Overtaking

[Parrot of Doom]

Ok so we all know you're not allowed to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic where it presents a danger.

What happens when the oncoming traffic is a cyclist (me), and someone overtakes right in front of me (heading toward me), leaving about 6 feet of space? Road was a SC NSL with perfect visibility - if he'd been looking.

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Saturday 8th July 16:11

[Plotloss]

I remember being taught to overtake cyclists giving them at least 6ft space if possible when travelling in the same direction

Does direction of travel make any difference?

[sleep envy]

Parrot of Doom said:

Ok so we all know you're not allowed to overtake in the face of oncoming traffic where it presents a danger.

What happens when the oncoming traffic is a cyclist (me), and someone overtakes right in front of me (heading toward me), leaving about 6 feet of space? Road was a SC NSL with perfect visibility - if he'd been looking.

whether you're permitted or not I wouldn't like to take the chance just in case the cyclist gets the wobbles

[dazren]

Parrot of Doom said:

What happens when the oncoming traffic is a cyclist (me), and someone overtakes right in front of me (heading toward me), leaving about 6 feet of space? Road was a SC NSL with perfect visibility - if he'd been looking.

Glad to hear nothing happened. The best that can come from this is the moron will realise he should be looking further ahead and in greater detail than he has been.

On a related note I suspect overtaking may have been outlawed in certain parts of England? I say this as I got flashed at twice and given the V for various safe overtaking manouvres this afternoon, whilst making progress on NSL A roads. Add to this the flashing of lights I had whilst driving according to instruction from a ride drive instructor (also teaches police class 1, VIP anti kidnap driving etc) a few weeks ago I'm beginning to think I'm the only person out on the roads who overtakes vehicles crawling at well under the posted limit. Are all these other drivers being told overtaking is illegal when they take their tests?

DAZ

Edited by dazren on Saturday 8th July 17:54

[MilnerR]

Not sure if its illegal or not to overtake into an oncoming cyclist but for me the other side of the road has to be completely clear before I'll overtake. If the cyclist does something unexpected then the results don't bear thinking about.... There's also the fact that its not particularly polite to scare the bejeeesus out of someone by driving at them at speed.

[Parrot of Doom]

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

[bluepolarbear]

Parrot of Doom said:

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

I would have thought it would be standard DCOA type offence. Most the laws relate to other road users. No real difference if you were a bike or a horse in that sense - unsafe to overtake.

I'd be careful of putting camera's on your bike. The most likely thing you are going to record is cyclists illegal riding on the road and illegal cycling through road lights.

[Parrot of Doom]

bluepolarbear said:

I'd be careful of putting camera's on your bike. The most likely thing you are going to record is cyclists illegal riding on the road and illegal cycling through road lights.

Er no mate. Not at all.

[CommanderJameson]

Parrot of Doom said:

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

Camera phone with a big Transflash card, gaffer taped to the handlebars.

Job Done.

[bluepolarbear]

Parrot of Doom said:

Er no mate. Not at all.

Confused because you have never seen a cyclist ride on the pavement or cycle through a red light or because you don't realise that it is illegal for the cyclist to do that?

[rich 36]

Parrot of Doom said:

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

TTiUWP

I can picture it now,



all those 'shaky camera shots' you grumble about on telly now

[selmer]

If ever I use the big main road near my home (the A172) this can often happen, even if it's clear behind me. I find a well placed 'oyster' on the windscreen of the oncoming car can usually get the message across. If ever they turn around to come back and confront you they can't have been in that much of a rush can they?

[combemarshal]

Parrot of Doom said:

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

You could watch it back and see all the red lights you ride through!!!!!

(ok, thats not aimed at you, but round here it's the norm!)

[rich 36]

cheeky,

labelling the cyclists as law-breakers and some such

[funkynige]

Parrot of Doom said:

I wish there was a cheap way of recording front and rear views from my bike. You would all be stunned at the things cyclists see, daily.

Hope you don't see something like this -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc

Video of someone who had a camrea attached to their R1 (I think) when a car swerved in traffic, rider was fine, video isn't graphic at all.

[rich 36]

she looks alright though
so falling off has some benefits

[Parrot of Doom]

bluepolarbear said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Er no mate. Not at all.

Confused because you have never seen a cyclist ride on the pavement or cycle through a red light or because you don't realise that it is illegal for the cyclist to do that?

No confused because yet again a cyclist thread has turned into a 'cyclists = law breakers' thread.

Why does this have to happen? Honestly take that chip off your shoulder mate, the argument is so ing boring its untrue.

[bluepolarbear]

Parrot of Doom said:

No confused because yet again a cyclist thread has turned into a 'cyclists = law breakers' thread.

Why does this have to happen? Honestly take that chip off your shoulder mate, the argument is so ing boring its untrue.

now I am the one I'd suggest it isn't me with the chip - I think you will find I said it wasn't right to overtake into the oncoming path of a cyclist. You're the one wanting to record road users engaged in illegal or dangerous act - not me.

Calm down, go for a ride or something.

[rich 36]

Parrot of Doom said:

bluepolarbear said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Er no mate. Not at all.

Confused because you have never seen a cyclist ride on the pavement or cycle through a red light or because you don't realise that it is illegal for the cyclist to do that?

No confused because yet again a cyclist thread has turned into a 'cyclists = law breakers' thread.

Why does this have to happen? Honestly take that chip off your shoulder mate, the argument is so ing boring its untrue.

good job land rover don't make bikes then,

It does get a bit predictable as soon as the B' word is mentioned though,
although seeing things from both sides as you appear to Parrot'

you wouldent' be that suprised at the antipathy

(I'd imagine anyway)

[jasandjules]

I think overtaking is seen by those who travel at 35mph in an NSL as "dangerous". They don't seem to notice the road changes to a 30 and they carry on "speeding" and as thus more dangerous than a paedo at a school play (well, according to the Govt).

They also don't realise that their road awareness is at best 0, they didn't notice they were obstructing you and pull over, and you can bet that their 80 year old reactions and 6" glasses won't let them see or stop in the event someone does step in front of them.