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

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

I didn't really have a point, other than to laugh

It's interesting though. Speaking from my perspective here in Sweden, most of the cyclists in urban traffic don't give a toss about rules, while most of the drivers follow the rules. I don't think the % of driving cyclists is as high as in the UK, but still quite a few should hold some sort of licence, then what is it that makes these law abiding drivers go into Falling Down mode when getting on the bike?

Getting back at the system, feeling a bit rebellious? I suppose we would all do some crazy st if the risk of getting caught was minimal, but then how many would still do the same if you risked injury or worse, it's quite interesting to see.

Having worked in Sweden and Denmark a fair bit I haven't ever struggled with cyclists. But then I don't have an anti cycling agenda to harvest

[Finlandia]

yonex said:

Having worked in Sweden and Denmark a fair bit I haven't ever struggled with cyclists. But then I don't have an anti cycling agenda to harvest

Denmark, no idea, but Sweden, even stats tell the same story, may depend on the city though.

[nickfrog]

DoubleD said:

Well I've just witnessed a cyclist ride on the wrong side of the road to avoid a line of traffic waiting at a red light due to roadworks where one lane is shut. Cyclist then rode his bike towards oncoming traffic down this narrow Lane with cars and trucks struggling to get past him. Our lights went green and a car heading in his direction overtook him rather too closely.

So as I've said before you get bad road use by all types of road user.

Exactly. So no need to report just the cyclists' bad behaviour. If I had to report every driver's ridiculous driving here I would be typing all day.

Stop sharing your witnessing. It's statistically non-conclusive.

As for amber/red at pedestrian crossings, I defy you to find a busy one where you won't see several jumpers at every change (including cyclists).

[yellowjack]

Grahamdub said:

yellowjack said:

. "Other than the three broken bottles and a discarded HGV cargo strap? No reason, really".

Genuine question - Why not stop and pick them up ? I regularly pick up debris from the path (including a pedestrian / cycle path) while I am out and about. The local council website normally has a way to report it too

Why would I? I don't need to, because there's a lovely carriageway that's clear of such obstructions available as an alternative.

Plus I don't carry a broom, dustpan, or sharps disposal box as part of my regular cycling kit. Perhaps if dheads didn't deliberately smash bottles onto cycle paths, then more cyclists might use them?

What do you suggest I do about overgrown weeds and trees, and cycle paths entirely obscured by vegetation? Carry a fking Scarab

and a chainsaw in my rucksack?

Serious answer? There is simply too much debris on cycle lanes, and too little management of vegetation, for me to have any meaningful effect on it. I'm far too busy trying to get places in good time to be stopping to pick someone else's crap up. I'll bet you don't interrupt a car journey to conduct a litter sweep?

[DoubleD]

nickfrog said:

DoubleD said:

Well I've just witnessed a cyclist ride on the wrong side of the road to avoid a line of traffic waiting at a red light due to roadworks where one lane is shut. Cyclist then rode his bike towards oncoming traffic down this narrow Lane with cars and trucks struggling to get past him. Our lights went green and a car heading in his direction overtook him rather too closely.

So as I've said before you get bad road use by all types of road user.

Exactly. So no need to report just the cyclists' bad behaviour. If I had to report every driver's ridiculous driving here I would be typing all day.

Stop sharing your witnessing. It's statistically non-conclusive.

As for amber/red at pedestrian crossings, I defy you to find a busy one where you won't see several jumpers at every change (including cyclists).

Yep that's why I mentioned bad road use from the cyclist and the driver. It's never as one sided as some on here like to make out.

[fatboy18]

yellowjack 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.

You have clearly never tried to ride the 'magnificently well built and superbly maintained' cycle path that follows the A3 southbound into Guildford. It is crap. Utter utter crap. Cracked to buggery, and dangerous to use due to low branches over it's entire width in places. That, and the fact that it's barely 3 inches wide between brambles and nettles for most of it's length, where it was probably at least 2 metres wide when built. I should rather use the left hand lane of the main carriageway of the A3 itself than the so-called "cycle path" alongside it. I won't. It's far preferable to find smaller roads that meander through pleasant countryside, so as a 'leisure cyclist' I'll use them instead. But for a commuter between Guildford and the inside of the M25? Only the main carriageway is really an option, but it's too dangerous to cycle upon it regularly. So I'd probably just add to the congestion and use my car.

Seriously? I have no issue ignoring crappy 'bike lanes' myself. I have no issue with other cyclists doing so when I want to drive. If YOU are a driver who does have a problem with this, simply get on a bike, ride the crappy bike lanes (hint - take plenty of patches and a pump, you'll need them ) and take photos of the crappy state they are in. Then use those photos to lobby your local council into maintaining those crappy bike paths. If they stopped being crappy, and started getting looked after properly, then I might even consider using them myself. I can honestly say that I don't think ANY of our local cycle paths have been so much as swept since they were opened. The carriageways of our roads, however, are 'swept' every day by the tyres of passing motor vehicles, and are therefore far less likely to cause me to suffer a puncture. Case in point? About two weeks ago I was challenged for "not using the bike lane" by someone in a car (at some traffic lights). Because it seemed phrased as a genuine question, I answered it without (much) sarcasm. "Other than the three broken bottles and a discarded HGV cargo strap? No reason, really".

Well then you lot need to complain to the council about the current state of the cycle lanes just like I have to complain about the state of the assault courses they attempt to call Roads

[fatboy18]

PHmember said:

Riley Blue 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.

But will it stop cyclists filtering in slow moving traffic when there's less than a metre and a half of room?

No, because it's about cars overtaking cyclists. If a bike is filtering passed a car then the cyclist isn't being overtaken.

but this is my point, you could argue that when traffic starts to speed up, cars are FILTERING past cyclists! Im not taking about fast moving traffic but slow moving traffic but still slightly faster than the bike.

[deltashad]

yellowjack said:

Why would I? I don't need to, because there's a lovely carriageway that's clear of such obstructions available as an alternative.

Plus I don't carry a broom, dustpan, or sharps disposal box as part of my regular cycling kit. Perhaps if dheads didn't deliberately smash bottles onto cycle paths, then more cyclists might use them?

What do you suggest I do about overgrown weeds and trees, and cycle paths entirely obscured by vegetation? Carry a fking Scarab

and a chainsaw in my rucksack?

Serious answer? There is simply too much debris on cycle lanes, and too little management of vegetation, for me to have any meaningful effect on it. I'm far too busy trying to get places in good time to be stopping to pick someone else's crap up. I'll bet you don't interrupt a car journey to conduct a litter sweep?

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

[CampDavid]

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

You drive an Elise and an Integrali and are telling people to adapt their vehicles to suit road conditions.

You are telling cyclists what to do despite having not ridden one in 40 years.

You are, pretty much, everything that's wrong with the internet.

[4U2P]

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

ps off. The roads are for everyone to use. You are only there by revocable privilege in your little car. Bikes peds and horse riders use the roads by right. If you have a problem with this, fk off to the motorway. The only roads in the U.K. Built exclusively for motorists.

[anonymous-user]

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

Another one who thinks the two are mutually exclusive. You just don't get this do you?

[FiF]

More in reality that the 2% that are split between the opposite ends of the spectrum, and who both think the other lot on the other side are automatically wrong about everything and are also the spawn of Satan, it's that 2% who don't get it.

Meanwhile the 98% in the middle somewhere think that both sides of that 2% are just a set of clowns, or perhaps another word beginning with C.

[Ares]

DottyMR2 said:

<snip> Cyclists need to stop trying to break their commute record by 4 seconds and take more responsibility for their own safety <snip>

There is your issue. At the risk of repeating myself, commuters are the issue, not the kind of cyclist that held up our now notorious original poster, nor the kind of cyclist that sits in a peloton/group of 2+whilst out on a leisurely ride.

[Ares]

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

Wins my vote for stupid reply of the month.

Because you want to drive on the road, I should adapt my road bike to ride off road. Priceless.

[yellowjack]

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

Hmmm?

To borrow from the bard...

W Shakespeare said:

I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed

To address your points:

I NEVER "give up". It's not in me to "give up". Two fractured vertebrae didn't stop me in the '90s. A broken scapula didn't stop me a couple of years ago when I bounced off a van that 'T-boned' me at a roundabout I was already on.

I use my car often. Shopping, taking my family out, moving stuff I can't carry on a bike, or when I don't fancy getting soaked or suffering from 'helmet hair'.

I have three bicycles. All three are different, and already perfectly adapted to the conditions in which they are intended for use. My ROAD BIKE for instance, is excellent for use on ROADS. My winterised road bike has especially grippy rubber and full mudguards for when it's wet outside on the ROADS. And my OFF ROAD mountain bike? Why that has knobbly tyres and low gearing which means that it excels when used OFF ROAD. So I DO use bikes perfectly adapted to suit conditions.

When you were a lad, tyre technology was crap, to be fair. Because it sounds like you were a lad round about the same time as I was. But if you see a pothole or some large debris while driving your car, do you drive around it or over it, I wonder? Because punctures are a major problem if you have somewhere to be, and are an expense too. Would you happily pay out for repairs or replacement tyres on a regular basis for your car if these problems could be avoided by driving further toward the crown of the road? My guess is not. I don't worrry about taking up any measured proportion of the road. I use whatever road space is available for me to make safe progress to my destination. If that sometimes means 'taking my lane' then I'll do that, but wherever it's safe to move to my nearside I'll do that too. Moving around within my lane, just like car drivers do.

I don't think you do "get it". I like bikes, but I like cars (and driving) too. I love off road MTBing, my first love is road cycling away from urban areas, in the beautiful countryside of Hampshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Sussex. I ride all year round, winter, summer, and everything in between. The only thing that keeps me off the roads is ice and snow, and/or mist and fog. Perversely, possibly, given the state of our roads and traffic volumes, I even enjoy driving. Although I'd far prefer to be on rural 'A' and 'B' roads stuck behind a dozen cycling pensioners than on a motorway with thousands of idiots who can barely control the speed and direction of their car without wandering about between lanes with no warning at all.

I'm in my mid 40s. So "back in the 70s" (even as a seven-year-old) I KNEW that cyclists were not a danger to traffic. My father taught me how to ride as part of the traffic and he supervised me closely until he was satisfied that I was safe to head out on my own. What danger do you suppose a squishy human on a bicycle poses to "traffic", I wonder? Do you have nightmares about one of these dangerous 'carriages' hurtling through your windscreen and killing you dead? There is nothing dangerous about a bicycle to most traffic. Not even a badly ridden bicycle if we are going to labour the point. In much the same way as there is little dangerous about well-driven motor vehicles. Sadly, there are very many poorly driven motor vehicles, and they all pose a danger to other road users. Even to other motor vehicle operators. The magnitude of the danger posed is on a sort of sliding scale based on the vulnerability of whatever it is they hit. Motor vehicles kill and injure many pedestrians in an average year, for instance. Cyclists kill or injure pedestrians so infrequently that when they do it makes NATIONAL news headlines, whereas deaths in or caused by cars are so common that they seem to barely trouble the headline writers on the local Chronicle.

As for punctures? Any pneumatic tyre fitted to any conveyance may suffer from a puncture. I suffer from them rather infrequently, now that I've learned to avoid the glass and bramble hotspots that are otherwise described as "cycle paths".


For the avoidance of doubt, the legal definition of "road" is along the lines of 'the full width of such land that is set aside for the conveyance of persons and vehicles'. "
"Pavement" is simply the sealed surface upon which vehicles and persons are conveyed. It's almost always incorrectly used here in the UK, yet it's one area of the English language where the Americans get it right. "Footway" is exactly that. The part of the "road" set aside for use solely by pedestrians. The "carriageway" is provided for the use of ALL "road" users, including pedestrians. In a wonderful quirk of fate, in 1879 the judgment in the case of 'Taylor vs Goodwin' caused bicycles to be legally defined as "carriages". Bicyclists are therefore REQUIRED to use the "carriageway" and in fact are PROHIBITED from using the "footway". "Shared use paths" which would previously have been dedicated as "footways" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There is no national minimum legal standard for width, nor for surface quality, as far as I am aware. Many seem to be an exercise in box-ticking by local authorities, and from my own personal viewpoint they are all utterly pointless if, once completed and opened with great fanfare, they attract no maintenance and end up disappearing under nature within a few short years.

[Ares]

yellowjack said:

deltashad said:

Give up. Use your car or adapt your bike to suit road conditions.
I was getting regular punctures when I was a lad on my bike. It didn't mean I took up half the road to overcome this problem.
We get it. You guys like bikes. I like mine. Take it off the road. Have no idea how old you are but when I was 7 back in the 70s I knew bikes were a danger to traffic and I may get a puncture.

Hmmm?

To borrow from the bard...

W Shakespeare said:

I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed

To address your points:

I NEVER "give up". It's not in me to "give up". Two fractured vertebrae didn't stop me in the '90s. A broken scapula didn't stop me a couple of years ago when I bounced off a van that 'T-boned' me at a roundabout I was already on.

I use my car often. Shopping, taking my family out, moving stuff I can't carry on a bike, or when I don't fancy getting soaked or suffering from 'helmet hair'.

I have three bicycles. All three are different, and already perfectly adapted to the conditions in which they are intended for use. My ROAD BIKE for instance, is excellent for use on ROADS. My winterised road bike has especially grippy rubber and full mudguards for when it's wet outside on the ROADS. And my OFF ROAD mountain bike? Why that has knobbly tyres and low gearing which means that it excels when used OFF ROAD. So I DO use bikes perfectly adapted to suit conditions.

When you were a lad, tyre technology was crap, to be fair. Because it sounds like you were a lad round about the same time as I was. But if you see a pothole or some large debris while driving your car, do you drive around it or over it, I wonder? Because punctures are a major problem if you have somewhere to be, and are an expense too. Would you happily pay out for repairs or replacement tyres on a regular basis for your car if these problems could be avoided by driving further toward the crown of the road? My guess is not. I don't worrry about taking up any measured proportion of the road. I use whatever road space is available for me to make safe progress to my destination. If that sometimes means 'taking my lane' then I'll do that, but wherever it's safe to move to my nearside I'll do that too. Moving around within my lane, just like car drivers do.

I don't think you do "get it". I like bikes, but I like cars (and driving) too. I love off road MTBing, my first love is road cycling away from urban areas, in the beautiful countryside of Hampshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Sussex. I ride all year round, winter, summer, and everything in between. The only thing that keeps me off the roads is ice and snow, and/or mist and fog. Perversely, possibly, given the state of our roads and traffic volumes, I even enjoy driving. Although I'd far prefer to be on rural 'A' and 'B' roads stuck behind a dozen cycling pensioners than on a motorway with thousands of idiots who can barely control the speed and direction of their car without wandering about between lanes with no warning at all.

I'm in my mid 40s. So "back in the 70s" (even as a seven-year-old) I KNEW that cyclists were not a danger to traffic. My father taught me how to ride as part of the traffic and he supervised me closely until he was satisfied that I was safe to head out on my own. What danger do you suppose a squishy human on a bicycle poses to "traffic", I wonder? Do you have nightmares about one of these dangerous 'carriages' hurtling through your windscreen and killing you dead? There is nothing dangerous about a bicycle to most traffic. Not even a badly ridden bicycle if we are going to labour the point. In much the same way as there is little dangerous about well-driven motor vehicles. Sadly, there are very many poorly driven motor vehicles, and they all pose a danger to other road users. Even to other motor vehicle operators. The magnitude of the danger posed is on a sort of sliding scale based on the vulnerability of whatever it is they hit. Motor vehicles kill and injure many pedestrians in an average year, for instance. Cyclists kill or injure pedestrians so infrequently that when they do it makes NATIONAL news headlines, whereas deaths in or caused by cars are so common that they seem to barely trouble the headline writers on the local Chronicle.

As for punctures? Any pneumatic tyre fitted to any conveyance may suffer from a puncture. I suffer from them rather infrequently, now that I've learned to avoid the glass and bramble hotspots that are otherwise described as "cycle paths".


For the avoidance of doubt, the legal definition of "road" is along the lines of 'the full width of such land that is set aside for the conveyance of persons and vehicles'. "
"Pavement" is simply the sealed surface upon which vehicles and persons are conveyed. It's almost always incorrectly used here in the UK, yet it's one area of the English language where the Americans get it right. "Footway" is exactly that. The part of the "road" set aside for use solely by pedestrians. The "carriageway" is provided for the use of ALL "road" users, including pedestrians. In a wonderful quirk of fate, in 1879 the judgment in the case of 'Taylor vs Goodwin' caused bicycles to be legally defined as "carriages". Bicyclists are therefore REQUIRED to use the "carriageway" and in fact are PROHIBITED from using the "footway". "Shared use paths" which would previously have been dedicated as "footways" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There is no national minimum legal standard for width, nor for surface quality, as far as I am aware. Many seem to be an exercise in box-ticking by local authorities, and from my own personal viewpoint they are all utterly pointless if, once completed and opened with great fanfare, they attract no maintenance and end up disappearing under nature within a few short years.

Here Here

[rampageturke]

this thread is still going?

[Ares]

rampageturke said:

this thread is still going?

<checks>

Yes

[ambuletz]

i decided to look yp taylor v goodwin. one thing led to another and I found this from wiki

[i]
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, amended 2003, cyclists not included in law making it illegal to talk on a mobile phone.[/i]

[yellowjack]

ambuletz said:

i decided to look yp taylor v goodwin. one thing led to another and I found this from wiki

[i]
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, amended 2003, cyclists not included in law making it illegal to talk on a mobile phone.[/i]

I see plenty of dheads doing it. Usually while riding on a footway, and smoking a fag. It might well not be illegal, but it's fking stupid. You need both hands to operate the brakes effectively and safely for a start.

And the Taylor vs Goodwin judgement? That came about because a cyclist hit a pedestrian, I believe. Hence why learned members of the legal profession regarded it as the far safer option to classify bicycles as carriages, and have them use the carriageway and not the footway...