Deliberately knocked off my pushbike by angry motorist

[lancs blue]

Cyclists are allowed to ride more than two abreast on the road.

I know the relevant section of the Highway Code isn't written down in law but Rule 66 does advise cyclists to :

never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

 

[manchester blue]

Isn't it obvious? They don't pay road tax, so it should be legal to basically run them over whenever they get in your way.

I'll remember that when you're crossing the road as a pedestrian.

I know, or hope, you're joking but this is the argument that pops up every time this is debated. Road tax was abolished in the 1930s. Cars pay a licence based on emissions. Cycles have zero emissions and don't pay any fee, similar to cars with zero emissions that don't pay. It's as tedious as the human rights thing by football fans in every City story where you have comments.

Wish you a quick recovery OP.

 

[BimboBob]

I was told by my local copper that riding two abreast is all fine and dandy these days as it means cars have to give you a wide berth when they go past. Safer all round. Unless you are a lycra clad pissed up idiot like the OP.

 

[tommcfc]

Maybe if i’d been on a cycle path but I was on the road... I do ride along a stretch with cycle paths too (or did till Friday) but they are optional... I use the road as it’s my right to do so...

Is there anything more annoying than a Cyclist ignoring a designated and much safer cycle path and opting for the road. Obviously your injuries sound awful and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but if you were on the road when there was a cycle path option on the same route then sympathy is lessened somewhat.
Just my opinion of course, but can't understand why you'd opt to go on the road when there's a path going the same route, seems like an unnecessary risk that has unfortunately cost you this time around.

 

[Metal Biker]

Is there anything more annoying than a Cyclist ignoring a designated and much safer cycle path and opting for the road.

Like this?

or this?

Not forgetting?

Sometimes "designated cycle paths" are not safer, more convenient or even follow basic road safety rules. It's up to the rider to determine if using the cycle path is beneficial to their journey or if riding on the road would be better. They're optional, not mandatory. Doesn't stop cars from parking in them, though.

 

[quiet_riot]

I'll remember that when you're crossing the road as a pedestrian.

I know, or hope, you're joking but this is the argument that pops up every time this is debated. Road tax was abolished in the 1930s. Cars pay a licence based on emissions. Cycles have zero emissions and don't pay any fee, similar to cars with zero emissions that don't pay. It's as tedious as the human rights thing by football fans in every City story where you have comments.

Wish you a quick recovery OP.

I made the original comment re Road Tax, and yes it was clearly in jest, as it's so easy to wind up the lycra brigade.

 

[tommcfc]

Like this?

or this?

Not forgetting?

Sometimes "designated cycle paths" are not safer, more convenient or even follow basic road safety rules. It's up to the rider to determine if using the cycle path is beneficial to their journey or if riding on the road would be better. They're optional, not mandatory. Doesn't stop cars from parking in them, though.

These are obviously extreme examples. Round where I live, there's many a cycle path that are not on the road, as in they run parallel with the road but are separated by a pavement or grass embankment etc, yet cyclists opt to drive in the road instead which is a far riskier approach.

I said "IF" this was the case as well, as I'm unsure what the OP's scenario was, but it does often happen

 

[custardpie]

Actually I don’t think this is correct. The police encourage groups of cyclists to ride two abreast as they take up less room to overtake.

A typo on my part, i meant they are allowed to ride two abreast

 

[Bluemanc100]

Nice one mate, Bluemoon is a great place :)
To the OP , sorry to hear about your problem with this **** of a driver.
If it was me Id be down the cop shop insisting they prosecute the twat for dangerous driving or something.
I always try to be considerate to other road users and of ten wonder why everyone cant be like that.
Anyway hope you recover soon.

On the mend and thanks for the best wishes.. I will DM the kind legal eagle..

Checked my Garmin and I was doing 28.3 mph when the guy hit me at the 2nd attempt

 

[Bluemanc100]

Is there anything more annoying than a Cyclist ignoring a designated and much safer cycle path and opting for the road. Obviously your injuries sound awful and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but if you were on the road when there was a cycle path option on the same route then sympathy is lessened somewhat.
Just my opinion of course, but can't understand why you'd opt to go on the road when there's a path going the same route, seems like an unnecessary risk that has unfortunately cost you this time around.

I’ve been driving for 30 years, bikes, cars, articulated trucks, and see zero reason why I can’t ride on the road.. if this were central London or Amsterdam for example with well managed working routes fair enough but for my needs i need to use the road... it’s not rocket science and even in this case the guy could (should) have passed me in the space he had...

As another poster said, I am often safer to taje a central line and make people overtake as they would a car but that’s possibly penalising the majority to cater for the minority