Why you should give cyclists a wide berth when passing.

[gradsailor]

Pot holes.

The roads are full of them.

Cars can usually go over them. Cyclists can't. Which is why cyclists need reasonable space. They may need to take avoiding action which a motorist can't predict.

[DoubleD]

The road is narrow enough that 2 bikes make the gap tighter than 1.

[lord trumpton]

RenOHH said:

lord trumpton said:

We get a lot of the cycling clubs out together around here. All dressed up in their maching Lycra and taking up the whole lane in their imaginary peloton living the dream.

The problem I have is the roads are narrow country roads and it's really difficult to pass them and leave plenty of room. It seems some cyclists can put themselves in harms way, or at least increase their chances of a close shave by some of the more impatient drivers or old biffs.

It's actually safer for groups of cyclists to travel 2 abreast as that shortens the length of time a car needs to spend on the other side of the road. Much easier to pass properly.

Agreed and no problem here. My issue is they ride in swarms around here; maybe 4 deep. To pass requires total positioning on the opposite side of the road. Not the end of the world but annoying nonetheless as it causes a backlog and more importantly raises the risk of a close pass or people taking chances out of frustration.

[Fish]

My problem on B roads ie lanes with no central lines is when you get 10 or so club riders out is they do form a rolling road block which you fundamentally can't overtake. Cyclists should ride a a pair then a hundred yards then the next etc so you can actually safely overtake.

But no apparently a peleton aka rolling road block is the best! If they do want to do peletons why can't they stick to wider B and A roads where they can be overtaken...

[WJNB]

RenOHH said:

It's actually safer for groups of cyclists to travel 2 abreast as that shortens the length of time a car needs to spend on the other side of the road. Much easier to pass properly.

Utter tosh & ONLY applicable if on a dual-carriageway.
Let's be very clear, the lycra-loonies just LOVE riding side by side (maybe wishing they could hold hands as well), but mainly so they can have a good old gab. The absolute bonus which makes their day is to be holding up those dreadful people in smelly cars polluting the planet. Double bonus if one or more of the cars is something expensive or sporty & just superior to their little contraptions.
Consider also the strange attraction of enjoying dressing up in bright coloured skin tight clothes that leave little to the imagination - a thoroughly vulgar sight when it comes to the male with their miniscule yet obvious swellings.

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

The road is narrow enough that 2 bikes make the gap tighter than 1.

If the road were a motorway then 2 bikes would still make the gap tighter than 1. I regularly come across cyclists on my B - road commute and there are very, very few occasions where it would be safe to overtake one but not two. Once you're committed to being on the wrong side of the road through the overtake, then how far over you are doesn't really matter.

[anonymous-user]

WJNB said:

Utter tosh & ONLY applicable if on a dual-carriageway.
Let's be very clear, the lycra-loonies just LOVE riding side by side (maybe wishing they could hold hands as well), but mainly so they can have a good old gab. The absolute bonus which makes their day is to be holding up those dreadful people in smelly cars polluting the planet. Double bonus if one or more of the cars is something expensive or sporty & just superior to their little contraptions.
Consider also the strange attraction of enjoying dressing up in bright coloured skin tight clothes that leave little to the imagination - a thoroughly vulgar sight when it comes to the male with their miniscule yet obvious swellings.

You need to grow up and stop thinking all cyclists have a problem with you. You might then see that they don't have a problem with you. My statement is not tosh. You can't even present a counter point properly.

[DoubleD]

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

The road is narrow enough that 2 bikes make the gap tighter than 1.

If the road were a motorway then 2 bikes would still make the gap tighter than 1. I regularly come across cyclists on my B - road commute and there are very, very few occasions where it would be safe to overtake one but not two. Once you're committed to being on the wrong side of the road through the overtake, then how far over you are doesn't really matter.

If they moved into single file(as i used to do when out riding with friends)it would make things safer for everyone. Its all about helping each other and getting along.

[krarkol]

Mave said:

krarkol said:

Why in these scenarios, does the driver of the vehicle always have to take responsibility?

Skittish horse or wobbly cyclist, for some reason the onus is always on the driver to give a wide berth and take caution.

Cyclists sometimes need to "wobble". That's the nature of our roads. If you want to overtake one then you need to take that into account.

And regarding responsibility- everyone has responsibility. It's not us or them. By everyone trying to take responsibility we can avoid accidents when one party falls short for whatever reason - the other party mitigates the hazard.

But taking a jumpy horse out isn't taking responsibility and neither is riding on a fast A road with a road surface not suitable for bicycles

Last year, I was driving along a small B road. I came across a woman riding a horse and slowed down to around 10mph. The horse was wary, so I slowed to around walking pace. Everything was going fine, until I hit a tiny pothole and the horse went crazy and nearly threw the rider who then proceeded to call me every name under the sun.

Considering it was her choice to take a horse that clearly wasn't comfortable out onto the road and I acted well within reason (10mph was already more than enough imo) then who was she to act like that towards me?

Another time, I came across 2 cyclists on a hill riding abreast, having a conversation. I slowed behind them and waited patiently, hoping they'd move to single file and give me room for an overtake. In single file, there would have been around a 2 metre gap between me and the cyclists. With them 2 abreast, probably around a metre.
After waiting a couple of minute, I went for the overtake. Probably going around 15mph compared to their 8mph and one of them started shouting profanities.
Yeah, I was impatient. I knew the road well and knew that aslong as they were 2 abreast, I'd be stuck behind them travelling below 10mph for around 2-3 miles. There was a safer option, they were irresponsible and didn't allow me to take the safer option. So honestly, f*** them.

I have seen it from the other side though. Solo cyclist on a B road and a woman behind in a Micra, she was so fixated on him, she didn't actually check for oncoming traffic when she went to overtake and had to abandon it, nearly taking out the cyclist when she pulled back onto her side. She did this around 3 times or so, before the road being clear. IMO, she shouldn't have a licence.

The thing is, if you point out the irresponsibility of cyclists or horse riders, you are suddenly seen as the reincarnation of Hitler.

I don't mind cyclists or horse riders. But when they act holier than thou and do stupid stuff and expecting me to always compensate for their lack of responsibility. There is a problem. Especially when I can end up in court/behind bars if I ever acted the way they do.

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

Not safer for the car driver who has to move further into the other carriageway. Doesn't it say in the HC somewhere that a road user shouldn't deliberately hinder someone trying to overtake? Maybe it's just good manners to move into single file to allow traffic that's travelling faster to pass... .

You should be fully into the other lane when passing a cyclist anyway. That is in the Highway Code for sure, if you want to start quoting the HC. And you've checked that the overtake is safe before doing it, so how is it more dangerous to be fully in the opposite lane? Sounds like you mean it's more dangerous for the overtaking car if they decide to do it on a bend or decide to do it with a car oncoming - something a lot of people think is okay to do.

But yes, say you ended up with a queue of 5+ cars behind you, you'd pull over and let them pass. I do this every day on the way to/from work when I'm on single lane country roads, even if only 1 car is behind as they cannot pass me safely on such a narrow road.

Edited by RenOHH on Saturday 20th August 18:02

[PoleDriver]

Drunken cyclist falls off bike across road in front of car and it's the drivers fault!?

Only on the new PistonHeads Speed Matters

[Mave]

krarkol said:

The thing is, if you point out the irresponsibility of cyclists or horse riders, you are suddenly seen as the reincarnation of Hitler.

I don't mind cyclists or horse riders. But when they act holier than thou and do stupid stuff and expecting me to always compensate for their lack of responsibility. There is a problem. Especially when I can end up in court/behind bars if I ever acted the way they do.

Likewise, if a cyclist points out irresponsible behaviour of cyclist they are militant anti-christs Lycra warriors. It's not about cyclists versus horserider versus motorist; it's about responsible versus irresponsible.

Everyday, road users do stupid stuff, and responsible defensive driving people compensate. When I avoid being next to other cars at roundabouts I don't think I'm taking responsibility for their (lack of) lane discipline - I'm mitigating the potential for them to turn right from the left hand lane. If I see someone who looks like they don't know where they're going I give them a wide berth, and if I overtake a cyclist I give them loads of room.

[Mave]

PoleDriver said:

Drunken cyclist falls off bike across road in front of car and it's the drivers fault!?

Only on the new PistonHeads Speed Matters

Try again. Try "drunken cyclist falls of bike, and careful driver avoids killing him by giving him lots of room".

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

If they moved into single file(as i used to do when out riding with friends)it would make things safer for everyone. Its all about helping each other and getting along.

But you still haven't explained why it safer.... I'd rather be on the wrong side of the road for one cycle length than two!

[KM666]

Bristol council are doing their bit, they've reduced the width of the main road through avonmouth to allow for an oversized path which hobby cyclists don't use. I've only ever seen 2 groups of Lycra clad tossers on a king's ransom worth of bicycles who've decided to take in the heavily polluted, sewerge/landfill infused air. Money well spent.

[DoubleD]

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

If they moved into single file(as i used to do when out riding with friends)it would make things safer for everyone. Its all about helping each other and getting along.

But you still haven't explained why it safer.... I'd rather be on the wrong side of the road for one cycle length than two!

Because it leaves more wobble room. With less wobble room you have to pass more slowly, this means you spend far longer on the wrong side of the road.

A driver should do everything possible to get past safely and a cyclist should do everything possible to help the driver get past safely.

[funkyrobot]

Fish said:

My problem on B roads ie lanes with no central lines is when you get 10 or so club riders out is they do form a rolling road block which you fundamentally can't overtake. Cyclists should ride a a pair then a hundred yards then the next etc so you can actually safely overtake.

But no apparently a peleton aka rolling road block is the best! If they do want to do peletons why can't they stick to wider B and A roads where they can be overtaken...

Why do a lot of idiot drivers still squeeze past me even though I'm cycling on my own?

There is a traffic light junction near my house. Pretty much everytime I cycle through it some tit in a car squeezes by me as we pass the central island.

I don't ride in a group. I signal on turns etc. I don't run red lights. Yet plenty of drivers like to squeeze rather than waiting literally seconds for the road to widen.

Another example. I was riding along back roads Thursday night. It was windy. I came across three groups of pedestrians who didn't hear me approaching because of the wind. What did I do? I slowed, rang my bell, alerted them, they moved out of the way and I passed with a thanks and a wave.

Near the end of my ride (going into a headwind on another country lane), a tit in a Mondeo appeared behind and squeezed me off the road. No honk of the horn, no steady drive up, he just floored it past me and nearly wiped me out.

I'm as courteous as I can be on the bike. However, it seems like there is an increasing amount of drivers who are dangerous and impatient.

[DoubleD]

There are an increasing amount of cars on the road, so yes there is an increasing amount of bad drivers.

[krarkol]

Mave said:

Likewise, if a cyclist points out irresponsible behaviour of cyclist they are militant anti-christs Lycra warriors. It's not about cyclists versus horserider versus motorist; it's about responsible versus irresponsible.

Everyday, road users do stupid stuff, and responsible defensive driving people compensate. When I avoid being next to other cars at roundabouts I don't think I'm taking responsibility for their (lack of) lane discipline - I'm mitigating the potential for them to turn right from the left hand lane. If I see someone who looks like they don't know where they're going I give them a wide berth, and if I overtake a cyclist I give them loads of room.

Very true.

Except the law favours the minorities on the roads.

A few week back, I was driving down some unlit B roads at night. I came around a bend and realised there was a lad on a BMX with no lights on and to top it off, he was wearing dark clothing.
In the split second that I've noticed him, I knew if I braked I'd just go into the back of him anyway. Instead, I've swerved into the oncoming lane....just as another car was coming and as a result had a tight butt clenching moment as I've moved back over to my lane. My choice was, have a head on or take out the idiot on the bmx. I chose the latter and luckily passed both by millimetres.

Entirely his fault and I'm not saying all cyclists are like that

BUT

If I hit him, I honestly don't know if I'd have shot off or stopped and done the right thing. As a motorist, it's highly likely fingers would have automatically been pointed at me and I'd have had a ton of hassle and stress, just because nature was taking it's course.

[hairyben]

PoleDriver said:

Drunken cyclist falls off bike across road in front of car and it's the drivers fault!?

Only on the new PistonHeads Speed Matters

it's a perfect illustration of the blameless mentality of a % of cyclists - he posts up a drunken idiot falling off his bike with a lecture about what car drivers could do differently!