Should cyclists be on the road or not?

Question

Okay, I'm driving along and suddenly encounter a queue of about 6-7 cars travelling at just under 15 mph. I then pass the obstacle- a cyclist, who has refused to pull over to let the lorry immediately behind him overtake. The lorry couldn't get past because it was narrow and there was oncoming traffic.
Since there was a place to pull in, and cyclists shouldn't even be on A roads at all, let alone in the rush hour, I hoot. To this, the response, is the dirty old man sticks his middle finger up. I give this lowlife a dirty look, to which he bellows a couple of f's and c's before I'm out of earshot. The middle finger is also held up until I'm well out of eyesight.
What's worse is my parents are in the car, and my mum was particularly upset by this man's behaviour as she is very sensitive to that kind of thing.

Answer 1

I really think it is time you took driving lessons from a reputable driving school!

When you book your test and study the Highway Code you will find that it is you who were in the wrong!

Cyclists have every right to be on the road and not be menaced, knocked off or crushed by motor vehicles.

I suppose you blow your horn at horses and old people on crossings too?

________________________________________
However adult bicyclists riding on the pavements and pedestrian areas ought to be dragged from their mounts and given a good kicking.

It is selfish, reckless, dangerous and ILLEGAL!

Answer 2

An answer from the UK.
The legal place for cycles is the road not the pavement. You should not have hooted - the horn is there to be used as a warning not to tell someone off especially when they are legally on the road. Bear in mind that in most cases lorry drivers are professionally qualified drivers - if he did not hoot then there was probably a good reason. If your parents were in the car all the more reason for you to stay calm and not be aggressive then your mother would not have been subjected to this particular sort of hand signal. When the law in the UK sees that it would be much safer for cyclists to be on pavements especially when there are no pedestrians then you would have the right to make comment.
I am not a cyclist but I am an advanced driver and I would recommend to anyone the value of taking further instruction when having passed the general motoring test required by law.

Answer 3

The only place that cyclists are not allowed are motorways and some dual carriageways.
They can actually be "pulled" for riding on the pavement ( as can horse riders)
The highway code applies to everyone not just motorists, so the guy on the bike was entitled to be there but should have shown consideration to other road users.
Don't judge all cyclists or riders by the actions of a few idiots. Not all car drivers are paragons of virtue either.
There are many varieties of road hog.

Answer 4

Yes,
Cyclist should, but dangerous inconsiderate and rude drivers should not. There are bad drivers and bad cyclists. If I see 1 bad driver, I don't feel that all drivers should be banned from the road. Cyclist must obey the same rules of the road ad drivers. They actually help reduce congestion and improve our air quality. Every cyclist is one less car on the road. If cyclists obey the rules of the road, motorists and cyclist should be able to share the road. I commute by Bicycle. I ride with the flow of traffic, in designated bike lanes whenever possible. I stop at all stop signs and traffic lights, and remain predictable. If I can't keep up with traffic, I pull to the right to allow cars to pass. I also expect cars to be considerate, not honk at me, drive in the bike lanes, or be otherwise inconsiderate. Please, lets try to get along and be considerate.

Answer 5

There's the law of the land, and there's the laws of physics.

When the two conflict, physics wins every time.

When I'm riding, I keep as far to the outside of the lane as possible, and if there is a shoulder, I ride on that. If there is no shoulder, and there is heavy traffic that I cannot keep up with on a bicycle, I will ride on the sidewalk. (And if both are too congested, I'll get off the bike and walk) If there's no shoulder and no sidewalk, and traffic gets too heavy, then into the ditch I go.

I'll ride against traffic if I can't count on my ears to tell me for sure if there's a car coming behind me, because my eyes are more reliable.

I will take the path of least resistance. Sometimes that's what the law says I should be doing, sometimes it isn't. And frankly, laws vary so wildly from city to city, state to state, and country to country, I just say **** it and do whatever seems safest.

So...yeah, cyclists should be on the road...when it is in everyone's best interest that that is where they are riding.

Answer 6

Cyclists are supposed to be on the road, traveling in the same direction as a car would. But they are subject to most traffic laws too...including impeding traffic. Any vehicle that impedes traffic is supposed to pull over or wave someone around them if they cannot maintain the speed of normal traffic. This includes cyclists. And cyclists should ALWAYS be in the bike lane if one is provided.

Answer 7

Silly people like you are the reason why I avoid using my bike on the road and I often ride on the pavement. You sound like someone who has just passed their driving test and knows it all. Whilst I think the cyclist could have helped by pulling over he would almost certainly have had difficulty in resuming his legitimate journey. My old driving instructor was very firm in telling me in no uncertain terms that it was the duty yes duty of a motorist to give a cyclist enough room to fall off his bike.(actually this is backed by case law) now I accept that this is not always possible but it is your duty to give him as much room as you can. Sadly i think you almost certainly deserved the go ride on it sign.

Answer 8

The question is whether you should be on the road or not. Where in the highway code does it tell you to hoot at other road users because you are frustrated? The problem is that the roads are full of ill tempered bad mannered people like you who always get on their high horse when someone else acts in a similar manner. I am not defending this particular gentlemen but to be fair you started it. I hope that one of your parents had the road savvy to point out that you shouldn't have hooted in the first place. Also if your mum is sensitive to confrontation I think it is your duty not to start it.
ps what is your opinion of horses, invalid vehicles, buses, pedestrians etc. Are they allowed on the roads?

Answer 9

initially, i think of you had a robust lesson in hazard know-how, a mandatory utilising ability. Cyclists are allowed to wobble, that's even written into uk regulation, so which you are able to provide them sufficient room, ask your utilising instructor, yet evaluate giving them greater area than you may passing a motor vehicle. Cyclists have each precise to be upon the line, you, simply by fact the driving force of over a ton of killing gadget, are responsible to work out which you do no longer injure different highway clientele, alongside with pedestrians. with connection with cycle lanes, my experience is that many at the instant are not in high-quality condition for the purpose, some are in basic terms white lines painted on the line or pavement (that's area walk for our US readers), many times with highway furnishings at irrelevant places. many times the exterior is in a bad state of restore, or has the particular scientific care that makes driving a bike uncomfortable. the only roads that cyclists can not use are motorways or ones marked as no cycles. whilst i became at college, we've been taught to experience in a protective way, far off from the kerb for our very own secure practices. I want they could reintroduce cycle training at college. All highway clientele have an obligation to take care. you may desire to recognize all a hazard adverse aspects whilst utilising. i think that folk who've ridden 2 wheeled, the two cycles or motorcycles make lots greater advantageous drivers. you ought to attempt it. What you do no longer say is why the bicycle proprietor hit the kerb, became he being forced off the line by ability of a motor vehicle driving force? If there became a motor vehicle interior the lane next to you, you probably did no longer have sufficient room to bypass the bicycle proprietor adequately, regardless of if he hadn't fallen off and ought to have bogged all the way down to force in the back of him besides. I recommend which you get some proper utilising classes from a qualified instructor. Get a replica of Roadcraft and the line code and consider them the two. do no longer force returned till you have examine the two one among those and understood their contents. you're utilising a deadly weapon and are responsible on your strikes.

Answer 10

All cyclists have to obey the parts of the highway code that applies to them the trouble is that there is no competency test, or insurance required. Bikes on a pavement are even more of a menace than on the roads especially when the PC brigade have reduced the pavement to make way for bikes

Answer 11

Yes cyclists have the right to be on the road and it is up to us to either be patient if we can't overtake giving them enough room as we do so.

Having said that i have found myself following cyclists insistent on riding next to one another (Instead on behind one another as should be in their case) And i can imagine how annoying it is if! We still have to observe caution and make room.

More cycle lanes would go down well anywhere, and that includes rural little roads where drivers can often find themslves stuck behind cyclists for a while.