cyclists, why so far from the kerb?

cyclists, why so far from the kerb?

Author
Discussion

Saddle bum

4,211 posts

218 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
I don't think South Africa is in the EU.
OK, I couldn't fond the Spanish and French versions. mad

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.

WarrenG

342 posts

196 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
4key said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
ctdctd said:
Potholes and drains tongue out
Yup, also puddles. Lack of proper road maintenance and drain clearance makes things increasingly hazardous for cyclists.
Ive never understood this train of thought, its often used as the reason not to use cycle lanes too. Why do a vast majority of you buy cycles that are not appropriate for the surface that you are riding on?

If I was driving around in a radical on road legal slicks and started moaning about the condition of the road surface I would rightly be called a moron, so why is it different for cyclists with hard tail carbon bikes?

I know that you would travel slower using a mtb or even a roadie with a bit of suspension and chunkier tyres, but youre not having a race on public roads are you? You buy bikes that are designed to go as fast as possible on a smooth surface knowing that the enviroment that you will be using them in is far from perfect, and then moan about it. confused
That ^^ is exactly the problem for the cyclist/motorist relationship. Often, puddles contain potholes, due to poor road maintenance, so rather than do a faceplant in traffic, I think it's preferable to avoid the puddles. I often do this in my CAR to avoid suspension and wheel/tyre damage. on my road-bike, I find that there are no road surfaces that cause trouble, as all tarmac variations for road transport use are perfectly acceptable. What isn't, is the consistently bad pothole / cracked surfaces that have ridges and truck wheel valleys every 500 yards minimum.

I am also a vigorous supporter of mandatory use of a cycle path where one is provided. It boils my piss to see other cyclists, whether I'm on bike or in car, using the bloody road holding up traffic and endangering themselves when there is a private lane provided for them, that may horribly inconveniently happen to be on the other side of the road FFS. good example - A259 from Chichester to Bognor - roughly 3 miles of cycle path on a nearly straight road that is frequented by Artics and tractors - get off that bloody road and get on the path you idiots! I know I do.

This used to be a roadie stiffback phenomenon, now it's every fkwit who can rotate a pedal faster than they can think. grr.

Mr Gear

9,416 posts

189 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
oyster said:
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.
If you've ever been dumped off your bike unexpectedly, you need that space and more while you lie in the road hoping not to be run over.

Imagine the scenario: dog runs out, wheel collapses, you're lying on the tarmac in less than a second.

Fartomatic5000

558 posts

154 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
^^ +1, Cyclists should be given enough room to fall off.

Bedford Rascal

29,469 posts

243 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
Fartomatic5000 said:
^^ +1, Cyclists should be given enough room to fall off.
Second only to "professor big tits" in my favourite PH logons ever. smile

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
oyster said:
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.
confused

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. If you don't want the car to pass you with all 4 of it's wheels in the same lane as you, it suggests that you want it to pass with at least the 2 offside wheels in the other lane. This would suggest that there would be little or no space for another vehicle to pass in the opposite direction. If a car passing a cyclist is going to use ANY of the opposite lane, it might as well use ALL of it.

What is it with moronic drivers who seem to be clinically allergic to overtaking, yet love to close up, one behind the other, so no-one else gets a chance. Then the few who are happy to overtake drive like aggresive fkwits while they do it. Then suddenly, when they come up behind a bicycle, none of them thinks twice about squeezing past. No regard for road layout, oncoming traffic or any other damned thing except for their overwhelming need to shave 10 seconds off their journey time.

Never mind 'Think Bike'. Just fking well THINKING at all would be nice. irked

Fartomatic5000

558 posts

154 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
Bedford Rascal said:
Second only to "professor big tits" in my favourite PH logons ever. smile
Pull my finger silly

TKF

6,232 posts

234 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
oyster said:
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.
confused

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
I don't think he's being ridiculous at all. I also think the picture is farcical and I do not expect cars to be that far over.

will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
TKF said:
yellowjack said:
oyster said:
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.
confused

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
I don't think he's being ridiculous at all. I also think the picture is farcical and I do not expect cars to be that far over.
Why not? If you're going to have to go into the oncoming lane to overtake, why not leave as much room as possible? Or are you saying you don't think the car in that picture should be accross the central line at all?

I'd rather have that much space than not. It doesn't always happen (particularly if the road is wide enough for a car to pass a cyclist without having to go into the oposing lane), but it is preferable.

On my commute some of it is dual carriageway. I am constantly amazed that cars will brush past me when they have a whole other (empty) lane they can use to get past with much less danger. I cannot understand the mindset at all.

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
will_ said:
TKF said:
yellowjack said:
oyster said:
DrMekon said:
Whilst I don't want cars passing really close to me, particularly at speed, I would never expect a car to pass me as wide as in that picture. That's ridiculous for such a road.
confused

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.
I don't think he's being ridiculous at all. I also think the picture is farcical and I do not expect cars to be that far over.
Why not? If you're going to have to go into the oncoming lane to overtake, why not leave as much room as possible? Or are you saying you don't think the car in that picture should be accross the central line at all?

I'd rather have that much space than not. It doesn't always happen (particularly if the road is wide enough for a car to pass a cyclist without having to go into the oposing lane), but it is preferable.

On my commute some of it is dual carriageway. I am constantly amazed that cars will brush past me when they have a whole other (empty) lane they can use to get past with much less danger. I cannot understand the mindset at all.
A dual carriageway is entirely different - when cars are doing 60mph+ I would prefer them to give me a bit more room.
But that picture above shows a car having exited a roundabout maybe 100yds back. Unless the driver is a local hooligan, the car will only be doing about 20-25mph.

I do take the point about leaving room for a fall if something unexpected happens. Though, 99% of falls from bikes do not result in falling directly sideways - see youtube videos for evidence of this.

will_

6,027 posts

202 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
oyster said:
A dual carriageway is entirely different - when cars are doing 60mph+ I would prefer them to give me a bit more room.
But that picture above shows a car having exited a roundabout maybe 100yds back. Unless the driver is a local hooligan, the car will only be doing about 20-25mph.

I do take the point about leaving room for a fall if something unexpected happens. Though, 99% of falls from bikes do not result in falling directly sideways - see youtube videos for evidence of this.
I think I have confused the discussion with the mention of dual carriageways, although the principle is the same - my point was that if there is room to use, then why not use it? Whether that's a dual carriageway with an empty lane, or the fact that the overtaking car has to cross into the oncoming lane, so might as well leave as much space as possible and move right over.

BaronVonVaderham

2,316 posts

146 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
4key said:
Ive never understood this train of thought, its often used as the reason not to use cycle lanes too. Why do a vast majority of you buy cycles that are not appropriate for the surface that you are riding on?

If I was driving around in a radical on road legal slicks and started moaning about the condition of the road surface I would rightly be called a moron, so why is it different for cyclists with hard tail carbon bikes?

I know that you would travel slower using a mtb or even a roadie with a bit of suspension and chunkier tyres, but youre not having a race on public roads are you? You buy bikes that are designed to go as fast as possible on a smooth surface knowing that the enviroment that you will be using them in is far from perfect, and then moan about it. confused
Brillant analogy. Also it's much fun overtaking the 'Radicals' in my 'Bowler Wildcat' aka MTB with 5' travel fork and Conti trekking tyres.... hehe

Also, heads up position gives far greater visibility and 6' rotor hydraulic brakes mean I can stop on command unlike the hoppity skippity skid fixie brigade or the mega-high tech carbo-tanium racer brigade that have the same brakes their grandmothers had...

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

283 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
BaronVonVaderham said:
Brillant analogy. Also it's much fun overtaking the 'Radicals' in my 'Bowler Wildcat' aka MTB with 5' travel fork and Conti trekking tyres.... hehe

Also, heads up position gives far greater visibility and 6' rotor hydraulic brakes mean I can stop on command unlike the hoppity skippity skid fixie brigade or the mega-high tech carbo-tanium racer brigade that have the same brakes their grandmothers had...
Most of what you've posted is complete gibberish.

Mountain bike brakes are designed to offer good power with fingertip control because you need to keep a good grip on the bars off road. They're not necessarily capable of stopping you more quickly on the road, since that's usually limited by tyres and weight transfer.

Road bike brakes are strong enough to pop a stoppie, in fact some of them (e.g. Campag Skeleton D) are deliberately engineered to be less powerful in order to offer greater modulation. They're also nothing like "the brakes our grandmothers had" in performance terms. I have an old bike with suicide levers, they're not called that for nothing.

The "heads up position" thing is nonsense too. Can you see over a bus?

shakotan

10,679 posts

195 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
I saw a cyclist travelling through Wandsworth, who was holding a 2ft long stick with fluorescent tape on the end in his 'traffic side' hand on the handlebars, presumably to prevent cars from coming too close. When he switched to the right-most lane whilst travelling through the Wandsworth one-way gyratory, he switched hands.

I can't help but think all that's going to do is tempt aholes to wrench the stick from his hands, as sensible drivers would give him sufficient room anyway.

BaronVonVaderham

2,316 posts

146 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
Most of what you've posted is complete gibberish.

Mountain bike brakes are designed to offer good power with fingertip control because you need to keep a good grip on the bars off road. They're not necessarily capable of stopping you more quickly on the road, since that's usually limited by tyres and weight transfer.

Road bike brakes are strong enough to pop a stoppie, in fact some of them (e.g. Campag Skeleton D) are deliberately engineered to be less powerful in order to offer greater modulation. They're also nothing like "the brakes our grandmothers had" in performance terms. I have an old bike with suicide levers, they're not called that for nothing.

The "heads up position" thing is nonsense too. Can you see over a bus?
I can lock my disc brakes with one finger, and use sufficient modulation to stop extremely quickly (with or without a stoppie for attempted style points!) knowing where the break away point is for my given tyre choice, surface and body position.

You are obviously the exception to the rule with very well setup U or Canti brakes (i have the same on my BMX). Point remains that the design of these has remained largely unchanged for eons. At least you are using brakes unlike the fixie brigade of 'sui-cyclists'.

Riding position on a MTB is generally with body at about 45 deg and facing forward with head up - on a roadie or similar, body position is closer to horizontal-ish with head craned up to see forwards. Just compare the head postion height of the same rider on an MTB vs a roadie - MTB'ers head is higher up = better visibility AND more visible to ther road users.

Also, i had not seen the poster's that I quoted horrifically dangerous and knobbish posts about cycling in general, I just agree with the suitability of the machine for the job. In my view MTB's are far more suitable (safer) for commuting in large cities than any kind of slick tyred road bike. Especially with winter on the way.

HundredthIdiot

4,414 posts

283 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
BaronVonVaderham said:
Riding position on a MTB is generally with body at about 45 deg and facing forward with head up - on a roadie or similar, body position is closer to horizontal-ish with head craned up to see forwards. Just compare the head postion height of the same rider on an MTB vs a roadie - MTB'ers head is higher up = better visibility AND more visible to ther road users.
There isn't really that much difference in eye level. Maybe 10cm. I think you're exaggerating the effect that has on visibility. In any case, if your centre of gravity is higher but your front hub is lower, you are more likely to go over the bars under braking. Simple physics.

BaronVonVaderham said:
You are obviously the exception to the rule with very well setup U or Canti brakes (i have the same on my BMX). Point remains that the design of these has remained largely unchanged for eons.
The design isn't unchanged. They might look similar, but modern road bike brakes are far superior to their older counterparts. The reason rim brakes are still in use is because they are more suitable in many ways for the application. If you're going to criticize something, at least make an attempt to understand it first.

BaronVonVaderham said:
In my view MTB's are far more suitable (safer) for commuting in large cities than any kind of slick tyred road bike. Especially with winter on the way.
You're welcome to your opinion and your choices, but I know many people who commute quickly and safely on drop bar road bikes.

Saddle bum

4,211 posts

218 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
4key said:
Why do a vast majority of you buy cycles that are not appropriate for the surface that you are riding on?
Most roads are fit, it's the small patches like a third world country that cause the problems.

4key said:
If I was driving around in a radical on road legal slicks and started moaning about the condition of the road surface I would rightly be called a moron, so why is it different for cyclists with hard tail carbon bikes?
Most sporting/recreational riders use 23mm tyres, if the roads are not fit for them, they should be repaired.

http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/

4key said:
I know that you would travel slower using a mtb or even a roadie with a bit of suspension and chunkier tyres, but youre not having a race on public roads are you? You buy bikes that are designed to go as fast as possible on a smooth surface knowing that the enviroment that you will be using them in is far from perfect, and then moan about it. confused
Road bikes are not made with suspension. ATBs are not suitable for the open roads, they are very inefficient.

There could quite possibly be a race on public roads, it is legal. However, if taking part in a sportive, the kit used is almost the same.

BaronVonVaderham

2,316 posts

146 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
HundredthIdiot said:
BaronVonVaderham said:
Riding position on a MTB is generally with body at about 45 deg and facing forward with head up - on a roadie or similar, body position is closer to horizontal-ish with head craned up to see forwards. Just compare the head postion height of the same rider on an MTB vs a roadie - MTB'ers head is higher up = better visibility AND more visible to ther road users.
There isn't really that much difference in eye level. Maybe 10cm. I think you're exaggerating the effect that has on visibility. In any case, if your centre of gravity is higher but your front hub is lower, you are more likely to go over the bars under braking. Simple physics.

BaronVonVaderham said:
You are obviously the exception to the rule with very well setup U or Canti brakes (i have the same on my BMX). Point remains that the design of these has remained largely unchanged for eons.
The design isn't unchanged. They might look similar, but modern road bike brakes are far superior to their older counterparts. The reason rim brakes are still in use is because they are more suitable in many ways for the application. If you're going to criticize something, at least make an attempt to understand it first.

BaronVonVaderham said:
In my view MTB's are far more suitable (safer) for commuting in large cities than any kind of slick tyred road bike. Especially with winter on the way.
You're welcome to your opinion and your choices, but I know many people who commute quickly and safely on drop bar road bikes.
They'd be safer, more visible, have better visbility and be able to stop more quickly if they were on MTB's rotate

Serious question, why don't roadies use disc brakes? I do understand that the materials and pads etc of your current brakes are much improved but the underlying design is the same as it has been for ages i.e. bit of cable pulling a little metal arm against a spring. MTBs, motorbikes (both on and off road) and every other form of two-wheeled transport, barring extremely cheap bicycles, have long ago acknowledged that rim brakes suffer many drawbacks and weaknesses (not before MTB's evolved canti's into V brakes - why don't roadies use those? Is it because the frame is too spindly and can't cope with the stress?) and made the move to disc brakes.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
Saddle bum said:
Most roads are fit, it's the small patches like a third world country that cause the problems.
I see that the bit of road edge which took out a tyre and dented the rim of an alloy on the wife's MX-5 is in a similar state once again. I would not care to ride through that hole, even on a mountain bike, especially while being overtaken closely.