A little justice

[Elizabeth_S]

From the Stirling News, made me smile at the Sheriff's comments!
http://www.stirlingnews.co.uk/news/1381 ... _cyclists/

[pwa]

Yes, I imagine the car driver is feeling a bit embarrassed about the whole thing. It sounds like the man let his frustration get out of hand. The judge seems to have summed it up nicely.

Without knowing the road or being there on the day it is impossible to comment meaningfully on the appropriateness of cycling two abreast. The cyclists said they felt it made them safer, and sometimes it can. Without evidence to the contrary I would tend to assume that they were riding in an appropriate way.

In my opinion riding two abreast can be a problem if it is done constantly, without singling out from time to time to allow patient motorists to pass where appropriate. I can understand a motorist (especially one who cannot accelerate quickly) feeling frustrated at his difficulty being ignored for a lengthy period. If that is what happened here (and I do mean if) I can see where the frustration came from. But to express that frustration with abusive behaviour is unacceptable and needed a punishment.

[beardy]

without singling out from time to time to allow patient motorists to pass where appropriate. I can understand a motorist (especially one who cannot accelerate quickly) feeling frustrated at his difficulty being ignored for a lengthy period. If that is what happened here (and I do mean if)

Yet he still found time to pause alongside, mid overtake for a conversation!

Adequate "revenge" is normally achievable through needing the diesel turbo in second gear and engulfing the cyclists in a cloud of particulates, with the bonus of saying it was necessary to get past as quickly and safely (if not cleanly) as possible.

[pwa]

without singling out from time to time to allow patient motorists to pass where appropriate. I can understand a motorist (especially one who cannot accelerate quickly) feeling frustrated at his difficulty being ignored for a lengthy period. If that is what happened here (and I do mean if)

Yet he still found time to pause alongside, mid overtake for a conversation!

Adequate "revenge" is normally achievable through needing the diesel turbo in second gear and engulfing the cyclists in a cloud of particulates, with the bonus of saying it was necessary to get past as quickly and safely (if not cleanly) as possible.

Presumably he had found a wide bit of road to overtake, after a lengthy narrower section. Whether the narrower section would have been wide enough to overtake safely (with a caravan) if the cyclists had singled out is another question. If it had been wide enough for that, I would have singled out. But maybe it wasn't really wide enough. It's all speculation. What we do know is that the bloke lost his rag, said things he should not have said, and ended up being shamed with a court appearance. Well done to the two ladies for getting his number and taking the trouble to follow it up.

[JimL]

and well done to police and prosecutors

[Mick F]

Yes, well done ladies for reporting him.

Strange though, reading that news item and knowing the road and where the chap lives!
We lived in Alexandria for a couple of years and I cycled all the roads nearby plus drove them too.

[Elizabeth_S]

If I remember correctly it is wide enough for 2 normal-sized cars to pass, but can be a bit eeky with anything bigger.

[pwa]

If I remember correctly it is wide enough for 2 normal-sized cars to pass, but can be a bit eeky with anything bigger.

That sounds like the sort of situation where singling out might allow a caravan to pass safely. Possibly. That could explain the frustration, but not, of course, the OTT response.

[horizon]

The driver's OTT response comes from a sense of aggrieved entitlement. That's why I'm rarely sympathetic to motorists in these situations. They believe they have the right to drive in the way they wish to, unhindered by the existence of cyclists. No-one, not the Government, not the Department for Transport, not the police nor driving instructors or examiners or the media, not car advertising, disabuses them of this notion. Their expectations as to how they might use the road are therefore unrealistic and self-serving. Sooner or later they come across reality - cyclists also use roads - but are mentally unprepared. So the result is confusion, impatience and disappointment - it isn't what they were led to expect. So driving involves waiting, driving slowly, travelling behind slower road users. The lesson is learnt painfully, reluctantly and indeed childishly.

So it wasn't just his criminal behaviour that was wrong: it was his initial beliefs that were inappropriate. It was how he reacted to these beliefs that marked him out.

[Vorpal]

The cyclists stated (according to the article) that they were riding two abreast because it's safer. That tells me that they didn't think lane-sharing was safe.

[Flinders]

Seeing as they didn't stop him overtaking as he clearly did so, I can't see his problem.
As driver I have been 'held up' for far longer by caravans than I ever have by cyclists.

[loch eck steve]

He 's got nerve ! the amount of times I've being held up with a caravan , great to hear ! thanks for posting .

[horizon]

As a driver I have been 'held up' for far longer by caravans than I ever have by cyclists.

As a driver I've been held up by cars far more than any other cause. As a cyclist I've been held up by cars more than by any other cause (apart from punctures, the desire for a cake etc )

[pwa]

I believe a patient driver has a right to expect that two cyclists riding two abreast will single out eventually if and when the road becomes wide enough for the driver to pass single file riders safely. What constitutes "safely" is a judgement for the cyclists first, and then the driver when they have singled out. The whole etiquette of this situation can be relaxed and amicable. Whether this particular driver started off patient and amicable, I don't really know. He certainly didn't finish up that way.

[horizon]

I believe

Yes, it's a belief, a strongly held one and one shared by many. But where did it come from? And even if it is enshrined in the Highway Code, why? Because motorists believe in their right to drive unhindered and as fast as they like on roads that once belonged to carts, horses, cyclists, walkers and the like. And even on roads that still belong to carts, horses, cyclists, walkers and the like, like the roads around here.