Видео

Good point, Garry. Six riders were in this group. We keep our groups to about 6-8 for that very reason.

Thanks for your suggestion, Richard. You may indeed see cyclists using the road, even if there is a dedicated cycle path. The use of a cyclepath is NOT compulsory. If you need confirmation of this then please refer to Rule 63 of the Highway Code. Many cyclists feel safer using a road, rather than the cycle path, especially in many urban areas - for example, if the cycle lane crosses multiple road junctions or residential driveways.

@@oxfordcyclingclub6462 Translation: "It is not against the law to be a dick, so we decide to ignore the cycle lane that has been built for us and would rather have fun annoying car drivers".

@@VirtualMark2 That really isn't the case, but you are welcome to your viewpoint, but please keep your comments respectful.

Thanks for your comment Ant Ch. Quite a bit to unpick here. Firstly, this is a road we cycle often and we can assure you that it is wide enough for two cars to pass without having to slow and stop, so your fundamental observation is incorrect. Secondly, Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists can ride two abreast, so we were legally entitled to do so in this instance. Perhaps it may not have occurred to you that riding two abreast actually makes it quicker for a motorist to overtake a group than if the group is strung out down the road as you suggest. Furthermore, if the motorist overtakes leaving the (advisory) gap of 1.5 metres, it is safer for all. Thames Valley Police agreed that the footage clearly showed a close pass by the motorist and at no point did they inform us that we had no right to be riding two abreast on this section of road, so rather than aim your invective as us, you should contact them directly and explain to them why they have completely misunderstood the Highway Code. Please let us know how you get on. You obviously have concerns about some of the behaviour of some cyclists, but please read through the Rules for cyclists (59 to 82) of the Highway Code, so that in future, you are better informed about the rights of cyclists. Thank you for your comments, but it was the driver who was at fault here, not the members of our club.

@@oxfordcyclingclub6462 if you cycle often that doesn't make you own the road. The highway code says when it possible to do you can drive two abreast, and also says if you need to move to give the way to other road users you need to move away from two to single. That option is not for a permanent you can drive two. And you need to give a gap between groups to give the chance the vehicles to over take every abreast. The video shows not. The police didn't notice or don't care. As long as if they finish their work they happy. So the police discission not make you are right. The safety is for you. If you drive without thinking other users you are the one putting your self in danger and also put vehicles in danger.

Pay road tax and you can have your rights .

@@lD-cf9mf Seriously?!!

@@lD-cf9mf there's no such thing as "road tax". Perhaps you're referring to the vehicle excise duty commonly referred to as road tax which is based on the vehicle age and emissions. It doesn't go towards road upkeep directly either and I don't pay "road tax" on my car because it's small engined.

Thanks for your response, lanyman33. A couple of points: the car coming in the opposite direction passed within a safe distance, though the footage, especially played at speed, does suggest otherwise. Secondly, this is a road we cycle along regularly, but we can assure you that it is wide enough for two cars to easily pass one another without having to stop. As a club, we always single up on narrower roads - it's obviously safer for us and allows cars to pass without having to slow or stop - but this is not a road we deem this necessary. We would never take an unnecessary risk so your contention that we would 'sooner die than give an inch' is misplaced. As a club we endeavour to ride using common sense, adhering to the rules and always showing consideration to other road users. We may not get it right every time, though we try to learn from our mistakes, but we certainly never take the position that we are 'entitled' and would never do anything that endangered the life of other road users, which something that cannot be said for the motorist in this footage.

@@oxfordcyclingclub6462 I have to take your word for that as I only have your video to work from and in the video the overtaking car didn’t look any closer than the oncoming one. The overtaking car even looks like his right side wheels are all the way over to the edge of the road. I also wasn’t specifically aiming the entitled comment at you or the sooner die one, but there are thousands of videos on RUclips of absolutely suicidal cyclist with appalling road sense and even worse attitudes. Video for video there are far more interactions between cars and cyclists that are the cyclists fault. I both car and cycle and I’ve grown tired of the immature recording and reporting of minor infractions and the deliberate riding to rules to prove a point. Look after yourselves and enjoy.

I agree with you landyman33, on a narrow road, ride in single line and use common sense.

@@landyman33 You would also do well to consider that humans have eyes in the front of our heads, making it fairly simple to adjust position and speed to suit the oncoming traffic. Both parties can slow, stop, or move over as required without too much problem; also, that traffic needs very little longitudinal distance & time in which to pass. It's also on its own side of the road, and so the driver can pay more attention to what's in front, rather than what's to the side. Contrast that with an overtake, where the road user being overtaken has limited visibility of the other vehicle; the overtaker is on the wrong side of the road, potentially in the path of oncoming traffic with a typical closing speed of anywhere from 40mph to 120mph; the overtaking vehicle has limited visibility of the road ahead (especially ahead of the road user being overtaken) and therefore is less likely to be aware of road conditions which may necessitate a course deviation; and the whole manoevre takes significantly longer, exacerbating the whole situation. It really isn't as simple as "There's no difference between overtaking someone, and someone coming the other way".

@@BucksCycleCam your the person my entitled comment was aimed at. Even your name suggests your a person with a chip on his shoulder out to try right all wrongs and make a statement. The rest of us just want to enjoy life and are happy to share. There are idiots in cars and there are idiots on cycles and eventually you’ll all meet a sticky end. The Cyclist seriously injured wondering if the rest of his days in wheel chair were worth his point being made, and the car driver to ignorant and stupid to ignore the ass on the bike deliberately holding up traffic to make a point, who will spend good few years in prison. I think you all need to stop trying to be clever and prove points and learn to share.

Thanks for your comment. See you on the road sometime!

Would you rather they were hanging out?

Graham loves a prick.

@@Jamessansome you should know darling .xx

Great to hear from you, Graham. Our club rides are held every Saturday and you are very welcome to join us at 9am from St Michael's Street in the centre of Oxford. We would be happy to discuss your comments in person. You can even join us for a ride if you so wish (lycra optional, but highly recommended)

@@oxfordcyclingclub6462 okay ,I'll keep in mind .for when I reach 70yrs old. ...

Thanks for your kind words BucksCycleCammer! To be honest, it was more a receptive and accommodating representative from Thames Valley Police, than the clout of our club! Excellent point about the rule changes advising drivers on how to safely pass vulnerable road users like cyclists and horse riders.

Oh, Russell, we had wager going within the club as to when the first plonker would say something about the cyclist being on a pavement. Congratulations, it's you! So, let's just be clear, it's a cyclepath!! To be specific, it's National Cycle Route 5 that passes through the centre of Oxford (look it up!). If you had bothered to look closely, you would have seen that there are cyclepath markings on the 'pavement'. In fact, well done to our member for negotiating his way safely around the two pedestrians walking on the cyclepath. Whatever, you see what you want to see and don't let clear facts get in the way of your pathetic little anti-cyclist comment. Who's the 'moron', here? Happy Christmas!

You said the key word yourself continuous. There's no give way sign or any kind of junction to transition through for the cyclist so yes of course he has priority here.

@@jiayojames I wouldn't say it's quite so clear as the cycle lane comes to an end where the (well worn) sign is painted on the floor, so there is a certainly a transition between the cycle lane and the start of the road. Obviously the moped guy needs to to look twice in future and I'm sure he will next time, but in his defence he is already on the road when he starts his manoeuvre, the cyclist is joining the road from the end of the cycle path so at the very least this area seems a little problematic for human error if cyclists are entering the road with the assumed right of way and there's a narrow road with a motorcycle bay parallel. Cyclists are the ones that inevitably come off worse when things go wrong which is why I try to be defensive when I'm entering hazardous situations even if I'm in the right because I don't fancy a trip to A&E for exercising my right of way lol, fortunately my cycling is away from busy cities so it's much easier for me, I just have to watch out for lunatics on country lanes...