Discussion
SteveSteveson said:
plasticpig said:
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard.
You clearly have no idea about the differences between being on two wheels and in a car. It's not swerving to avoid emergency's, its maneuvering in the road. Or do you indicate every time your car moves slightly to the side because of a bump?V12Legs said:
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
That's part of the post I was replying to. It clearly mentions swerving and not changing road position. plasticpig said:
SteveSteveson said:
plasticpig said:
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard.
You clearly have no idea about the differences between being on two wheels and in a car. It's not swerving to avoid emergency's, its maneuvering in the road. Or do you indicate every time your car moves slightly to the side because of a bump?V12Legs said:
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
That's part of the post I was replying to. It clearly mentions swerving and not changing road position. Rule 163
plasticpig said:
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard.
If you're passing so that a cyclist cannot avoid a pothole without colliding with you, then you are overtaking far too closely. It's the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to do it safely, and the cyclist can use as much of the lane as they need to.Hol said:
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
However:
Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
What on earth has that got to do with rule 213?Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
Surely if someone has time to see an obstacle in the road and indicate to pull round it you should also see that obstacle, anticipate that they are going to have to move round it, and not be overtaking as it is not safe?
"163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so."
Im sure in the real world of cylcing every manouvre 'may' be an emergency under rule 213??
Those man hole covers do have a habit of jumping out on you a split second before you need to swerve and avoid them (EVERY TIME).
Mave said:
Presumably in your example the oncoming car is in a different lane? If you had to change positions within your own lane to avoid a pothole, would consider it necessary to indicate?
Quite possibly yes. If there was another road user who would benefit from the signaling of my intentions to maneuver then yes. It's in the highway code and it warns the vehicle following me that they may find it necessary to make the same avoiding action; or indeed if oncoming traffic was crossing into my lane to avoid parked cars for example.
This car is on the other side of the road to overtake a cyclist.
I think that is why many car and cycle riders can get frustrated.In busy traffic there isn't always enough room for the cyclist and car or truck driver.
The cyclist will then cycle on the footpath to feel safer and I can't blame them.In busy town centers at peak times in my opinion stop cyclist if there are no proper cycle paths for their own safety.
I think that is why many car and cycle riders can get frustrated.In busy traffic there isn't always enough room for the cyclist and car or truck driver.
The cyclist will then cycle on the footpath to feel safer and I can't blame them.In busy town centers at peak times in my opinion stop cyclist if there are no proper cycle paths for their own safety.
wolves_wanderer said:
Manhole covers and things like that are normally obvious enough that I have moved out slowly and steadily before I get to them
The problem then of course becomes the drivers who get angry at you being "too far out in the road" but thats a different matter.Foppo said:
I think that is why many car and cycle riders can get frustrated.In busy traffic there isn't always enough room for the cyclist and car or truck driver.
The cyclist will then cycle on the footpath to feel safer and I can't blame them.In busy town centers at peak times in my opinion stop cyclist if there are no proper cycle paths for their own safety.
If there is not enough room for a car to fit safely past, but enough room for them to squeeze through then the answer is to "take the lane". It's not often you need to do that, or for very long, but better than cycling on the pavement. They should not be on the footpath, and cars should not be squeezing past. Just give each other a bit of respect.The cyclist will then cycle on the footpath to feel safer and I can't blame them.In busy town centers at peak times in my opinion stop cyclist if there are no proper cycle paths for their own safety.
Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 14:24
WinstonWolf said:
Johnnytheboy said:
WinstonWolf said:
If you're passing safely it should never be a problem... Rule 163
What the hell? I've literally never seen that picture before!
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
At the end of the day: Is this your point - based on that rule?
AND, if we accept that (for the moment)
When should cyclists indicate?
Im happy if some of your friends want to chip in here, as I think this is an important point.
No, my point is your talking rubbish to justify not giving other road users enough room (whatever their transport). The rules are clear, designed to ensure everyone is safe, and people like you are a danger to all of us.AND, if we accept that (for the moment)
When should cyclists indicate?
Im happy if some of your friends want to chip in here, as I think this is an important point.
At the same time as anyone else. Do you indicate when you move in the road to avoid a pot hole?
Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 14:00
I was going to salute you for your honesty.
But in hindsight, I can see how that would be very brave as it opened up my second question:
When should cyclists indicate?
I would STILL like a cyclist opinion on that - if possible??
Also, for the record, I HAVE been agreeing that the nature of that rule allows for cyclists to avoid a manhole cover in an emergency as it is clearly written in that way.
For clarity though, that rule is actually written from the view of other motorists. It advises them that cyclists MAY swerve to avoid a manhole/obstacle etc, and that relevant care should be taken.
Its the MAY bit that is most interesting, as that would indicate the intention of an exception and not 'the norm'.
Can anyone confirm if there any corresponding rule written from the 'cyclists/motorcyclist viewpoint' that indicates that manhole covers etc - can/should be avoided?
Hol said:
Can anyone confirm if there any corresponding rule written from the 'cyclists/motorcyclist viewpoint' that indicates that manhole covers etc - can/should be avoided?
I'll give that when you show me the rule that says that cars should not drive through pot holes. It's not a highway code rule, but basic sense. Manhole covers are slippery, often wobbly and dangerous to cross. Get out on a bike and ride over a few at a reasonable speed (15mph) and you'll soon see why we go round them.As others have said, anyway, cyclists should notice man hole covers and not need to swerve (but we all make mistakes from time to time). Its more glass, dangerous bumps, holes that are not very visible. Most cyclists should not be swerving unexpectedly on a regular basis, but when passing drivers should always assume that this may be the time that cyclist dose need to avoid a broken bottle or the like.
Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 14:46
v12Legs said:
If you're passing so that a cyclist cannot avoid a pothole without colliding with you, then you are overtaking far too closely. It's the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to do it safely, and the cyclist can use as much of the lane as they need to.
The highway code saysHighway code said:
If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
wolves_wanderer said:
Hol said:
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
However:
Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
What on earth has that got to do with rule 213?Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
Surely if someone has time to see an obstacle in the road and indicate to pull round it you should also see that obstacle, anticipate that they are going to have to move round it, and not be overtaking as it is not safe?
"163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so."
Im sure in the real world of cylcing every manouvre 'may' be an emergency under rule 213??
Those man hole covers do have a habit of jumping out on you a split second before you need to swerve and avoid them (EVERY TIME).
Please can you therefore point out where I said that I have ever had to swerve to avoid a cyclist, due to a manhole cover.
To date, I have not included myself in any scenario's. And its not something I would do personally.
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
Can anyone confirm if there any corresponding rule written from the 'cyclists/motorcyclist viewpoint' that indicates that manhole covers etc - can/should be avoided?
I'll give that when you show me the rule that says that cars should not drive through pot holes. It's not a highway code rule, but basic sense. Manhole covers are slippery, often wobbly and dangerous to cross. Get out on a bike and ride over a few at a reasonable speed (15mph) and you'll soon see why we go round them.However, if it helps, we could look at the rules around how ALL road users must pass a stationary obstacle in the road. In an emergency or seen in advance.
SteveSteveson said:
You asked about cyclists and motorcyclists avoiding manhole covers. I'm not negotiating, I'm pointing out that the highway code does not cover many things, including the blatantly obvious like "Don't drive over things that might be a danger too you".
Ok, Thanks for the input.plasticpig said:
v12Legs said:
If you're passing so that a cyclist cannot avoid a pothole without colliding with you, then you are overtaking far too closely. It's the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to do it safely, and the cyclist can use as much of the lane as they need to.
The highway code saysHighway code said:
If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
Therefore it is necessary to avoid them.
If you are overtaking a cyclist, you need to give them enough room so that they can avoid a pothole without coming into conflict with your vehicle.
The HC guidance is OK, but it doesn't mean you have to do that every time to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Hol said:
This isnt a negotiation. Its a debate based on facts and rule.
However, if it helps, we could look at the rules around how ALL road users must pass a stationary obstacle in the road. In an emergency or seen in advance.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a cyclist is in a lane all of their own and are swerving in to "your lane" when you are trying to pass. They aren't. You are in the same lane as them and attempting to pass without leaving sufficient room.However, if it helps, we could look at the rules around how ALL road users must pass a stationary obstacle in the road. In an emergency or seen in advance.
v12Legs said:
If you cycle through a pothole, you may well fall off.
Therefore it is necessary to avoid them.
If you are overtaking a cyclist, you need to give them enough room so that they can avoid a pothole without coming into conflict with your vehicle.
The HC guidance is OK, but it doesn't mean you have to do that every time to the exclusion of all other considerations.
It requires consideration from both sides. I tend to find there as many inconsiderate cyclists as there are drivers. I drive quite a bit in an area where clubs hold time trials and there are many large gatherings of cyclists. I find these cyclists are usually far less considerate than the people out for a leisurely Sunday cycle or commuting cyclists.Therefore it is necessary to avoid them.
If you are overtaking a cyclist, you need to give them enough room so that they can avoid a pothole without coming into conflict with your vehicle.
The HC guidance is OK, but it doesn't mean you have to do that every time to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff