Nightmare drive

[CliveyT]

(The Volvo will also happily crawl up a reasonable incline with the foot off the accelerator - obviously designed for following cyclists up steep hills )

I was just thinking of this, my wife's 20 year old diesel crawls nicely just on tickover. I wonder if the OP would blame me if he burnt his clutch out following me in a traffic queue?

[Mark1978]

(The Volvo will also happily crawl up a reasonable incline with the foot off the accelerator - obviously designed for following cyclists up steep hills )

I was just thinking of this, my wife's 20 year old diesel crawls nicely just on tickover. I wonder if the OP would blame me if he burnt his clutch out following me in a traffic queue?

Will it also crawl nicely up a 15% slope? I've never tried mine but I suspect it might well stall in that situation.

[AlaninWales]

What about hybrid or electric cars? Never driven one myself, but I thought that engine braking = regenerative braking was the norm here.

Engine braking != regenerative braking.

I used to drive a Prius - interesting car, not really eco-friendly (due to the environmental cost of manufacture) but one of those which (IMO) gave a boost to getting some of the same technology in mainstream engine driven cars. Whenever I took my foot off the throttle or eased up to maintain speed on a downhill, it would be recharging the battery. Light braking apparently took some of the energy from the wheels to assist battery recharging (heavier braking used brake pad friction as normal). This was with the gear selector in F for Forward (or was it D for drive - I forget now).

Anyway, the gear selector had Neutral, Foreward (or Drive), Reverse and 'B' for 'Braking' - which did not disconnect the clutch when not accelerating; i.e. in all other conditions, no accelerator pressure = no clutch engagement, engine disconnected from wheels (and stopped usually). In 'B' the car slowed substantially more quickly than otherwise - about as quickly as a modern auto in Drive. Regenerative braking was not increased though, simply the engine compression was being used to add to the friction in bearings etc which was slowing the car = engine braking.

In modern driving practice, using engine braking to slow for a hazard is discouraged: Modern brakes are phenominally better than 20 - 30 years ago and don't need the assistance, clutches are not designed as braking surfaces (and using engine braking without rev matching each change does exactly that). Gas to go and brakes to slow is a reasonable summation; but (a big but) use of engine compression to control downhill speed is still encouraged. Modern cars tend to have lighter rotating parts than older ones (better engineering and computer controlled fuel flow combine with this to improve both mpg and emissions), which means they cannot provide the same control at the same gear ratios, so a lower gear needs to be selected - with appropriate rev matching to prevent premature clutch wear.

As regards the OP - I don't know the road and cannot tell if the cyclists were being overly selfish, or whether it was simply a selfish driver expecting them to dive out of the way as soon as he is on the scene. By the driver's own description though, he definitely needs remedial lessons in car control Slipping the clutch to stay behind Clutch fully engaged and control speed if necessary (I doubt it would be necessary uphill) using footbrake. Any modern car easily travels below walking speed with the clutch engaged; if yours can't then stop (as others have said) in one of those passing places and let the council vehicle behind you past (the driver of which is presumably coping adequately with the slow speed up a steep hill).

Plenty of steep single tracks in Wales, I remember plenty in Hampshire; in both places the usual cause for driving slowly was some farmwork. Anyone unable to keep his car below walking speed without burning the clutch out simply should not be on the road.

[mjr]

In most modern cars, this is now controlled by a computer, and the speed with which the throttle is closed is now much slower, as manufacturers have defined the throttle closing speed to avoid misuse of engine braking that can cause skids.

Is there also some effect from the improved engine efficiency? If a new car is using 80% of the fuel of an old car, the effect of closing the throttle on the new car is only like going from 80% or 0% on the old car, not quite as dramatic a slowing down as 100% to 0%.

I've also a slight suspicion that new petrol engines are lighter and easier to turn (which also might mean less braking effect?), but all the green marketing hoopla which accompanies new lighter does make me wonder if it's as much as claimed.

[ambodach]

This thread has wandered off in all directions. Consider you have an accident by falling off your bike somewhere on a single track road or mebbe you have a heart attack. A doctor and possibly ambulance coming to your aid has to sit behind a tourist who thinks everyone is on holiday so they can drive as slowly as they like and to hang with anyone behind. Or a cyclist who keeps pluggng on and will not pull over.Believe me this has happened and my GP has some very colourful language in relation to such people. On one occasion he said he leaned out of the window and waved his stethoscope at them. This had no effect. I was once stuck behind a recumbent trike with another 30 or so vehicles who was only forced to pull over by a public spirited motorcyclist. He shook his fist at all the vehicles as they passed him! Almost unbelievable except I was there and it certainly did happen.Anyone who lives and works in an area of single track roads has a fund of such horror stories. All true.

[gentlegreen]

There certainly seems to be a new breed of cyclist who are driven to better their STRAVA stats at all costs.

I had one of the sporty variety overtake me closely on a particularly narrow and complex part of the Bristol to Bath path on my way to work with oncoming traffic and I wish I'd had a good enough microphone to catch him justify it by complaining that I was "taking up half the path" and that "some of us like to have fun on our way to work".

My speed at that point was not limited by my strength but by a whole series of hazards - several of which would have been greatly exacerbated by my meekly riding on the tree roots.

[661-Pete]

Believe me this has happened and my GP has some very colourful language in relation to such people. On one occasion he said he leaned out of the window and waved his stethoscope at them. This had no effect.

Doctors who answer emergency calls ought to have blues and twos on their cars. In some countries they already do. And of course paramedics on motorbikes have them. And I'm sure almost all road users - cyclists or others - would pull over if they heard blues and twos behind them.

[Bicycler]

This thread has wandered off in all directions.

Indeed and you wandered it into a different one which wasn't entirely relevant to a couple of cyclists holding up 2 vehicles for less than a km.

There's a middle line to be had isn't there? A balance to be struck between the progress of different road users. Nobody here is justifying the causing of huge highland traffic jams. Everybody is justifying a bit of give and take and mutual consideration.

I said something similar on the other thread but when I lived in a rural area I encountered as many cases of overly complacent locals driving too fast as I encountered over cautious visitors. The locals viewed the latter as the problem. I found their expectations of travelling at high speed down clearly unsuitable roads to be far more worrying...

[ambodach]

I don't think our doctors are allowed "blue and twos". At one time they tried green lights which indicate medical services. This was ignored by most of the usual offenders.I have indeed wandered off a bit but the principle still remains that bicycles are vehicles and as such should give way to overtaking traffic. Our single track roads are much busier than they have ever been but with a bit of observation and anticipation I do not find a problem. I do admit that starting again on a steep hill is a problem but I try to slow enough in a passing place to let a car past.Mostly it works.Oncoming traffic can be dealt with again by adjusting speed to meet in a passing place. You still get the occasional idiot who cannot comprehend such tactics but such is life on our present roads.

[JenniferAdcock]

I did not think trolls came to this board, and then this post by a supposed 'ex cyclist'

[661-Pete]

I did not think trolls came to this board, and then this post by a supposed 'ex cyclist'

I personally would avoid applying the T-word in this instance: I concede that the OP clearly felt aggrieved at having the complaint he sent to Cycle mag. ignored or rejected. So he chose to re-direct it here, possibly in the belief that this forum represents the 'voice' of the CTC (it doesn't: merely the 'voices' of the forum members, not all of whom are members of the CTC). And the OP hasn't been back to stoke up further argument.

'Anti-cyclist', arguably, but not a troll.

I know all about trolls from my past experiences in Other Places. If I mutter the code words "Swiss" and "cat", some on here will know what I'm alluding to!

[Mark1978]

All this is, is the same old "cyclists held me up" complaint you hear from motorists all the time. Did the cyclists break the OP's clutch? No, he did that himself with poor driving. Not saying there's no issue with the cyclists here but they aren't at fault for a burned out clutch.

[MartinC]

All this is, is the same old "cyclists held me up" complaint.......................................

I think you're selling the OP short. It was the finest rendition of the 'whinging pom' I've seen in a long time. It contained all the vital ingredients - the contrived victimhood, the terrible injustice of the world not realising how important they were, the pathos of all the other tribulations they endured, a wealth of irrelevant trivia - all based on the fact that an out group may have done something slightly inconsiderate. A remarkable parody of immense entertainment value!

[beardy]

It is easy to see it that way.

I like to think that I get the balance right between assertion and courtesy but sometimes after a stupidly close pass, I angrily get much more defensively assertive on the road stopping a repeat of the occurrence by not leaving space to pass.

I have seen (increasingly) a few cyclists who do show little awareness or concern about holding up other traffic (no doubt they learn this while driving their cars ). Personally any car behind me gives me a burning feeling and I do want it past me as soon as safely possible.

I remember a tortuous climb, where to stop would mean not being able to start again, a car waited patiently at the top of the climb while we crawled up at 2mph, he also prevented any other cars coming down towards us. When we eventually arrived some minutes later we got a round of applause.

I would add that we could be described as wobbling dangerously and would have had to stop cycling if any car had passed us either way as we were not able to keep in a nice straight line and always at the point of stalling.

[DevonDamo]

If you're going up a sustained, steep hill on a bike, you're at less than walking pace.

If you don't then let faster vehicles pass wherever possible, you're rude and ignorant.

If you think this is a 'cars versus bikes' issue, you're paranoid. (It's a 'slower vehicles versus faster vehicles' issue.)