In case someone asks why cyclists take the road

[Gyre]

I've been riding the canyons since I was a teenager, and it's exactly guys like this that make it necessary to occupy the road aggressively. I was doing 35mph at the time but this fellow couldn't be bothered to slow down a hair until a turnout came up. My mistake was leaving a little too much room in the lane.

Anyway, posting directly to the Wasteland since it seems to be the most appropriate venue.

 

[Norange]

Absolute fucking bellends, some people.

 

[Ripping g]

Thats why i do as little on the road as poss ??‍

 

[2WheelsNot4]

This is the reason rifles have scopes

 

[TheRealPoMo]

What's the speed limit?

 

[Ripping g]

What's the speed limit?

There’s no speed limit for a push bike

 

[TheRealPoMo]

On the road...you know, the speed the road was designed to pass traffic at and other road users expect to be able to do without hinderance.
If its 35 mph then all good; car guy should not be a twat.
If its 55, cyclist should let faster traffic pass.

 

[Norange]

On the road...you know, the speed the road was designed to pass traffic at and other road users expect to be able to do without hinderance.
If its 35 mph then all good; car guy should not be a twat.
If its 55, cyclist should let faster traffic pass.

Utter rubbish, sorry. Speed limit is irrelevant, if road is wide enough, car driver needs to wait for a safe opportunity to pass. If road is not wide enough, i.e single lane, I'd hope cyclist would pull in to allow a safe pass, or accept a pass at narrow gap and slow speed. You are correct, a lot of road users see cyclists (and pedestrians) as a hinderance. That's because they are selfish, not because it's the right way to view the scenario.

 

[TheRealPoMo]

If road is not wide enough, i.e single lane, I'd hope cyclist would pull in to allow a safe pass, or accept a pass at narrow gap and slow speed.

I'd hope so too.
Common courtesy.
Seems like that didn't happen.

 

[Norange]

I'd hope so too.
Common courtesy.
Seems like that didn't happen.

That's not a single lane road. The clue's in the other lane being there, where the driver has put about an inch of rubber, rather than all 4 wheels.

 

[Gyre]

On the road...you know, the speed the road was designed to pass traffic at and other road users expect to be able to do without hinderance.

No. The speed limit is the maximum legally permissible speed, full stop. It's not the minimum speed, a passing speed, or an entitled speed.

If its 35 mph then all good; car guy should not be a twat.
If its 55, cyclist should let faster traffic pass.

Absolutely, but there is a right way and a wrong way. I've been riding Angeles Crest Highway since I was a teenager and the side of the road is a bad place to be at 30-50mph. You end up in debris, broken pavement, and when paving is done, close to the raised edge of the paving. Also, cars absolutely will not slow down for you, and many of them are shit at taking a clean passing line and holding it. They'll hug the inside line and pass you with inches to spare at full speed instead of the legally required 3 feet of clearance, simply because they're not afraid of cyclists but they are afraid of oncoming traffic. Who do you think loses when a car is passing you at the exact moment oncoming traffic is passing in the other direction? You're going to get pushed right out to the very edge of the road.

Instead, the safer way is to do exactly what cars are supposed to do: Take the lane (bicycles legally considered vehicles for road use and entitled to do this) and like any slower traffic, be conscious when someone is coming up behind you and take the first safe turnout to let traffic pass. That generally works fine, because most questionable drivers are merely thoughtless or unskilled. The problem is once in awhile you get an occasional driver who refuses to yield no matter how unsafe the pass would be - either to you or to oncoming traffic.

 

[TheRealPoMo]

Actually it sort of is an entitled speed. Impeding the flow of traffic is an offence; at least in Australia it is. 35 in a 55 could be considered such unless you take reasonable steps to allow passing, which is why I asked. You say that you do - fair enough. Reverse facing camera may have given me a false impression of your motives.

 

[Gyre]

Actually it sort of is an entitled speed. Impeding the flow of traffic is an offence; at least in Australia it is. 35 in a 55 could be considered such unless you take reasonable steps to allow passing, which is why I asked. You say that you do - fair enough.

The obstructing traffic code in California on canyon roads is failing to use a turnout when there are six cars stacked up behind you. The code for passing a cyclist is to maintain a minimum 3 foot separation. If anyone was committing an offense, it was the driver here.

Reverse facing camera may have given me a false impression of your motives.

I don't always ride with a camera because of the hassle setting it up, but my motive is that if the worst happens, over here hit-and-run is the rule, not the exception, and juries are prejudiced to seeing cyclists and motorcyclists as irresponsible daredevils. You need to be able to identify who hit you and you need hard evidence to outweigh that prejudice.

 

[Matt van]

Thats why i do as little on the road as poss ??‍

exactly my thought too, even though you're in the right you're still going to be left 6 feet deep