no issues (City and suburbs)

I have to say I really dislike the way some people claim motorist v cyclist and try to pigeon hole. The majority are both and don't see ourselves belonging to any group in particular. Somedays I'm on my bike, other times I drive and on other occasions I take a bus or taxi or Im a passenger in someone else's car etc. Some humans are dicks whether they are on a bike or in a car.

In reply to Trevers:



Well, Trevers, being a cyclist ,myself obviously I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't see any evidence that riding two abreast will discourage a "bad" overtake. The only evidence I see is that it can contravene the Highway code, possibly put you at increased risk of a rear end collision,(albeit due to poor reaction from a car driver), and it therefore puts you in a situation where you are more likely to come into conflict with other traffic, a situation where a cyclist is more than likely to come off much worst.
It's not just about overtaking,... it's your life, it's no good having somebody find in your favour regarding liability and you being seriously injured or worse. The fact you might also be liable for the accident only worsens a very bad situation.

In reply to Gael Force:

I assume you are against adopting the primary position?

In reply to The New NickB:
No, because obviously there's nobody inside of you, so you can still manouvere to the nearside, in an emergency, ....which you cannot do two abreast,... get a grip ...

In reply to Gael Force:


You have just confirmed what I already suspected; the guidance in the HC on bends is pragmatic, and is to allow room to accommodate dangerous overtaking manouevres. Such a manouevre would crash into a car coming the opposite way, occupying the full width of the lane, as two cyclists abreast. Would you consider this motorist to have contributory negligence in the collision? I doubt it. So why is a cyclist partially responsible, when they are legally occupying the lane? The person responsible is the driver doing the dangerous manouevre of overtaking on a blind bend; that's clearly dangerous driving, and illegal.

Anything else is basically saying the cyclist was responsible for the accident simply because they were on the road.

If you're giving this advice, and it is used in insurance and prosecutions, I'm not surprised we have to put up with the shit we do, being blamed for simply being on the road.

In reply to Gael Force:


Classy!

In reply to Gael Force:



No evidence!? Well I don't tend to cycle two abreast myself except when overtaking other cyclists, mostly because I don't tend to cycle socially. But my experience from London at least was that taking the primary dramatically reduced the danger (from several near misses a day to me being in complete control of my space). So I'd infer from that that riding two abreast can also keep you more secure on country lanes. Incidentally, blind corners are where I'm most likely to stay wide, for improved visibility and to discourage impatient overtakes.

I told myself I would stop responding to these cycling threads because all they do is raise my blood pressure. I'm taking issue with you because you claim to be a professional working in insurance, with an experts insight, yet all you've said suggests to me you don't have a clue about the dynamics of the road.

In reply to the thread:

You cyclists are weird...

In reply to Flinticus:

I normally pull a gun on them and say ..'Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost the cycle track myself. But being this is a .15 gatgun, nearly the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

In reply to The New NickB:


"Sizeable minority" covers a lot of ground don't you think ? we both agree its a minority but if its that sizeable you wouldn't be able to drive or ride anywhere without being blocked by people having punchups.

Funny how it always seems to be the same cyclists who are getting the constant abuse.

In reply to GrahamD:


No Graham, try looking at things like driver attitude surveys and the like, you will notice that I very deliberately used the term road users, this isn't specifically about cyclists and drivers.


Funny how you feel you can make stuff up.

In reply to The New NickB:


I know Nick, which is why I didn't mention punchups specifically between drivers and cyclists.


Like what ? its always the same few posters on here who feel that drivers have it in for them.

In reply to GrahamD:


I just don't think that is true.

I witness terrible driving attitudes all the time, often endangering other road users, particularly cyclists, often pedestrians and other cars. This is occasionally when riding my bike, but more often when driving myself on foot.

It's also not about altercations, they are quite rare, people driving far too close, cutting up, accelarating past only to turn across you, pulling out of junctions and yes sometimes shouting abuse. If you don't experience at least one of these on any decent ride, I would suggest you are riding very quiet roads, very lucky or simply not being very observant.