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

[WinstonWolf]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hoofy said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

No, I can't. As you said it please enlighten us as to what action you think drivers will take?

Well duh, its not hard to imagine, really it isn't

I don't think he read what I wrote carefully so thinks I'm an angry, cyclist-hating driver, and he thinks he's trying to bait me into threatening to do something to a cyclist because this is Twitter not PH.

FWIW, I regularly get overtaken by cyclists when driving through Richmond Park. It's quite funny. I might say hello to them next time.

So it was just hot air....

I've got some bad news for you. In one week your morning commute will become massively congested and slow as the school run resumes. What action are you going to take against them?

Every time we drive other road users hold us up. Learn to deal with it or have a coronary as you sit in your tin box getting in a rage.

It's gonna get worse when we drive, not better.

You have still totally missed the point about who may take action. Its not hoof, but there are all sorts of nasty road rage tosses who will think nothing of smacking inconsiderate cyclists like the ones this thread is about.

I'd say smacking other road users about marks you out a bit of a tosser...

Why the hurry, it's only a race to the next jam caused by too many four wheelers.

All those school runners next week, I can feel the rage building already

[blueg33]

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hoofy said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

No, I can't. As you said it please enlighten us as to what action you think drivers will take?

Well duh, its not hard to imagine, really it isn't

I don't think he read what I wrote carefully so thinks I'm an angry, cyclist-hating driver, and he thinks he's trying to bait me into threatening to do something to a cyclist because this is Twitter not PH.

FWIW, I regularly get overtaken by cyclists when driving through Richmond Park. It's quite funny. I might say hello to them next time.

So it was just hot air....

I've got some bad news for you. In one week your morning commute will become massively congested and slow as the school run resumes. What action are you going to take against them?

Every time we drive other road users hold us up. Learn to deal with it or have a coronary as you sit in your tin box getting in a rage.

It's gonna get worse when we drive, not better.

You have still totally missed the point about who may take action. Its not hoof, but there are all sorts of nasty road rage tosses who will think nothing of smacking inconsiderate cyclists like the ones this thread is about.

I'd say smacking other road users about marks you out a bit of a tosser...

Why the hurry, it's only a race to the next jam caused by too many four wheelers.

All those school runners next week, I can feel the rage building already

Neither I nor hoof are saying its what we would do, but making the point that there are plenty that would.

[Hoofy]

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hoofy said:

blueg33 said:

WinstonWolf said:

No, I can't. As you said it please enlighten us as to what action you think drivers will take?

Well duh, its not hard to imagine, really it isn't

I don't think he read what I wrote carefully so thinks I'm an angry, cyclist-hating driver, and he thinks he's trying to bait me into threatening to do something to a cyclist because this is Twitter not PH.

FWIW, I regularly get overtaken by cyclists when driving through Richmond Park. It's quite funny. I might say hello to them next time.

So it was just hot air....

I've got some bad news for you. In one week your morning commute will become massively congested and slow as the school run resumes. What action are you going to take against them?

Every time we drive other road users hold us up. Learn to deal with it or have a coronary as you sit in your tin box getting in a rage.

It's gonna get worse when we drive, not better.

You have still totally missed the point about who may take action. Its not hoof, but there are all sorts of nasty road rage tosses who will think nothing of smacking inconsiderate cyclists like the ones this thread is about.

I'd say smacking other road users about marks you out a bit of a tosser...

Why the hurry, it's only a race to the next jam caused by too many four wheelers.

All those school runners next week, I can feel the rage building already

Neither I nor hoof are saying its what we would do, but making the point that there are plenty that would.

I'm giving up with him. He's selectively reading.

[Hoofy]

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

WinstonWolf said:

Smokey32 said:

Next time just overtake the selfish lycra faggots. If they dont wanna go single file thats there problem.

Welcome to PH. You're an utter asshat...

As much as he is an asshat for suggesting people drive in such a manner, people WILL drive in this manner if cyclists don't behave in a more courteous manner.

People WILL take risks (well, they're not risky for the driver!), or squeeze by or consider letting a rear tyre rub against their bumper to fk up the cyclist's ability to ride or throw things at them or something else I haven't instantly thought of. The popularity of cycling as a sport is increasing and this will result in more people being annoyed. Most people are rational and sensible but more easily irritated people will take action at some point. The cyclist might be in the right and they might have the law on their side but the only way the law can protect them is if they cycle in an armoured shell made of law books at the moment of impact.

It's up to cyclists, really.

If I started doing yoga on the A3, I'm sure I'd catch a can of coke in the face if not a bumper.

If I'm cycling, I'll stick to cycle paths and try not to hold people up.

Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 27th August 19:01

Why is it always the cyclist that has to behave in a courteous manner, why can't the drivers? It's not up to cyclists, it's up to EVERYONE to behave appropriately and if that means waiting for a few extra seconds before passing then bloody wait, it's not going to kill you and you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all.

Back on the car in front? Are you another cyclist who can't read?

[Antony Moxey]

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

WinstonWolf said:

Smokey32 said:

Next time just overtake the selfish lycra faggots. If they dont wanna go single file thats there problem.

Welcome to PH. You're an utter asshat...

As much as he is an asshat for suggesting people drive in such a manner, people WILL drive in this manner if cyclists don't behave in a more courteous manner.

People WILL take risks (well, they're not risky for the driver!), or squeeze by or consider letting a rear tyre rub against their bumper to fk up the cyclist's ability to ride or throw things at them or something else I haven't instantly thought of. The popularity of cycling as a sport is increasing and this will result in more people being annoyed. Most people are rational and sensible but more easily irritated people will take action at some point. The cyclist might be in the right and they might have the law on their side but the only way the law can protect them is if they cycle in an armoured shell made of law books at the moment of impact.

It's up to cyclists, really.

If I started doing yoga on the A3, I'm sure I'd catch a can of coke in the face if not a bumper.

If I'm cycling, I'll stick to cycle paths and try not to hold people up.

Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 27th August 19:01

Why is it always the cyclist that has to behave in a courteous manner, why can't the drivers? It's not up to cyclists, it's up to EVERYONE to behave appropriately and if that means waiting for a few extra seconds before passing then bloody wait, it's not going to kill you and you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all.

Back on the car in front? Are you another cyclist who can't read?

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

[Hoofy]

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

[Antony Moxey]

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

[Hoofy]

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

What does this mean: "you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all."?

[FiF]

DoubleD said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Whilst I generally agree with that, then the bit I don't get is as follows, when a driver has been patient and waited for a suitable opportunity and made the effort to give space, only to be held up for some reason, why filter past them, back into a position where there isn't room to pass safely and make them do it all again. Rinse and repeat.

And if your argument is, well instead of repeat overtakes and catching the vehicle in front up again, it isn't going to kill you to just wait a few seconds etc applies to drivers, then it applies to cyclists too

If it's happening over and over again, doesn't that imply that the average speed of the bike is the same as the average speed of the car? In which case, why keep overtaking just to rush to the next set of lights or traffic jam?

Yeah thats true. In that situation once over taken you should just stay behind. Good point.

It's a pity that my post was selectively quoted because that touched on the issue that it depends on the clearly visible circumstances. If there's not much space and another delay clearly up ahead, then agree it's pointless going round the iterative reovertakes.

If the distances between delays are longer, ie you can't see the next delay and there's room ahead to get by, then different matter.

Still maintain that if the general pace of both parties forward is the same, and the space is limited, the idea that repeated overtakes are a bit dim applies to all sides frankly. Obviously there will be some on both sides who don't agree with that due to bias. Just my 2 pence.

[Antony Moxey]

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

What does this mean: "you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all."?

It means it won't take long to catch up with the car in front of the cyclist that you've just overtaken. What do you think it means?

[Hoofy]

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

What does this mean: "you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all."?

It means it won't take long to catch up with the car in front of the cyclist that you've just overtaken. What do you think it means?

Sounds like something someone would do who tailgates.

[Antony Moxey]

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

What does this mean: "you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all."?

It means it won't take long to catch up with the car in front of the cyclist that you've just overtaken. What do you think it means?

Sounds like something someone would do who tailgates.

Or just something that happens every time you overtake something - you catch up with whatever else is in front, unless there's absolutely nothing between you and your destination each time you go out in your car.

So first you think I'm accusing you of being an aggressive driver then you're suggesting that catching something up means tailgating. Like I said previously, some people just read what they want to read.

[Hoofy]

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

Hoofy said:

Antony Moxey said:

No. My reading's fine thanks. I'm not a cyclist either, I'm just a bloke who enjoys both riding and driving and when doing one try to be as tolerant and accommodating of someone doing the other (ooh-err).

You seem to think I'm an aggressive driver. I'd only ever catch the car in front if they had stopped at red lights...

I made no such assumptions. Of course people read what they want to but I've given no indication whatsoever that I have any views on your driving style.

What does this mean: "you'll be back on the car in front's number plate in no time at all."?

It means it won't take long to catch up with the car in front of the cyclist that you've just overtaken. What do you think it means?

Sounds like something someone would do who tailgates.

Or just something that happens every time you overtake something - you catch up with whatever else is in front, unless there's absolutely nothing between you and your destination each time you go out in your car.

So first you think I'm accusing you of being an aggressive driver then you're suggesting that catching something up means tailgating. Like I said previously, some people just read what they want to read.

"Back on the car's number plate" sounds more than just catching up. At least we understand each other now.

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

Yeah thats true. In that situation once over taken you should just stay behind. Good point.

Who do you think should overtake only once? The cyclist who can improve their average speed by filtering, or the motorist who can't improve their average speed due to congestion?

[DoubleD]

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

Yeah thats true. In that situation once over taken you should just stay behind. Good point.

Who do you think should overtake only once? The cyclist who can improve their average speed by filtering, or the motorist who can't improve their average speed due to congestion?

You said that the average speed of the bike and the car was the same.

[Hoofy]

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

Yeah thats true. In that situation once over taken you should just stay behind. Good point.

Who do you think should overtake only once? The cyclist who can improve their average speed by filtering, or the motorist who can't improve their average speed due to congestion?

Maybe it should be law that the first person to overtake stays in front. #bewareofcyclistspoppingoutfromsideroadswhenyou'reinslowmovingtraffic

[FiF]

At the risk of labouring the "it all depends on the circumstances" point here are some examples.

Let's assume the hold up is a set of lights.

If the next hold up is visible and a shortish distance beyond the lights, even a couple of hundred yards, and especially if the road is narrow then as far asI'm concerned cyclists should be allowed to increase their average by filtering to the front and allowed to stay there, ie don't reovertake them once past the lights on the way to the next hold up.

Reverse of that, if the road beyond the lights is clear for some reasonable distance, ie there isn't another hold up within sight, and the road is narrow so overtakes difficult then cyclists should not filter to the front but accept that vehicles ahead of them are ahead and let them get on.

If in the second situation the road is clear but is wide and overtaking easy, does it really matter? Filter to the front/or not as desired, there is no difficulty for people to get past should they want.

Other examples?

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

Yeah thats true. In that situation once over taken you should just stay behind. Good point.

Who do you think should overtake only once? The cyclist who can improve their average speed by filtering, or the motorist who can't improve their average speed due to congestion?

You said that the average speed of the bike and the car was the same.

Yes, and in that example I also said that they were both overtaking many times. If you stop the car overtaking then their average speed stays the same because their average speed is set by congestion. If you stop the bike overtaking then their average speed drops because their peak speed in between stationary traffic is slower.

[Hoofy]

FiF said:

At the risk of labouring the "it all depends on the circumstances" point here are some examples.

Let's assume the hold up is a set of lights.

If the next hold up is visible and a shortish distance beyond the lights, even a couple of hundred yards, and especially if the road is narrow then as far asI'm concerned cyclists should be allowed to increase their average by filtering to the front and allowed to stay there, ie don't reovertake them once past the lights on the way to the next hold up.

Reverse of that, if the road beyond the lights is clear for some reasonable distance, ie there isn't another hold up within sight, and the road is narrow so overtakes difficult then cyclists should not filter to the front but accept that vehicles ahead of them are ahead and let them get on.

If in the second situation the road is clear but is wide and overtaking easy, does it really matter? Filter to the front/or not as desired, there is no difficulty for people to get past should they want.

Other examples?

You're not welcome here with your sense and logic.

[Mave]

Hoofy said:

Maybe it should be law that the first person to overtake stays in front. #bewareofcyclistspoppingoutfromsideroadswhenyou'reinslowmovingtraffic

Maybe it should be law that everyone tries all types of transportation so they understand what "considerate" and "inconsiderate" behaviour actually feels like to other forms of transport... :-)