Why you shouldn't give cyclist a wide berth when passing
Discussion
will_ said:
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.
Are the West Midlands police going to start enforcing traffic laws in South London then? It starts at West Midlands then goes country wideThis 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
What you are really asking is - why shouldn't drivers be prevented from dangerously overtaking cyclists? Or you could argue, cyclists are being encouraged to dangerously undertake traffic in a painted cycle lane! 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.well we agree on something
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,I don't but then want them far over to the right when being overtaken. If im not moving I would rather a cyclist overtake me on the right 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. Cyclist should proceed with extreme caution and observe cars just as you would do on a motorcycle
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? Agree with that one, who at the councils should be held responsible for wasting the taxpayers moneys? Can we take them to court for wasting millions? On what basis should cyclists have to defer to motorists? Never said that? 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.
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.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.
fatboy18 said:
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.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.
It's a bit like complaining that it's wrong for car drivers to stop all the time dropping passengers off holding traffic up just because taxi drivers do.
will_ said:
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?It's bit like looking at road traffic in central london and basing a national opinion on driving styles and ability.
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.
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.
This is because cycle lanes/paths are littered wth debris, stones, broken glass and give you a far far greater chance of a puncture. It's a clear example of cycle strategies being designed by non cyclists.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
fatboy18 said:
If there unsuitable either make the main roads wider getting rid of them and then build one in the centre reservation areas like they do in Holland. All bikes should also be registered like Holland so then drivers and riders are all accountable on the same level.
I can't face doing all the re-quoting, but your suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use cycle lanes presumably comes from a view that cyclists should be "out of the way" of motorists if there is an option to do so, irrespective as to how inconvenient that is for the cyclist. I'm pretty sure that bikes in Holland do not have to be registered. I'm pretty sure that if there is a register, they don't have to carry licence plates, so it can't be about accountability, but is more likely to be about theft.
I'm also fairly confident that if the overall aim is to improve third party safety, it would be much more effective to target the resources required to register and enforce a bicycle scheme at motorists. Even car licence plates don't seem to prevent a million cars being uninsured, so registration doesn't appear to be wholly effective at ensuring accountability either.
Given the tiny risk posed by cyclists (in statistical reality, not in PH anecdote world), any argument that cyclists should be licenced, registered and insured can also be applied against pedestrians. Fancy wearing a registration plate on your arse so I can track you down if you knock me off?
will_ said:
fatboy18 said:
If there unsuitable either make the main roads wider getting rid of them and then build one in the centre reservation areas like they do in Holland. All bikes should also be registered like Holland so then drivers and riders are all accountable on the same level.
I can't face doing all the re-quoting, but your suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use cycle lanes presumably comes from a view that cyclists should be "out of the way" of motorists if there is an option to do so, irrespective as to how inconvenient that is for the cyclist. I'm pretty sure that bikes in Holland do not have to be registered. I'm pretty sure that if there is a register, they don't have to carry licence plates, so it can't be about accountability, but is more likely to be about theft.
I'm also fairly confident that if the overall aim is to improve third party safety, it would be much more effective to target the resources required to register and enforce a bicycle scheme at motorists. Even car licence plates don't seem to prevent a million cars being uninsured, so registration doesn't appear to be wholly effective at ensuring accountability either.
Given the tiny risk posed by cyclists (in statistical reality, not in PH anecdote world), any argument that cyclists should be licenced, registered and insured can also be applied against pedestrians. Fancy wearing a registration plate on your arse so I can track you down if you knock me off?
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.
Get a bicycle, you wouldn't be so bloody fat then.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
A good article on Why do cyclists ride in the middle of the road? for those that may not understand why cyclists may have to use more of the road (and why it might be sensible to give them more room when overtaking).
As with all these things, sometimes it helps to look at it from both sides to understand the reasons why. That understanding may make people relax a little and be more courteous on the road.
As with all these things, sometimes it helps to look at it from both sides to understand the reasons why. That understanding may make people relax a little and be more courteous on the road.
To my mind bikes have always been a bit of square peg / round hole issue.
Roads were first made for horses and carriages and these gave way to cars.
Pavements were made for people to keep them safe from cars and vice versa.
No-one ever made anything for bikes specifically.
They're too fast to mix with pedestrians and too exposed (in my mind) to mix with cars/lorries/buses.
Talking from an in-town perspective, vehicle traffic tends to move at about the same speed but bikes are usually going slower or faster rather than the same speed as everyone else
Pedestrians don't want them on the pavement and I (suspect) most drivers don't want them on the road (and likely vice versa) so it ends up being an unhappy marriage until we get something that's for bikes.
Roads were first made for horses and carriages and these gave way to cars.
Pavements were made for people to keep them safe from cars and vice versa.
No-one ever made anything for bikes specifically.
They're too fast to mix with pedestrians and too exposed (in my mind) to mix with cars/lorries/buses.
Talking from an in-town perspective, vehicle traffic tends to move at about the same speed but bikes are usually going slower or faster rather than the same speed as everyone else
Pedestrians don't want them on the pavement and I (suspect) most drivers don't want them on the road (and likely vice versa) so it ends up being an unhappy marriage until we get something that's for bikes.
Sid123 said:
To my mind bikes have always been a bit of square peg / round hole issue.
Roads were first made for horses and carriages and these gave way to cars.
Pavements were made for people to keep them safe from cars and vice versa.
No-one ever made anything for bikes specifically.
They're too fast to mix with pedestrians and too exposed (in my mind) to mix with cars/lorries/buses.
Talking from an in-town perspective, vehicle traffic tends to move at about the same speed but bikes are usually going slower or faster rather than the same speed as everyone else
Pedestrians don't want them on the pavement and I (suspect) most drivers don't want them on the road (and likely vice versa) so it ends up being an unhappy marriage until we get something that's for bikes.
Do a little research about the history of smooth, sealed road surfaces before spouting your ignorance to the world.Roads were first made for horses and carriages and these gave way to cars.
Pavements were made for people to keep them safe from cars and vice versa.
No-one ever made anything for bikes specifically.
They're too fast to mix with pedestrians and too exposed (in my mind) to mix with cars/lorries/buses.
Talking from an in-town perspective, vehicle traffic tends to move at about the same speed but bikes are usually going slower or faster rather than the same speed as everyone else
Pedestrians don't want them on the pavement and I (suspect) most drivers don't want them on the road (and likely vice versa) so it ends up being an unhappy marriage until we get something that's for bikes.
I think you're being pulled up on an incorrect historical claim.
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/sample-pag...
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/sample-pag...
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
I don't know about annoying the minority but it may well surprise a few people to learn the law says you have to leave a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist. Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
Sid123 said:
yonex said:
This will no doubt irritate the minority on here.
Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
I don't know about annoying the minority but it may well surprise a few people to learn the law says you have to leave a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist. Drivers who give cyclists less than a metre and a half of room as they overtake will face prosecution
About bloody time.
Whilst common sense dictates that we all leave some gap I didn't know there was a specific requirement.
That's not ingorance on my part I just don't think it's ever been well-publicised.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff