Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing

[fatboy18]

DoubleD said:

Ares said:

will_ said:

Or just don't do it.

I can't think of a single example where it is safer to run a red than get off and push (if you really think it's that dangerous).

Afraid I have no time for cyclists who wish to break the rules, but expect drivers not to. And vice versa.

Very very very few true cyclists (i.e, leisure cyclists) run red lights. Commuters, different ball game.

They are all cyclists, it doesn't matter where they are going.

Yep I totally agree with this, if your that desperate to get across a traffic light junction, Get off and push your bike then mount up again on the other side. No excuse for anyone to jump a red light. If you want to drive or Ride on the road everyone should follow the same rules. Might let Speeding slide a bit though

[anonymous-user]

If a cyclist pulls out on a car with sufficient force to damage the car, trust me that cyclist isn't going to be leaving the scene in a hurry!.... And as previously mentioned, something like 250,000 cyclists have third party liability insurance.

[Mave]

pablo said:

If a cyclist pulls out on a car with sufficient force to damage the car, trust me that cyclist isn't going to be leaving the scene in a hurry!.... And as previously mentioned, something like 250,000 cyclists have third party liability insurance.

More motorists without insurance than cyclists ;-)

[Backtobasics]

where do I start!

Pablo - No, no amber gamblers. You seem fine with going through red lights, for me you should always think for others on the road and not make other road users change direction or stop, which a red light jump may do. I could have tooted, or over taken, but remembering this thread I wanted to see what would happen, no one was behind me, I wasn't in a rush, passing was possible but would be less than a cars width.

Nickfrog - I used roads with all speed limits, however no motorways, saw no issue over the 3 weeks. Didn't see anyone make a dangerous decision re ambers.

WinstonWolf - Nope, there was a truck badly parked but he was delivering the mother of all fridges.

Mave - As above. Agreed MLM are a real pain, but didnt use motorways over the 3 weeks and the dual carriageways were reasonably quiet.

Ares - You need to have a minute.

Just reporting in as to what I saw, the cycling standards were a joke and percentage wise (which is the important bit for me) far worse than drivers. Do the same from a cyclists perspective, it would be interesting.

Oh and I had to go back to Dec 2015 to find the post about MLM's!

Edited by Backtobasics on Thursday 15th September 21:28

Edited by Backtobasics on Thursday 15th September 21:30

[Mave]

Backtobasics said:

Just reporting in as to what I saw, the cycling standards were a joke and percentage wise (which is the important bit for me) far worse than drivers. Do the same from a cyclists perspective, it would be interesting.

I paid some attention during my commute the day after your post. I both cycle and drive, on that day I was driving. In ~8 miles / 20 minutes I counted 6 motorists going through opposing lights whilst mine were green. I managed to avoid a motorist who turned right from a left hand lane at a roundabout. There were two significant snarl ups due to motorists sitting on hatched lines, blocking up roundabouts. Lost count of the number of people I noticed on their mobiles. There was a crash between two motorists on the opposite carriageway to mine - somehow someone had gone into the back of someone else on a straight, calm 40mph stretch with no side roads in broad daylight with enough force to set off all their airbags. Looked like an accident in a giant marshmallow factory. Final mile of my journey was stuck behind someone in L2 doing 30mph in a 40mph limit, matching speed with cars in L1 and nothing in front
I'm sure theres more I've forgotten, although I did note that I passed a number of cyclists with no problem. Didn't feel like an unusual commute except for the crash.

[DoubleD]

Im going to write a post tomorrow on what ive seen that supports my point of view in this argument. Will i spot that both sides are as bad as each other? Will i be open minded about the problem? Nope i will claim that 1 side are perfect and the other side are a bunch of Nazis.

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

Im going to write a post tomorrow on what ive seen that supports my point of view in this argument. Will i spot that both sides are as bad as each other? Will i be open minded about the problem? Nope i will claim that 1 side are perfect and the other side are a bunch of Nazis.

And this highlights the stupidity of the principle at the origins of this thread - "one thing that happened to me on one occasion (which I may have exaggerated) means I assume that this is the norm rather than the exception (and I'll preferentially look for evidence to confirm that opinion), and it's such a problem that I advocate taking the law into my own hands to teach them a lesson (and if that lesson is dangerous, well, what the hell, they deserve it, right? They were asking for it, that's what happens when you mess with the big boys)

[FiF]

I'm not going to write a post after driving into Worcester, because I'll just get on with it as usual, not getting irritated by stupidity on any side, or from any subset of users, just keeping me and mine and all people in the vicinity safe, including protecting some people from themselves. HTH.

[CS Garth]

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

[tigger1]

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

And so they should.

Sadly I don't think they take DWDC too seriously given the amount of seriously poo driving I've seen in the W Mids.

[birky]

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/juncti...

[g7jhp]

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

Why you should give cyclists a wide birth:

No.1 Common Sense

No.2 Motorists face prosecution for driving too close to cyclists: Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution.

[heebeegeetee]

tigger1 said:

And so they should.

Sadly I don't think they take DWDC too seriously given the amount of seriously poo driving I've seen in the W Mids.

Which probably goes with the near-total lack of visible police cars. Drivers needn't worry for a long time yet.

[fatboy18]

g7jhp said:

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

Why you should give cyclists a wide birth:

No.1 Common Sense

No.2 Motorists face prosecution for driving too close to cyclists: Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution.

So I guess that will now mean if you come across a road with Double white lines in the centre and there's a cyclist in front of you, you will now have to sit there for however miles until the double white lines disappear? Law says no overtaking on Double whites.

[will_]

fatboy18 said:

g7jhp said:

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

Why you should give cyclists a wide birth:

No.1 Common Sense

No.2 Motorists face prosecution for driving too close to cyclists: Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution.

So I guess that will now mean if you come across a road with Double white lines in the centre and there's a cyclist in front of you, you will now have to sit there for however miles until the double white lines disappear? Law says no overtaking on Double whites.

Why "now"? Hasn't that always been the case? Unless previously it was acceptable to squeeze past without leaving enough room for a margin of safety, and now that's not acceptable because the police are intending to increase enforcement. But I can't believe that is what you meant.

You can overtake if they're doing less than 10mph.

It's not exclusive to cyclists of course.

[will_]

Ares said:

Almost none. Why the hell would you?? I don't know of a single leisure cyclist (the lycra monsters/road-racer-wannabes/club cyclists) that ride in town, and I'm talking dozens and dozens. The only red light jumpers I see are either commuters or couriers, usually on fixies.

It's bit like looking at road traffic in central london and basing a national opinion on driving styles and ability.

I'm not being argumentative, but I'm not quite sure of your point. It appears to be that you are saying that you never see "leisure" cyclists jumping red lights, but that is because you never see them in towns (where the red lights are). Conversely, the people you see jumping red lights are those you do see in towns - which is perfectly logical?

Anyway, that's not my experience - anecdotally some of the "leisure" cyclists (i.e. those who are wearing team kit, albeit that they might be riding on their commute when I see them) are some of the most badly behaved riders.

[will_]

Hol said:

will_ said:

ambuletz said:

what about all those numptys who step out into the road looking left first instead of right? sometimes it pisses me off I do a close-ish pass when cycling. sadly none of them have held a cup of drink in their hands yet (in the hopes that they'd spill it on themselves)

What about them? Just because a cyclist hits someone, doesn't make it the cyclist's fault.

I was hit by pedestrian who marched into my front wheel from between two busses whilst looking the wrong way. He was holding a cup of coffee. I don't recommend it.

There's no justification for passing "close-ish". A proper bell can often help.

Cyclists,

You know when you mention 'that guy' or 'those few cyclists' that give the rest of you all a bad name, by being a bit of a ****??

I think I might know who he is....

I'm trying to work out if you're referring to me, and if so on what basis.

It seems rather odd that cyclists should be concerned about getting a "bad name" but motorists aren't. Why are cyclists treated as a homogenous group, whereas motorists can be split into MLMs, BMW drivers, Audi drivers etc? Aren't they all motorists? Do motorists mind getting a "bad name"? Who would that "bad name" be judged by? Does it matter?

I think I prefer to look at people as people, and not with reference to a generic mode of transport which they happen to be using at any one time. Someone who is a prat on a bike, is not a cyclist who is a prat. He is just a prat. He is a prat in the pub, at work, at home, on his bike, in his Audi and so on. It's a bizarre distinction.

[fatboy18]

OK Here's another scenario. Painted Cycle lanes what used to be a normal two lane roads (Im thinking Particularly in South london). Car/van/lorries are moving slowly along the road and the cyclists under take the traffic in the cycle lane, then road speeds up for traffic and those same cyclists are then overtaken. So do those drivers now face prosecution for going past that bike and not giving the cyclist over a meter and 1/2 which would then put that traffic face to face with traffic traveling in the opposite direction?
This is the trouble, people in power don't think this stuff through. Many roads where these painted lanes are were not wide enough in the first place.

Personally I think cycle lanes painted on a road should be done away with, they encourage cyclists to undertake vehicles and we have had many many accidents and deaths as a result of Vans and lorries turning left and not seeing the bikes. Overtaking should be on the Right IMO

If Councils have put in cycle lanes and paths, cyclists should be enforced to use them, no matter what kind of bike you have.
The Ewell Bypass also comes to mind here, Large dual carriageway with a large cycle lane (propper built tarmacked path) Hardly any cyclists use it and the Lycra brigade stay on the main road!
Want to ride a bike? Then use the lanes put there for you!
And for the record, I used to be on my Secondary school Road race Cycle team, I'm a Biker, Car driver and Van driver.

Edited by fatboy18 on Friday 16th September 11:13

[g7jhp]

fatboy18 said:

g7jhp said:

CS Garth said:

I see on sky news that West Midlands police will treat "close passing" of cyclists as driving without due care

Why you should give cyclists a wide birth:

No.1 Common Sense

No.2 Motorists face prosecution for driving too close to cyclists: Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution.

So I guess that will now mean if you come across a road with Double white lines in the centre and there's a cyclist in front of you, you will now have to sit there for however miles until the double white lines disappear? Law says no overtaking on Double whites.

Most use common sense, obviously some don't have it so struggle.

[will_]

fatboy18 said:

OK Here's another scenario. Painted Cycle lanes what used to be a normal two lane roads (Im thinking Particularly in South london). Car/van/lorries are moving slowly along the road and the cyclists under take the traffic in the cycle lane, then road speeds up for traffic and those same cyclists are then overtaken. So do those drivers now face prosecution for going past that bike and not giving the cyclist over a meter and 1/2 which would then put that traffic face to face with traffic traveling in the opposite direction?
This is the trouble, people in power don't think this stuff through. Many roads where these painted lanes are were not wide enough in the first place.

Personally I think cycle lanes painted on a road should be done away with, they encourage cyclists to undertake vehicles and we have had many many accidents and deaths as a result of Vans and lorries turning left and not seeing the bikes. Overtaking should be on the Right IMO

If Councils have put in cycle lanes and paths, cyclists should be enforced to use them, no matter what kind of bike you have.
The Ewell Bypass also comes to mind here, Large dual carriageway with a large cycle lane (propper built tarmacked path) Hardly any cyclists use it and the Lycra brigade stay on the main road!
Want to ride a bike? Then use the lanes put there for you!
And for the record, I used to be on my Secondary school Road race Cycle team, I'm a Biker, Car driver and Van driver.

Edited by fatboy18 on Friday 16th September 11:13

Are the West Midlands police going to start enforcing traffic laws in South London then?

What you are really asking is - why shouldn't drivers be prevented from dangerously overtaking cyclists? If a driver would have to crash into oncoming traffic safely to overtake, then they shouldn't be overtaking, surely.

The reality is that in congested cities the 1.5 m distance isn't realistic. But that doesn't mean dangerous overtaking should be encouraged, nor do drivers bleating about not being able to drive dangerously deserve any sympathy.

Drivers can't have it both ways. They want cyclists far over to the left in the gutter when they want to overtake them, but then want them far over to the right when being overtaken. Making that transition is potentially very dangerous. In addition, the mopeds and motorbikes tend to be overtaking on the right (at speed). If you try and join them they soon let you know about it. Finally, overtaking on the right means that if a car turns across you you're punted into the on-coming lane as opposed to being able to escape towards the pavement.

Rather than blaming the cyclists for being where drivers insist that they belong (and being killed there), why not blame the drivers who can't be bothered to look before turning? It's typical victim blaming.

As for enforced use of cycle lanes that has been done to death. If they were better than the road, they would be used. If they are not better, why bother building them? On what basis should cyclists have to defer to motorists? We all have the right to use the roads that we all pay for. You should consider why cyclists aren't using cycle lanes, as opposed to making them use them when they are often totally unsuitable.