Overtaking cyclists
Discussion
skoff said:
On my cycle tour to Le Mans this year it was very interesting to see the different attitude of the French to cyclists. They are so much more considerate. Give plenty of room, overtake where it's safe for both parties - showing respect for a fellow human being.
What's important is that a car driver is in a big metal box with a huge amount of inertia and the cyclist is really very vulnerable in comparison. I don't care how stupid the cyclist is behaving - a death sentence is too harsh. Anybody who has the attitude that it's ok to risk somebody's life because they don't like something about their chosen method of transport, or how they behave is an idiot.
I am a car driver and a keen cyclist, and yes I get frustrated with some cyclists who have slowed me down when I am in my car, but being 2 minutes late is far better than having a dead cyclist and their family on my conscience.
I think the OP has a very good point. Drivers who behave wrecklessly to cyclists should be forced to ride a bicycle for a week, to demonstrate how frightening and dangerous the attitude of some drivers can be.
What's important is that a car driver is in a big metal box with a huge amount of inertia and the cyclist is really very vulnerable in comparison. I don't care how stupid the cyclist is behaving - a death sentence is too harsh. Anybody who has the attitude that it's ok to risk somebody's life because they don't like something about their chosen method of transport, or how they behave is an idiot.
I am a car driver and a keen cyclist, and yes I get frustrated with some cyclists who have slowed me down when I am in my car, but being 2 minutes late is far better than having a dead cyclist and their family on my conscience.
I think the OP has a very good point. Drivers who behave wrecklessly to cyclists should be forced to ride a bicycle for a week, to demonstrate how frightening and dangerous the attitude of some drivers can be.
Obviously there are idiots in cars and on bikes. Cyclists, in my opinion, deserve as much respect as horse riders get when being overtaken by (most) cars. People seem to slow down and give room to horses but too often squeeze past a cyclist in an unsafe manner.
When I am cycling I make sure that I am aware of what's going on behind me. For example, one stretch of road I cycle along daily is quite narrow and buses/lorries cannot overtake easily, therefore if one is behind with no safe opportunity to pass, I move onto the pavement to let them through (yes I know cycling on the pavement is illegal). A little give and take by cyclists and motorists is all that is required.
When I am cycling I make sure that I am aware of what's going on behind me. For example, one stretch of road I cycle along daily is quite narrow and buses/lorries cannot overtake easily, therefore if one is behind with no safe opportunity to pass, I move onto the pavement to let them through (yes I know cycling on the pavement is illegal). A little give and take by cyclists and motorists is all that is required.
Dibby said:
CRAPLOGINNAME said:
Now, granted we were riding two abreast
I think there's the problem the Porsche driver had.I'm a cyclist too and it makes me wince when I see 2 (or more) abreast or riders too far out into the road. It doesn't do the cycling community any good.
Had we been on a winding lane, an A road etc. we'd have been singled up. We were on a quiet B road, very wide with masses of visibility coming the other way so we took the decision that it was safe to ride two abreast for a short time possibly to discuss the route or whatever
I honestly don't mind and would much prefer it if when drivers were approaching they gave two hoots of the horn (sounds less agressive than one long blast) to warn that they're coming and then we'd slot in and they'd get passed. But Tony raises a good point and it's one I've debated in my mind many times. If we ride two abreast we take the choice away from impatient motorsist and they have to plan ahead and overtake properly (like everyone seems to with horses, or is that because they have big steel hooves and they don't mix well with shiny paintwork). But I still worry that they won't think like that and try to squeeze past regardless. Self preservation seems like a good idea until you're in the firing line and trying it out yourself.
TonyHetherington said:
Riding two abreast I can see a very good advantage; and that's the drivers actually need to PLAN an overtake. How many times have you seen a car come up behind a cyclist and overtake instnatly. regardless of where it is; on a corner, a blind bend, tight lane - you name it, very few drivers actually plan an overtake on a cyclist and that is why so many get so close to the cyclist, and to the cars on the other side of the road.
However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
Can't see it i'm afraid.However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
Cyclists should be single file all the time. There is no excuse for riding 2 (or more) abreast.
For instance, a brow of a hill. Even the slowest of cars is going to crest the brow, even if driven sensibly, at a fair decent closing speed on a cyclist. Only to discover two cyclists using their god given right to use all the road. And guess who is in the wrong - the motorist as per normal.
The only persons at danger are the cyclists themselves. Makes no difference to the driver what the outcome is. Makes a huge difference to the future health of the cyclists though.
Seriously, cyclists must be the only set of people who expect everyone else to take care of their safety rather than themselves putting their own safety first. Cycling 2 abreast I ask you.
The difference between overtaking 2 cyclists and 1 cyclist is enormous. 2 cyclists have to be treated as car width, requiring you to use the full right hand lane for several seconds. If a cyclist is travelling at 15 mph, what gear does the car have to be in to get past quickly? There is no momentum for the car, so the car generally has to do 15mph before seeing the gap, changing down to 2nd, and then accelerating. The motorist is then in the oncoming lane for FAR longer than they need to be.
Compare that against a well executed overtake where the speed of the car is higher and simply spends less time in the oncoming lane.
tinman0 said:
TonyHetherington said:
Riding two abreast I can see a very good advantage; and that's the drivers actually need to PLAN an overtake. How many times have you seen a car come up behind a cyclist and overtake instnatly. regardless of where it is; on a corner, a blind bend, tight lane - you name it, very few drivers actually plan an overtake on a cyclist and that is why so many get so close to the cyclist, and to the cars on the other side of the road.
However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
Can't see it i'm afraid.However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
Cyclists should be single file all the time. There is no excuse for riding 2 (or more) abreast.
For instance, a brow of a hill. Even the slowest of cars is going to crest the brow, even if driven sensibly, at a fair decent closing speed on a cyclist. Only to discover two cyclists using their god given right to use all the road. And guess who is in the wrong - the motorist as per normal.
What you mean is, compare that to a lone cyclist, where you simply blast past them, ignoring their presence, scaring the shit out of them, quite possibly sending them off the road or under the wheels of whatever may be around.
Oh, and, Cyclists DO have a right to the road. No less than a car.
Oh, and, Cyclists DO have a right to the road. No less than a car.
Marcellus said:
tonyhetherington said:
Riding two abreast I can see a very good advantage; and that's the drivers actually need to PLAN an overtake. How many times have you seen a car come up behind a cyclist and overtake instnatly. regardless of where it is; on a corner, a blind bend, tight lane - you name it, very few drivers actually plan an overtake on a cyclist and that is why so many get so close to the cyclist, and to the cars on the other side of the road.
However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
It is exactly for this reason why most clubs when out training do ride 2 abreast.........then as per the OPs point when a car is behind calling "car up/Oil down" and forming single file as soon as reasonable to do so.......However, when there's two cyclists it means that you must slow and plan the overtake. I would wager it makes the overtake safer
I say this as a non-cyclist car driver.
The guy on the back would normally be on watch for cars approaching and make a call based on the road we were on and even wave a driver through if he had good enough visibility to help out. Most drivers appreciated this though, as ever, some were outraged at our blatent attempts to slow down their Sunday morning pop to the shops...
tinman0 said:
For instance, a brow of a hill. Even the slowest of cars is going to crest the brow, even if driven sensibly, at a fair decent closing speed on a cyclist. Only to discover two cyclists using their god given right to use all the road. And guess who is in the wrong - the motorist as per normal.
The motorist would 100% be in the wrong in that instance. "You must always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear". The brow of a hill you see very little, if anything, and so your speed should be minimal at most.
I would also contest that "...a well executed overtake where the speed of the car is higher and simply spends less time in the oncoming lane." is overtaking incorrectly. You must enter the opposing lane, decide if it's correct overtake and THEN start to accelerate. If you turn up to the cyclists "where the speed of the car is higher" the potential for aborting an overtake and going into the back of the cyclists is huge. (for more info on this, there's some good discussions in the Advanced Driving forum about the correct overtaking manor).
Parrot of Doom said:
Zoom_Jones said:
If its about keeping fit how come you have enough breath left to carry on a conversation? I can't see any other reason for riding 2 abreast. What can they possibly be discussing?
If you can't ride a bike and talk you must be a pretty big fat pie eater. People don't ride 2-abreast to converse. They do it to stop idiots from thinking they can overtake where there isn't space.snotrag said:
What you mean is, compare that to a lone cyclist, where you simply blast past them, ignoring their presence, scaring the shit out of them, quite possibly sending them off the road or under the wheels of whatever may be around.
Oh, and, Cyclists DO have a right to the road. No less than a car.
Strictly speaking, moreso since they do not require any tax or licence.Oh, and, Cyclists DO have a right to the road. No less than a car.
Cyclists have a right in law to use the roads. Motorists do not.
tinman0 said:
The difference between overtaking 2 cyclists and 1 cyclist is enormous. 2 cyclists have to be treated as car width, requiring you to use the full right hand lane for several seconds. If a cyclist is travelling at 15 mph, what gear does the car have to be in to get past quickly? There is no momentum for the car, so the car generally has to do 15mph before seeing the gap, changing down to 2nd, and then accelerating. The motorist is then in the oncoming lane for FAR longer than they need to be.
Compare that against a well executed overtake where the speed of the car is higher and simply spends less time in the oncoming lane.
Er, that's the whole point. Driving in the manner you suggest will see you embedded in the back end of a traffic queue, slow-moving vehicle or possibly killing a cyclist. Compare that against a well executed overtake where the speed of the car is higher and simply spends less time in the oncoming lane.
Good move.
Not.
Do you drive a 2CV or something similarly asthmatic that seemingly can't pull past a bicycle unless there's a mile-long clear straight ahead?
Drive to the distance you can see to be safe and accept that once in a while you may have to arrive home 27 seconds later than usual.
Nick_F said:
Try riding at 30mph on a cycle path and see how far you get.
To town, certainly more quickly than cycling on the main carriageway as the cycle route goes as the crow flies. We're talking wide, smooth, purpose built mini cycling roads here not tiny some gravel path. They're also in a lot better condition than parts of the main carriageway, less potholes etc.Still, Darwin's principle. If they want to risk it by using a 60mph dual carriage road so be it.
pdV6 said:
Stuff
I gave both cyclists a wide berth, when they were single file. When cyclist at the back decided to swerve out to overtake the cyclist at the front this is when I had to swerve as I was in the middle of overtaking them. Am I supposed to anticipate this? If so please tell me how. The reason I didn't crash is because I did plan my overtake (nothing coming) and I did give them a wide berth (didn't run over cyclist who didn't bother to check over his shoulder that there was nothing coming).I tooted at the cyclist who wobbled in front of me as I toot at all vehicles that encroach into my lane. I find that warning people is rather preferable to smashing into them.
You do realise that by that post you are propagating the stereotype that your post is supposedly trying to oppose. By calling me a t
t you are now no different to the fellows who’ve shown me their middle fingers.tinman0 said:
For instance, a brow of a hill. Even the slowest of cars is going to crest the brow, even if driven sensibly, at a fair decent closing speed on a cyclist. Only to discover two cyclists using their god given right to use all the road. And guess who is in the wrong - the motorist as per normal.
Uhm...paulmurr said:
I gave both cyclists a wide berth, when they were single file. When cyclist at the back decided to swerve out to overtake the cyclist at the front this is when I had to swerve as I was in the middle of overtaking them.
Then why the need to swerve? Especially seeing as the oncoming lane was clear (which you didn't seem to know until you did it)paulmurr said:
Am I supposed to anticipate this? If so please tell me how.
No need. If the oncoming lane was clear then why not simply use it in the first place thus giving either cyclist the opportunity to fall over or overtake without you hitting them?paulmurr said:
The reason I didn't crash is because I did plan my overtake (nothing coming)
Ah. But you said you didn't know that until you swerved into the oncoming lane.paulmurr said:
and I did give them a wide berth
Not wide enough if you still needed to swerve.paulmurr said:
I tooted at the cyclist who wobbled in front of me as I toot at all vehicles that encroach into my lane. I find that warning people is rather preferable to smashing into them.
Bit late if he was "wobbling" - just maybe he didn't want to be unstable at that point and your everso helpful horn action just diverted precious attention away from the serious business of staying soft side up? Not everything's about you, you know.paulmurr said:
I tooted at the cyclist who wobbled in front of me as I toot at all vehicles that encroach into my lane.
Except, they weren't encroaching on YOUR lane were they? The cyclist was there before you, you caught them up. If you want to continue, pass them by all means. I wasnt there, so granted I dont know the full story, but beeping at a cyclist is a good way of causing an accident.
paulmurr said:
Do you pay any road tax to use the roads?
No, you do not.
No-one pays Road Tax.No, you do not.
If you have a road worthy vehicle, you pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Your local roads will be built and maintained by your local council through the council tax that they raise.
So you don't have a clue do you?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff