arj1 wrote:
And sometimes there IS a cycling lane and sign to move there (and the road markings!) but the cyclist still rides on the main road and is heavy traffic.
Probably as aviators they have the temerity to fly through controlled airspace when there is a perfectly good OCTA route 
There are many good reasons a cyclist might choose the main road in preference to a “dedicated” cycling path. Otherwise I agree that there are plenty of inconsiderate cyclists.
Ted wrote:
There are many good reasons a cyclist might choose the main road in preference to a “dedicated” cycling path. Otherwise I agree that there are plenty of inconsiderate cyclists.
That is precisely the point I was trying to make when replying Peter’s comment: there are a lot of inconsiderate drivers AND cyclists.
Because they don’t care, or in a rush or they don’t see what is happenning or may be they are just having a bad day.
arj1 wrote:
32 mpg vs 39-40 mpg for around 10 miles,
If overtaking two or three cyclists in 10 miles is really costing you quarter of a litre of fuel, then there is something definitely wrong with your car.
Even 10 miles of extreme stop start driving vs a clear run won’t make such a dramatic change in the MPG of my car, let alone having to pass a small number of bike riders.
Ted wrote:
There are many good reasons a cyclist might choose the main road in preference to a “dedicated” cycling path
The problem is many dedicated cycle paths are just not fit for purpose in the UK (and here in the Isle of Man). Motorists, never using these paths, never get to understand how bad some of the “cycle farcilities” really are. Many are “shared use” which also promotes the idea that cycling on the pavement is OK, when it most definitely is not; shared use paths are no good for anything other than a slow (<5 mph) bimble with the family. If you ride a bike for actual transport, they are useless and dangerous, often requiring the rider to give way to traffic approaching from behind, which is a terrible idea. Most of them are also indirect.
How would motorists feel if lorry drivers told them to get off the motorways, and instead use a circuitous B road where they keep losing the right of way?
Last year they put such a “cycle farcility” in near where I live, and all it’s done is made drivers resent cyclists and deliberately do things like “punishment passes”. The cycle route isn’t fit for purpose, it is strewn with stones thrown up by the sea, you have to give way to traffic coming from the rear, it is shared with dog walkers and pedestrians despite not being wide enough for a cycle and pedestrian to pass each other. Even with the “punishment overtakes” it’s safer and quicker to use the main carriageway, especially if you’re riding because you’re trying to go somewhere. This cycle path was just a box ticking exercise, accomplished by painting a cycle symbol on an existing pavement. Most UK cycle paths are like this, and useless to anyone who goes more than about 5 mph.
At the end of the day, when you’re in a car, you’re in a climate controlled cocoon, a comfortable sofa on wheels, having to slow down for a few seconds is not a huge hardship – especially when the motorist chose the secondary route to get away from other motorists (then whinges when they get stuck behind a tractor, or the farmer moving the cows). But if you read some of the forums, you’d think that the guy trying to cycle to work is literally Stalin, committing human rights violations against the poor defenceless motorist who merely has the protection of a tonne and a half of steel armour.
I quite literally go the extra mile for the sole convenience of motorists (my route to work is a mile longer each way than taking the more direct route most motorists take, but the route I take is low traffic), all I ask in return is for a safe overtake.
alioth wrote:
If overtaking two or three cyclists in 10 miles is really costing you quarter of a litre of fuel, then there is something definitely wrong with your car.Even 10 miles of extreme stop start driving vs a clear run won’t make such a dramatic change in the MPG of my car, let alone having to pass a small number of bike riders.
Something wrong with my car? May be, but it passes MOT and the vendor maintenance every year with no problems and no comments.
alioth wrote:
How would motorists feel if lorry drivers told them to get off the motorways, and instead use a circuitous B road where they keep losing the right of way?
You mean when I see a public transport lane and I can’t use it? I get off that road, and use the one I can.
And franly speaking if there was a separate road for lorries, I’d love it!
Last year they put such a “cycle farcility” in near where I live, and all it’s done is made drivers resent cyclists and deliberately do things like “punishment passes”. The cycle route isn’t fit for purpose, it is strewn with stones thrown up by the sea, you have to give way to traffic coming from the rear, it is shared with dog walkers and pedestrians despite not being wide enough for a cycle and pedestrian to pass each other. Even with the “punishment overtakes” it’s safer and quicker to use the main carriageway, especially if you’re riding because you’re trying to go somewhere. This cycle path was just a box ticking exercise, accomplished by painting a cycle symbol on an existing pavement. Most UK cycle paths are like this, and useless to anyone who goes more than about 5 mph.
I’m not talking about some path, I’m talking about the ones I know are OK (actually confirmed by my cycling former colleagues).
And if don’t like to share the road with pedestrians, I think it kind proves my point…
At the end of the day, when you’re in a car, you’re in a climate controlled cocoon, a comfortable sofa on wheels, having to slow down for a few seconds is not a huge hardship – especially when the motorist chose the secondary route to get away from other motorists (then whinges when they get stuck behind a tractor, or the farmer moving the cows).
That your choice to ride a bike, right?
But if you read some of the forums, you’d think that the guy trying to cycle to work is literally Stalin, committing human rights violations against the poor defenceless motorist who merely has the protection of a tonne and a half of steel armour.
Eh, no. Just inconsiderate.
I quite literally go the extra mile for the sole convenience of motorists (my route to work is a mile longer each way than taking the more direct route most motorists take, but the route I take is low traffic), all I ask in return is for a safe overtake.
Alioth, I think you are missing the point here! If it was a few seconds to overtake – that would have been FANTASTIC!
But where I live (for example, the aforementioned road), it usually takes minutes to overtake a cyclist due to heavy oncoming traffic and narrow roads.
And just like you I try to go extra mile to accomodate other road users, but more often than not cyclists do not reciprocate.
arj1 wrote:
Eh, no. Just inconsiderate.
…of which at least 50% of the blame is shared by the motorist. 80% of the cars I see here have a single occupant. Imagine the uproar if I attached an unoccupied bicycle to the side of mine (which I don’t) – but somehow it’s all my fault (and not the motorist’s) when a motorist chooses a 2.5m wide vehicle for their sole occupancy on narrow roads, instead of a narrower vehicle that can more easily overtake!
Between me and my wife, we own all the transport methods (three bicycles, five motorcycles, one car, one plane and one boat) so we are fully aware of the trials and tribulations of all of these transport methods. My dad owns a bus so I get plenty of opinion from the driver of a large vehicle, and we have a lorry driving instructor living on the airfield too. Overwhelmingly, the car driver has it the easiest and complains by far the most. Motorists whine even more than airline pilots, and that’s saying something :-)
(albeit three of the motorcycles are classics in various states of disassembly right now)
alioth wrote:
I’m extremely skeptical of that claim. If it’s true then your car needs to be repaired, it’s broken! (Or your driving style is incredibly unsympathetic to the machine).Switching to metric because it’s easier, let’s assume it’s 10km to the nearest town, and the car does 35MPG (typical for a mid size car), 30% worse of this would be around 25MPG. 35MPG is 6.7L/100km, and 25MPG is 9.4L/100km. Driving 10km at 6.7L/100km will require 670ml of fuel, and at 25MPG would require 940ml of fuel. If overtaking two cyclists is really costing you 270ml of fuel (about 8.8 megajoules) on a 10km journey, there is definitely something wrong with your car. In reality, the extra fuel used to overtake a cyclist in a typical car amounts to about a table spoon’s worth.
Driving slower uses more fuel – I have first hand experience of this. Here in France they reduced the speed limit from 90kph to 80kph. Not alot you say…BUT most would drive around at 95-100kph before and because trucks drive at 80kph, before people would overtake them, but now people wont overtake them and so the average is now 75kph.
As a result I have noticed the fuel consumption on our 1.8D car computer went from ~5 ltrs/100km before to ~6.5 ltrs/100km now. This is what happens when you used to drive in 6th gear everywhere, and are now predominantly using 4th (predominantly) or 5th gear.
skydriller wrote:
Driving slower uses more fuel – I have first hand experience of this
Funny, I have exactly the opposite.
I nominally get around 46mpg (5.1l/100km) in my car. However, during the lockdown they imposed an all-island speed limit of 40 mph, and during that time my fuel economy improved to 55mpg (4.3l/100km). The best economy I have ever seen in my car is when I took it to England and the M6 motorway was going very slowly – for 2 hours we didn’t exceed around 25 mph, and I got 58 mpg (4l/100km).
I can drive my car in 6th gear at 40mph (65 km/h). If you’re at more or less constant speed, you can drive in 6th at quite low speed.
Similarly, when I was on “R” plates on my motorcycle (legally not allowed to ride more than 50 mph as a new driver), I got better economy on my motorcycle than once the R plates were gone and I could ride faster.
Indeed.
Nearly all petrol or diesel engines cars do best mpg in the 40-45mph range, in the highest gear, and always have done, ever since the 1970s.
Diesel cars (like my 2L VW) have a mysterious and huge advantage over petrol cars in that they do great mpg even at low speeds (e.g. 20mpg) and in say 3rd gear. That may be ECU specific; not obvious why diesel should be better.
