Near Miss of the Day 652: Driver overtaking group ride almost causes head-on crash (includes swearing)

There is no evidence that it is busy. That is just an assertion.

You cannot step into the same river twice. Ergo, if I go out for a ride, the home I return to is not the same as the home I left, and I have made a journey from one place to another.

You have a point there, Heraclitus!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Heraclitus!

Bless you!

Your head must explode trying to justify the still quite commonly seen sign "Leisure Drive".

Anyway, I pre-empted your expected rant against purposeless journeys by pointing out the OAPs going for an NT visit.

Take our local Packwood House. Many people go there specifically to go to the cafe and drive home again. Is their journey legitimate by your rules? We always cycle with a destination in mind - that we get to enjoy the fresh air of the countryside, save the NHS millions by keeping much fitter than the average driver and may talk to each other seems to count against us compared with two people driving 10 miles to meet each other at a cafe with no other purpose to their journey.

Still keep jumping through your logical hoops. I'm sure we will not change your mind, but we do enjoy watching you disappear up your own illogicality.

Nigel Garage wrote:

If they stop somewhere to have a cup of tea, or a wee, or anything else, it's completely incidental to the purpose of the outing - which was to have a leisurely bike ride while chatting to each other.

Ah, here we get to the issue

If someone cycles to a cafe for cake or lunch, then clearly cycling is the main point, because obviously cycling is more pleasant than eating cake.

Whereas if someone drives to a cafe for cake or lunch then clearly the lunch is the main objective, because driving is less pleasant than cake.

Or have I msunderstood your point, since you clearly have no information on the specific details of the ride and are only making assumptions that they did not 'make a journey'?

Perhaps the problem then is too many people doing something they don't enjoy (driving) when they could be doing something more enjoyable (cycling)

But ourmy point is that regardless if cycling or a nice social lunch is the objective, many journeys are discretionary, so there is no reason to prioritise some lesiure road use over others. The roads are paid for by everyone, and there for use by anyone. I will not accept that someone driving 100 miles to the beach is more legitmate or utilitarian than someone doing 40 miles of exercise on the roads.

As one of these provides a net benefit to society of improved health and lower NHS burden, while the other provides a net cost to society in pollution and increased wear on the roads.

As to choice of road, it looks like a fairly standard minor road to me, I don't think you are advocating they should ride on dual carriageways where it might be easier for cars to pass. And the drivers delayed by being unable to pass on this narrow twisty road is the same whether they ride in a group or singularly. The time lost over the week is likely to be far less than the time lost to delays caused by congestion, accidents, inconsiderate parking, and potentially even looking for a parking space for their cars. None of those other time costs would be in any way objectionable, because cars are normal right?

wycombewheeler wrote:

If someone cycles to a cafe for cake or lunch, then clearly cycling is the main point, because obviously cycling is more pleasant than eating cake.

That's like asking which of my children I love more.

Actually there were 3 stops.

1. Meeting point

2. Cafe at the end of the group ride

3. Home

Does anyone think that now qualifies as a 'journey in Nigels' world?

Probably not Sevenfold. Glad you all came away alright.

Thanks, it did shake up one or two of the group. Not unexpectedly under the circumstances.

Well...did you just have cake at the cafe or a proper sandwich or burger? I think the authorities probably need to assess whether you were revelling in socialisation and treats or actually fulfilling a genuine nutritional need before deciding whether you deserved to be run over or not.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Well...did you just have cake at the cafe or a proper sandwich or burger? I think the authorities probably need to assess whether you were revelling in socialisation and treats or actually fulfilling a genuine nutritional need before deciding whether you deserved to be run over or not.

It will depend if a scotch egg is a substantial meal.

Sniffer wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Well...did you just have cake at the cafe or a proper sandwich or burger? I think the authorities probably need to assess whether you were revelling in socialisation and treats or actually fulfilling a genuine nutritional need before deciding whether you deserved to be run over or not.

It will depend if a scotch egg is a substantial meal.

Can it be used for improvised road repair? Or by a Viking to knock out a monk?

Some had cake, some bacon baps most had a drink. Much socialisation though. Definitely a nutritional need.

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that I'm not posting for any utilitarian reason. I'm not posting for discourse, for work, for family, or for kids. I am posting on road.cc to socially engage with people in the only way I know how.

So my post serves no practical purpose. I don't "need" to troll, but am choosing to do so, putting my own decadent pleasure over the community. This contrasts with most other people on here.

I've posted thousands of times in the last 3 years and have often created incidents like the one posted here. Perhaps I've been lucky. Perhaps the motorists round here simply reciprocate my politeness and courtesy when I carefully troll cyclists with a friendly wave.

The only people around here I ever have trouble with are groups of cyclists posting on road.cc, coming in the opposite moral direction around political corners.

Fixed that for you

Let me see if I've understood this... someone driving a car to visit a National Trust house (a leisure activity with no practical purpose or utilitarian reason) is ok if they travel from A to B to do so. But someone cycling for leisure (with no practical purpose or utilitarian reason) is not, if they travel from A to A.

What does that mean for (i) leisure drives from A to A; (ii) leisure cycling from A to B? Does it make a difference if a driver engages socially with a passenger on the way to the National Trust house?

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren't riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.

So their ride serves no practical purpose.

So. What?

The roads are a public utility financed and maintained out of the taxes everyone pays. 

The roads around Alton Towers are narrow, winding and, in Summer, clogged with coaches full of people going for a day out at the theme park inconviencing lots of other roads users. They are not travelling for any utilitarian purpose, they are going on a fun day out. 

Yes, they are contributing to the economy, but so are group rides when they stop off at shops and cafes along their route. 

So again. So. What?

There are no rules that say the road network can only be used for utilitarian purposes and not leisure related ones, and asserting that there is something morally wrong (your words) with doing so is about as wrong-headed as it gets. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

In a velodrome, on the M25, in my house, at the gym, it doesn't matter. Where the activity takes place makes no difference to the amount of utility gained from doing it.

Patently rubbish. The M25, the gym, etc. clearly do not provide the access to fresh air, changing scenery, mixed terrain, etc., and the various benefits that these confer, that you get from riding on country roads.

If people gained the same utility from doing it somewhere else where they didn't have to mix with the occasional incompetent or irresponsible driver, they wouldn't be choosing to ride on the roads in the first place.

To put it in your terms, if I want to enjoy a ride on the roads, I have to ride on the roads.

Nigel. It was what I would consider a standard width 'B' road. I didn't get off my bike with a tape measure but it seemed to me to be narrower or wider than most of the out-of town roads we ride on & I ride on when solo.

BTW you can't actually legally ride on the M25 but maybe you should try it in the outside lane sometime.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I don't know how many more times I can write the same thing on this thread.

How about none? None works for me.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I don't know how many more times I can write the same thing on this thread.

Please feel absolutely free to put a lid on it right now, you will have all our support.

Nigel Garage wrote:

These people chose to do their social on a narrow busy road

No, these people chose to go for a ride, as a club, on a standard width road, in a standard, safe, legal configuration. The fact that they are chatting sociably as they ride is incidental (people do, you know, it's called "having friends" - you should try it).

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

These people chose to do their social on a narrow busy road

No, these people chose to go for a ride, as a club, on a standard width road, in a standard, safe, legal configuration. The fact that they are chatting sociably as they ride is incidental (people do, you know, it's called "having friends" - you should try it).

Now that is unneccessary and a poor form of argument. What none of us has spotted - and we should be thanking him for - is that Nigel has come up with a new principle:

Driving this car hurts me more than it hurts you.

I think this could ensure the superior status of drivers and driving for years to come. Yes, it's the "white van man's burden". Drivers are the suffering saints of society, selflessly taking not only their own responsibilities but those of children, the old, non-drivers etc. They even pay for the roads for everyone else!

To allow the rest of us children of nature to guilelessly indulge in "decadent pleasure" by social cycling, some poor drivers must take the heavy responsibility of collecting our kids from school, transporting our bike parts and cake around the country, running our elderly parents to the corner shop and back. We cyclists never realise how unpleasant driving is - being cooped up in a car instead of being in fresh air, getting cramp from sitting on those uncomfortable seats, watching cyclists filter pass us as if we should thank them or something. No wonder cars are fitted with "entertainment systems" - it's hell in there!

Little wonder that a few sometimes snap under the pressure - after all when you're doing all the work and then some dandy cyclists wobbles along and actually has the gall to suggest you're not just wrong but some kind of bully it's against all "natural justice".

Does much chatting happen in a group ride? Thought it was mostly done at the stops then during the rides. Yes a pair can maybe talk but in most cases, it is still concentrating on the road ahead, behind and signals given then full on social chatting.

But as with TT bikes, boo expresses his opinion on something he has no actual real life knowledge on.

You seem to be trying to draw a distinction between those who use the road to travel to a leisure activity ("If I want to go and watch a football match, I have to go to the stadium"), and those who use the road as a leisure activity in itself. They may be technically distinct, but your original complaint was that the cyclists "don't "need" to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community". It makes no sense to differentiate and prioritise road use by someone who has chosen to drive to a leisure activity ("I want to go and watch a football match") - doing so is equally putting "their own decadent pleasure" over others'. 

Thankfully it's all academic as there is no prioritisation of the roads based on purpose (save, of course, for emergency vehicles). 

They were all very important journeys like all journeys

Surprised there's that many Escorts still on the road. Maybe it's the other sort.  

Seems odd to bundle picking up an escort with education - would've thought that would be more appropriately classed as leisure...

mdavidford wrote:

Seems odd to bundle picking up an escort with education - would've thought that would be more appropriately classed as leisure...

Depends on experience.

quiff wrote:

You seem to be trying to draw a distinction between those who use the road to travel to a leisure activity ("If I want to go and watch a football match, I have to go to the stadium"), and those who use the road as a leisure activity in itself. They may be technically distinct, but your original complaint was that the cyclists "don't "need" to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community". It makes no sense to differentiate and prioritise road use by someone who has chosen to drive to a leisure activity ("I want to go and watch a football match") - doing so is equally putting "their own decadent pleasure" over others'. 

Thankfully it's all academic as there is no prioritisation of the roads based on purpose (save, of course, for emergency vehicles). 

I'm the worst - I cycle to football matches.

Steve K wrote:

I'm the worst - I cycle to football matches.

Cycling to the grand prix / speedway?