Nuxx:A3216b99-60b9-43b5-9155-4afd816d975a@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Single file or two by two. Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:42 -0700 (PDT) References:  Lines: 51 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.170.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1219962582 7491 127.0.0.1 (28 Aug 2008 22:29:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.170.121; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4236 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:665449

On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Graham Harrison"  wrote: > Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists riding two > by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you ride two by two, > bunch style, you actually make life easier for motorists. The alternative > is a line of bikes strung out over double the distance (and with many > "leisure cyclists" even more because they can't/won't keep close together.) > As a motorist I'd rather have to make a single, short overtaking maneuver > than have to overtake a long line of bikes, especially if the line is strung > out with big gaps. > > I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the correct > formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.

I've got no argument with that. Unfortunately a small number of militant cyclists (who appear to believe that motorists shouldn't be overtaking them at all, ever, probably because they think that they shouldn't even be there) abuse the two-abreast allowance by riding, very slowly, side-by-side when they know perfectly well that the road's too narrow for motorists to get past. But thankfully such oafs are few and far between, and the vast majority of cyclists only go side-by-side when it's feasible (and also cooperate with motorists in general, rather than going out of their way to irritate them in Spindrift-esque fashion).

The trouble is that, as with the small number of cyclists who jump RLJs, such lycra louts give all cyclists a bad name, as they tend to be the cyclists that other road users remember the most. Those on this group who are really pro-cyclist (rather than anti-motorist) should concentrate on dealing with such militant lycra louts instead of advocating silly things like speed cameras. And they can start by dealing with Spindrift and the Crapmeister General. Getting rid of the lycra louts would do far more for the cycling cause than any number of killing/motorist-banning machines. Stop persecuting the responsible motorcyclist who's harmlessly using a bus lane, and the safe driver who's going at 35mph in a limit that should be 40mph, and turn your attention to those cyclists who continue to tarnish your reputation so.

Talking of Psycho Spindrift, he admitted the other day that when a motorist comes up behind him and he decides that the motorist has been going too fast, he deliberately gets in the motorist's way to "punish" them and compensate for the time that they've supposedly gained by going "too fast". Talk about being so obsessed with other people's supposed misdemeanors that you don't pay enough attention to your own driving/riding (he apparently "polices" others whether he's cycling or (boo, hiss) driving). And how unbelievably arrogant to decide that everyone has to go below whatever speed *he* decides is the maximum safe one. It really is beyond the pale, but then with Spindrift, it almost always is. Issuing vicious threats to workplaces full of innocent people: how low is that?