Irritating cyclists

[Yellowrx8]

Try looking at it from a different angle.....I pay road tax too, but sometimes if the timing allows, I leave the car at home and use a combination of bike and bus to get to work instead, thereby subsidizing other road tax payer for the use of the road.

 

I do agree with u. BUT, they r not cycling in a single line. ITS occupying the whole 3rd lane. Both jokers cycling side by side! Every vehicle need to siam them, Even the bus!

Dun u think its very selfish of them? And its not those normal cyclist, they were wearing those pro cycling attires.

[Oregon]

I'm a cyclist too - as mentioned by another post - 2 abreast on the slowest lane is legal. If it was a slow heavy vehicle, you have to give way too, except this time you will more careful as you will be one getting damaged - so it is a matter of personal perspective and attitude. Try venting your anger on one of those! Noboby here talks about "blowing carbon" and "running them down" but they are slow and they occupy maybe more than one lane.

 

Cycling in a pelaton has become a necessity due to the attitude of Singaporean drivers. I personally never do so because it has it own inherent dangers (reckless riders, newbies, etc). I think Ang Moh cyclist are universally disliked on Singapore roads because of their superior attitude even amongst cyclist. But newbies, ladies, etc - its the only way on the road.

 

Road tax is not a right to use the road - it tax to get your car off the roads. I hate having to pay my huge road tax bill every year but I it seems more and more people are getting on their bicycles. So the city planners better get their act together.

 

[Mike1234]

I always keep onto lane 2 while driving....

 

If cyclist ride lane 2 on the road....

 

I cfm horn them....

 

But luckily, i havent met any of it yet :D

[S2077s]

I think it will be like this sooner or later....

 

More and more cyclists use public roads. Since more cyclists will also means high statistics. Cyclists whom get into accidents i mean. Which will make roads statistically more dangerous for cyclists. You can see it as Singaporean drivers have less concern for cyclists or in actual fact, just the fact that Singapore roads are really not suited for co-existing cyclists.

 

Our roads are congested but we have road pricing to move traffic. So average speeds are higher then if we allow natural congestion to set in. In these cases, when accidents do happen involving cyclists, it is going to be serious due to higher speeds. So road safety is big issue here. Cyclists will need to wear much extensive protective gears. Bicycles should have permanent rear lights and they should be penalised for not signalling. I think headlights are a must as well. And indicator lights may in fact need to be even more obvious then motorbikes since they are travelling so slowly. Fast approaching cars and traffic need longer and further distance ahead to spot them from both direction of traffic. To fully integrate with local traffic, cyclists should wear motorcyclists' helmet no less.

 

Are they considered or pedestians? They need to make a stand, not switch identities whenever inconveniences arise. Yes, stop at stop lines too and stay out of bus lanes.

[inlinesix]

For those who said cyclist should or should not do this or that, have you ever ride bicycle on the road (not pedestrian)? If not, get a bicycle & cycle on the road. After that, think whether your comments are reasonable?

[Jun86]

Seriously, it only takes like a few moments to make way for the cyclist in front. For goodness sake, you are in the comfort of a air conditioned car with your stereo blasting.

 

[Hypermiler]

Having said that, if there are cyclist who weaves in between traffic and ride dangerously without regards for other road users, use your HORN!!!, take note of the names on their jersey and send a feedback to their respective cycling group.

 

I use my HORN before and i beep lightly. One of them shouted FAHC YU and show me the middle the finger. So if the person wears a different jersey next time. Or some other riders are using the same jersey. Then how? There are so many cycling groups in Sg. Send the info to all??? How they know who the hell is that guy/girl? Then are drivers also to remember what brand of bicycle the person is riding?

 

Which is why i think the removal of the bicycle license plate we had last time was a big mistake. Tell me frankly, how many of them have actually taken highway code lessons/test?

 

I m a cyclist and i m a driver. But i do not condon bad riding attitudes.

 

[Firefly968]

I don't mind cyclists as long as they don't make a nuisance of themselves and also obey traffic rules.

 

This Tuesday at about 6.30pm, I saw two cyclists in full racing gear slowly cycled across the T junction a few moments after the lights at clementi road turned red and before the lights at sunset way turn green.

 

All casually done in front of a group of law abiding motorists who stopped at the red lights while as they were in their own world busy chatting to each other riding side by side.

[1fast1]

On a 3-lane road, as long as the cyclist keep to the left most lane, please exercise a bit more social graciousness. It only delays your travel time by a few minutes, but if anything were to happen to the cyclist, they may only get home 7-days later. As long as they are following traffic rules, just treat them as SLOW vehicles.

 

Having said that, if there are cyclist who weaves in between traffic and ride dangerously without regards for other road users, use your HORN!!!, take note of the names on their jersey and send a feedback to their respective cycling group.

 

It's a matter of simple consideration on the part of the cyclists. They're not just slow-moving vehicles when in formation, they're REALLY FREAKING slow moving vehicles. We're talking laden flat-bed truck slow. And that sort of vehicle isn't allowed on the flyover because it exceeds the maximum-laden weight rule.

 

So motorists in fast moving cars and motorbikes and even slower moving vans and small trucks will not be encountering that sort of really slow moving vehicle under normal circumstances. Except when cyclists choose to use the flyover and they take the whole lane to themselves. So please realise that the cyclists really do introduce an added extraordinary inconvenience which faster traffic on the flyover normally does not have to suffer. It's not like the cyclists don't have a choice, they could have taken the low road (which is not as complicated as you made out), but they prioritised their own convenience over that of other motorists. It was a selfish decision.

 

I'm perfectly happy to coexist with cyclists and give them ample room when they play nice. If they had no choice except to travel along a certain route and they're taking the slow lane, then by all means, motorists should live and let live. But in this case, the cyclists are being a little clever in maximising their own convenience at the cost of the motorists. I don't appreciate that.

 

Regarding the business of cyclists riding two-abreast while occupying an entire lane, I understand where the safety-conscious cyclist is coming from. Nevertheless, it's still inconsiderate behaviour, since in my judgement and experience, it's perfectly safe for a car driver to easily overtake a cyclist while eating just part of the way into the adjacent lane while still giving adequate clearance from the cyclist. This manoeuvre, adroitly performed, will minimise inconvenience to both the driver in the left lane and the driver in the middle lane, who will only have to slow down marginally to let the overtaking driver in. And the whole thing is still safe for the cyclist, as long as he holds a true course. I've done this many times, and there's never been any fuss from any party. In contrast, when the whole lane is being occupied by cyclists in formation, it's impossible for a driver to do this safely - meaning that he has to wait for an opening in the adjacent lane prior to moving fully into the other lane, then completing the manoeuvre. This slows traffic in both lanes down (and may even spill over into the fast lane, since drivers in the middle lane who feel they're about to be cut off will try and cut someone else off in the fast lane). End result - slower, more jerky traffic flow.

 

I understand the point about the cyclists wanting to make allowance for less competent drivers who may not be able to hold a true course or be able to judge an adequate clearance. I empathise with this. I even get that heavy vehicles attempting to overtake too close to a cyclist can generate enough turbulence to topple them, with tragic results. This is largely to do with the poor standard of many drivers. I don't know of an easy solution to this problem, but rest assured that many drivers will be able to pass riders in single file in a quick, safe and painless fashion. And to be frank, if a driver has such poor judgement or is really 'hiong', even riding two-abreast to occlude nearly the whole lane might not help - he could still try to scrape by really close to the outer cyclist, perhaps just to prove a point - and this would be a lot more dangerous than if the cyclists had maintained single-file as close as possible to the kerb.

[inlinesix]

It's a matter of simple consideration on the part of the cyclists. They're not just slow-moving vehicles when in formation, they're REALLY FREAKING slow moving vehicles. We're talking laden flat-bed truck slow. And that sort of vehicle isn't allowed on the flyover because it exceeds the maximum-laden weight rule.

 

So motorists in fast moving cars and motorbikes and even slower moving vans and small trucks will not be encountering that sort of really slow moving vehicle under normal circumstances. Except when cyclists choose to use the flyover and they take the whole lane to themselves. So please realise that the cyclists really do introduce an added extraordinary inconvenience which faster traffic on the flyover normally does not have to suffer. It's not like the cyclists don't have a choice, they could have taken the low road (which is not as complicated as you made out), but they prioritised their own convenience over that of other motorists. It was a selfish decision.

 

I'm perfectly happy to coexist with cyclists and give them ample room when they play nice. If they had no choice except to travel along a certain route and they're taking the slow lane, then by all means, motorists should live and let live. But in this case, the cyclists are being a little clever in maximising their own convenience at the cost of the motorists. I don't appreciate that.

 

Regarding the business of cyclists riding two-abreast while occupying an entire lane, I understand where the safety-conscious cyclist is coming from. Nevertheless, it's still inconsiderate behaviour, since in my judgement and experience, it's perfectly safe for a car driver to easily overtake a cyclist while eating just part of the way into the adjacent lane while still giving adequate clearance from the cyclist. This manoeuvre, adroitly performed, will minimise inconvenience to both the driver in the left lane and the driver in the middle lane, who will only have to slow down marginally to let the overtaking driver in. And the whole thing is still safe for the cyclist, as long as he holds a true course. I've done this many times, and there's never been any fuss from any party. In contrast, when the whole lane is being occupied by cyclists in formation, it's impossible for a driver to do this safely - meaning that he has to wait for an opening in the adjacent lane prior to moving fully into the other lane, then completing the manoeuvre. This slows traffic in both lanes down (and may even spill over into the fast lane, since drivers in the middle lane who feel they're about to be cut off will try and cut someone else off in the fast lane). End result - slower, more jerky traffic flow.

 

I understand the point about the cyclists wanting to make allowance for less competent drivers who may not be able to hold a true course or be able to judge an adequate clearance. I empathise with this. I even get that heavy vehicles attempting to overtake too close to a cyclist can generate enough turbulence to topple them, with tragic results. This is largely to do with the poor standard of many drivers. I don't know of an easy solution to this problem, but rest assured that many drivers will be able to pass riders in single file in a quick, safe and painless fashion. And to be frank, if a driver has such poor judgement or is really 'hiong', even riding two-abreast to occlude nearly the whole lane might not help - he could still try to scrape by really close to the outer cyclist, perhaps just to prove a point - and this would be a lot more dangerous than if the cyclists had maintained single-file as close as possible to the kerb.

For eg, on Bkt Timah Rd toward city, around anak bukit flyover, should cyclist use underpass or overpass?

[Unfair]

I think it all boils down to the road congestion/design.

 

If it was easy to cut to different lane to avoid cyclists(lanes relatively free), i am sure alot of us will not mind.

If left lanes were built wider, cars and bicycles can co-exist. Even buses can coexist if wide enough.

[1fast1]

For eg, on Bkt Timah Rd toward city, around anak bukit flyover, should cyclist use underpass or overpass?

 

When vehicular traffic is light, they're welcome to use the overpass, since inconvenience is minimal. But when traffic is significant (but still freely flowing on all lanes on the flyover), then they should be considerate enough to choose the underpass. Of course, if there's traffic gridlock, then it makes no difference at all - they'll still be the fastest vehicles except for motorbikes.

[RunForrest]

My point of view.

 

The core of the problem is the infrastructure of the roads, not the users.

Because the infrastruture couldn't accomodate everyone, people gets frustrated and begin to think that others are not considerate.

There are all kinds of riders, all kinds of drivers. Not everyone will react the same way in a situation, so you can't assume anything.

 

Safety always comes first on the road and I'm sure everyone do what is best for themselves.

That said, of course again, not everyone has the same perception of what is the safest way to ride on the road.

If you do not ride a bike at all, or you do not ride it as regular or as far as those cyclist do, how can you feel and insist that they should have done this and not that?

 

Many cyclists or I can say most, are actually drivers too. That include myself. I can say that i try to be considerate all the times, giving way to buses, cars etc. However, it is not always easy to do so...due to the road infrastruture. Over the years, I learnt from my experience what is best for my own saftely. I guess this is the same with driving.

 

There is no perfect solution, but what we can do is to be more patient and graceful. The roads are not just for the cars. We share everything in public.

Please stop talking about paying road tax. We all know it's a way to deter car ownership. Nobody owns the road. If any drivers think they own the road, then please drive your car up the pavement because you are not supposed to step foot on the road.

[Oregon]

Flat bed slow, bicycle slow, motorcycle sidecar slow, road cleaning vehicle slow, SBS bus slow, uncle driver slow - its not as if you have never had to overtake another road user before. Pelatons generally move at 30-40km/h unless uphill. Why the finger pointing at cyclist?

[1fast1]

Flat bed slow, bicycle slow, motorcycle sidecar slow, road cleaning vehicle slow, SBS bus slow, uncle driver slow - its not as if you have never had to overtake another road user before. Pelatons generally move at 30-40km/h unless uphill. Why the finger pointing at cyclist?

 

OK, let me clarify your position. Are you saying that it's OK for cyclists to cycle on any road that's not overtly illegalised in Sg?

 

I've encountered cyclists in a pelaton (that's a new word for me) two-abreast along the narrow, winding two-lane 99 bends road. There is *no* way to safely overtake them because there are too many of them (the phalanx is too long), so cars have to trudge along behind them at 20 km/hr (yes, they were travelling that slowly) the whole way. And there were a lot of cars trudging along.

 

Were the cyclists breaking the law? Probably not. But was their behaviour the height of inconsideration? Almost definitely yes. Because there are *plenty* of other roads they could've taken for their leisurely little ride, but they chose to go on a route that caused maximal inconvenience and frustration to motorists.

 

It's this sense of self-entitlement inherent in some (many?) "athletic-type" cyclists that really pisses many drivers off, and rightly so. I don't have a big problem with those PRC or poor bangla or Indian FW cyclists who may cycle badly because that's the way they used to do things back home and they haven't learnt better yet. But I do have an issue with educated, affluent cyclists who feel completely entitled to inconvenience others in the pursuit of their hobby.

 

The last point is an important one - remember that vehicular traffic is most often trying to get someplace (be it work, home or other destination), but "athletic" bicyclers are just trying to get exercise and have some fun. To me, it's clear how the two types of traffic should be prioritised in terms of need (yes, and this applies even if the cyclists are training for some big event - there are always other times and other venues to do this sort of thing).

 

Ask yourself - if the gahmen built a track intended mainly for cyclists but didn't specifically illegalise skateboard traffic on it, and the latter decided to brazenly use the track whenever and however they felt like it, weaving in and out transecting your "pelatons", would you feel affronted? That's how motorists feel. We wouldn't feel this way if all cyclists behaved in a considerate fashion and consciously abstained from cycling in areas that would slow other traffic down. But since many cyclists don't bother with such niceties, motorists do understandably get cheesed off.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Turboflat4

[Oregon]

OK I see what you are saying. Its those militant type cyclist who feel everyone should be in awe of their atheletcism. I have ridden with these types and sometime exuberance gets the better of them. However, I think they are the minority like the PRC cycling against traffic. By and large cyclists are like a school of fish bunching together for safety and they are not everywhere all the time. Most are out very late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. I thnk they too try to be inconsiderate. From what i know from these cyclist - more than 95% would be drivers themselves and I think they know the road rules since they are at the brunt of every driver's mercy everytime they are on the road. Most drivers do not know the cyclist point of view until you put yourself in their shoes. Its not the drivers fault or the cyclist but Singapore is just too much of a pressure cooker causing friction in all aspect of our lives.

[1fast1]

OK I see what you are saying. Its those militant type cyclist who feel everyone should be in awe of their atheletcism. I have ridden with these types and sometime exuberance gets the better of them. However, I think they are the minority like the PRC cycling against traffic. By and large cyclists are like a school of fish bunching together for safety and they are not everywhere all the time. Most are out very late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. I thnk they too try to be inconsiderate. From what i know from these cyclist - more than 95% would be drivers themselves and I think they know the road rules since they are at the brunt of every driver's mercy everytime they are on the road. Most drivers do not know the cyclist point of view until you put yourself in their shoes. Its not the drivers fault or the cyclist but Singapore is just too much of a pressure cooker causing friction in all aspect of our lives.

 

Thanks for seeing my POV. It's give and take - cyclists show consideration for the convenience of motorists, and motorists reciprocate by showing consideration for the safety of cyclists. I am perfectly OK with 80% of cyclists on the road, it's the minority that tarnish the reputation of the whole, and that's a shame.

[Scoots]

It's this sense of self-entitlement inherent in some (many?) "athletic-type" cyclists that really pisses many drivers off, and rightly so. I don't have a big problem with those PRC or poor bangla or Indian FW cyclists who may cycle badly because that's the way they used to do things back home and they haven't learnt better yet. But I do have an issue with educated, affluent cyclists who feel completely entitled to inconvenience others in the pursuit of their hobby.

 

Well said! Exactly how I feel