Passing Cyclists!!

[J4CKO]

Salted_Peanut said:

TimoMak said:

It's like Darwin's natural selection.

Are you 100% certain you've understood the Highway Code correctly? It encourages us to drive in the left-hand lane unless overtaking. But it doesn't mean cyclists should ride in the gutter! Car drivers aren't taught to drive with their left-hand wheels as far to the left as possible (except for right-hand bends), and neither are cyclists.

J4CKO said:

I only move into Primary if I feel I need to "be wide", like when coming up to a width restriction where I don't want someone squeezing through, or approaching a blind bend, mainly again to dissuade overtakes

As J4CKO explained, cyclists adopt the 'primary position' (only) where required to prevent a dangerously close pass. The 'secondary position' is usual, i.e. about 1m from the kerb.

Centurion07 said:

Primary position is, as I'm sure you know, only to be employed as and when necessary, as opposed to ALL the time.

I think some folk can read cycling forums (Cyclechat for example) when starting out and get influenced by some quite militant cyclists and think Primary is to be ridden in all the time. I tried it once, just felt like I was in the way for the sake of it. Its a bit like being an MLM in a car to my mind.

Also, I like being out of the trajectory of cars as much as possible, in primary you are in car space, where cars normally are and apart from annoying drivers, if you get someone on Autopilot or faffing with a phone, stereo, sat nav or other distractions then you are right in their path so being to the left moves you out of that a bit. It shouldnt be like that and being left wont save you if they are drifting left but you are better off than plonked in the middle I think.

[Centurion07]

TimoMak said:

And there's your problem right there. HC is very clear on this point "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Nowhere does it say "assess the potential overtake; and if you don't agree with it then try to obstruct it."

Would you care to quote the HC rule that says "GTFO the way ASAP, putting yourself in danger as a vulnerable road user so Mr dhead isn't held up for 5 seconds"?

It says "do not obstruct", not "do not obstruct at the cost of your personal safety".

[Centurion07]

thisisnotaspoon said:

Killboy said:

I hope this was reported to the police.

What happened next didn't exactly paint me in a good light ..............

I would very much like to hear the story of one of these throbbers having the error of their ways pointed out to them...

[Antony Moxey]

TimoMak said:

grudas said:

people do realize why cyclists ride in primary ? to stop dangerous overtakes, not difficult.

And there's your problem right there. HC is very clear on this point "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Nowhere does it say "assess the potential overtake; and if you don't agree with it then try to obstruct it."

Edited by TimoMak on Tuesday 14th July 15:51

So when you’re driving and a car comes up behind you II presume you move over at the earliest opportunity to let him overtake?

[J4CKO]

thisisnotaspoon said:

J4CKO said:

I really think more cyclists should get a rear view mirror, I find it invaluable, saved me from a load of scrotes in an old Corsa trying to amuse themselves by scaring me, their hilarious jape fell flat as I could see what they were up to by pulling alongside and braking hard enough to screech the tyres, I just looked over and nodded and said hello.

I can see your point but I hesitate whenever anyone says things like "cyclist should have............"

Back in the not so distant past lights weren't a legal requirement for bikes at night. Cycling organizations campaigned against their compulsory use because it moves the onus on seeing cyclists away from the driver and onto the cyclists. The argument was thus:

2 cyclists on an unlit road, or cyclist and a pedestrian, even in the pitch dark are unlikely to collide and the consequences are generally fairly minor.

1 cyclist and a car traveling at a speed it can stop in the distance it can see is clear (i.e. it's headlights), still no problem (bear in mind a bike at a leisurely pace will practically stop on a sixpence so stopping in the distance you can see to be clear is still perfectly feasible).

Making lights compulsory shifted the balance from "SMIDSY because I wasn't looking" to "SMIDSY because YOU weren't making yourself visible".

This is why judges now seem to attribute partial blame to cyclists for not wearing high vis or a helmet. Have you ever seen a judgment where the black car was held liable, yet if a cyclist is killed by a driver whilst wearing a black hoodie they were basically asking for it?

So while a mirror, and extra reflectors, and a helmet, and high vis clothing, and being lit up like a Christmas tree, and laser rear lights, and indicators, and a myriad of other things are available to make cyclists "safer". I routinely cycle to work without a helmet, in a normal shirt and trousers, with no extra accruements on my bike, and believe that's actually safer, on average drivers give much more space when passing than they do when I'm in club kit on the racing bike at the weekend. I put 99% of that down to a combination of:

• Not looking like some "other" group
• Looking less "pro" and therefore more likely to wobble and scratch your paint if you get too close
• Looking more vulnerable without a helmet (so you won't pass close and try and scare me into the hedge, because I might actually die)

Not proposing any legal mandate and I cant imagine many drivers will clock my bar end mirror on the road bike, its this,



Its only about 4cm across, really suggesting it as not sure how many are aware of them and the benefits. I found it difficult after years of driving, coming back to regular cycling on the roads to be without a mirror. Rarely see another cyclist with one. They arent cool but for giving you an idea of whats coming up behind you I find it fantastic.

Great for cars, trucks etc, but also for clocking other cyclists coming up behind you and its time to make them work for that scalp

I dont think making yourself look less professional really makes that much difference, not enough for me to ever ride without a helmet for example.

[thisisnotaspoon]

On a related point:

Has anyone else noticed that there's a different website that comes up when you google the highway code.

www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk

Which looks very much like the official one, but has the wording of a lot of the rules subtly changed? A lot of it seems to be written in a way that legitimizes crap driving. Maybe it's been updated/corrected but I'm sure I've come across it before and it had all sorts of 'advice' for cyclists that doesn't appear in the real version.

Antony Moxey said:

So when you’re driving and a car comes up behind you II presume you move over at the earliest opportunity to let him overtake?

Kinda, I tow a boat fairly regularly (in the car, not behind the bike) so frequently the speed limit is an optimistic target or lower anyway.
when you’re driving and a car comes up behind me I move over at the earliest SAFE opportunity to let them overtake?

I don't drive in the gutter though, I drive in the middle of the lane like normal and pull in if it's necessary and safe. Just like on a bike.

Edited by thisisnotaspoon on Tuesday 14th July 16:12

[grudas]

Johnnytheboy said:

I love the way some posters think you aren't allowed to "identify as a cyclist" unless you buy into the thing about stopping drivers overtake you.

of course you can identify as cyclists, no issue in there at all.

what I often see is "I do cycle too" but *insert something dangerous and ridiculous*

there is no such thing as stopping drivers overtaking you, I am much happier seeing cars in front of me than behind.

it is all about stopping/preventing drivers from putting you at risk with a risky/miscalculated overtake.

if you ride in a ditch it encourages people to overtake, if you ride in primary for a bit and move to the side when the road opens up and allow for a safe overtake then that's perfectly fine.

I don't recall ever meeting a cyclists/group of riders who purposefully try to block me from overtaking ? many even wave and thank for a good overtake.

I'd say at worst I spend 30 seconds behind a cyclist on a 1 hours commute.

if people genuinely struggle with overtakes then maybe the problem is somewhere else? driving skill? patience? what ever it is, letting it out on vulnerable road users who have as much right as you to be on the road is as stupid as it gets and reassessing your views/handling of others on the road is something worth looking into. Maybe yoga? or... cycling? heard exercise is good for stress levels.

[TimoMak]

Antony Moxey said:

TimoMak said:

grudas said:

people do realize why cyclists ride in primary ? to stop dangerous overtakes, not difficult.

And there's your problem right there. HC is very clear on this point "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Nowhere does it say "assess the potential overtake; and if you don't agree with it then try to obstruct it."

Edited by TimoMak on Tuesday 14th July 15:51

So when you’re driving and a car comes up behind you II presume you move over at the earliest opportunity to let him overtake?

I certainly don't move into the middle and try to obstruct them or accelerate. If it seems dangerous I'll just ease off and let them by as quickly as possible. Would rather have someone like that go by than sitting 2mm from my rear bumper.

[Centurion07]

grudas said:

of course you can identify as cyclists, no issue in there at all.

what I often see is "I do cycle too" but *insert something dangerous and ridiculous*

there is no such thing as stopping drivers overtaking you, I am much happier seeing cars in front of me than behind.

it is all about stopping/preventing drivers from putting you at risk with a risky/miscalculated overtake.

if you ride in a ditch it encourages people to overtake, if you ride in primary for a bit and move to the side when the road opens up and allow for a safe overtake then that's perfectly fine.

I don't recall ever meeting a cyclists/group of riders who purposefully try to block me from overtaking ? many even wave and thank for a good overtake.

I'd say at worst I spend 30 seconds behind a cyclist on a 1 hours commute.

if people genuinely struggle with overtakes then maybe the problem is somewhere else? driving skill? patience? what ever it is, letting it out on vulnerable road users who have as much right as you to be on the road is as stupid as it gets and reassessing your views/handling of others on the road is something worth looking into. Maybe yoga? or... cycling? heard exercise is good for stress levels.

All of this^.

[Antony Moxey]

TimoMak said:

Antony Moxey said:

TimoMak said:

grudas said:

people do realize why cyclists ride in primary ? to stop dangerous overtakes, not difficult.

And there's your problem right there. HC is very clear on this point "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Nowhere does it say "assess the potential overtake; and if you don't agree with it then try to obstruct it."

Edited by TimoMak on Tuesday 14th July 15:51

So when you’re driving and a car comes up behind you II presume you move over at the earliest opportunity to let him overtake?

I certainly don't move into the middle and try to obstruct them or accelerate. If it seems dangerous I'll just ease off and let them by as quickly as possible. Would rather have someone like that go by than sitting 2mm from my rear bumper.

If you’re in a car you don’t need to move to the middle to block an overtake, you’re already filling a lane. However, that notwithstanding, you didn’t answer my question: do you move over every time a car comes up behind you? If not, you’re a hypocrite if you’re advocating that cyclist should ‘never obstruct drivers who wish to pass’ if you do not do the same yourself when out driving.

[zygalski]

Yeah, sod all this "I'll decide when it's safe to drift towards the middle of my lane" malarkey when I can hear a vehicle approaching from behind.
I'll stick to me ditch, ta very much.

[TimoMak]

Antony Moxey said:

If you’re in a car you don’t need to move to the middle to block an overtake, you’re already filling a lane. However, that notwithstanding, you didn’t answer my question: do you move over every time a car comes up behind you? If not, you’re a hypocrite if you’re advocating that cyclist should ‘never obstruct drivers who wish to pass’ if you do not do the same yourself when out driving.

I will address this point - since the HC says:



So by keeping left you should not need to 'move over', just maintain a steady course and speed. If you are in some kind of middle of the lane 'primary' position then you are simply not keeping left and should quite clearly move over.

[Gweeds]

For those moaning about cyclists causing congestion....

If we assume that most cyclists also drive and have a car, every time they're on the bike they're not using the car and thus freeing up road space. So surely motoring nirvana is everyone but you on a bike. Less traffic congestion and all that.

Or is it that you're more bothered by the fact that someone has actively chosen a method of transport slower than yours and that the occasional 10 second wait is too much to bear?

[98642.com]

Cars have got much much wider than they were previously - cyclists have not.

Cars need to take more care when passing cyclists!

The addition of many more cycle lanes is a welcome development.

[Centurion07]

TimoMak said:

Antony Moxey said:

If you’re in a car you don’t need to move to the middle to block an overtake, you’re already filling a lane. However, that notwithstanding, you didn’t answer my question: do you move over every time a car comes up behind you? If not, you’re a hypocrite if you’re advocating that cyclist should ‘never obstruct drivers who wish to pass’ if you do not do the same yourself when out driving.

I will address this point - since the HC says:



So by keeping left you should not need to 'move over', just maintain a steady course and speed. If you are in some kind of middle of the lane 'primary' position then you are simply not keeping left and should quite clearly move over.

You keep banging this drum without addressing the point of should you still move over if it puts you in MORE danger?

[Ares]

DoubleD said:

Ares said:

DoubleD said:

Lets keep things civil shall we.

Yes, you are on the wrong side of the road for a little longer, but you have a greater gap between yourself and the bike/car so more wobble room. Its only worse if you pick the wrong time to overtake.

Which is why you leave the 1.5m gap.

You can leave more than 1.5m gap when in single file.

You can leave 100s of metres if you take a different road, but neither are really relevant.

2x2 is safer all round than 4x1.

[anonymous-user]

Centurion07 said:

TimoMak said:

Antony Moxey said:

If you’re in a car you don’t need to move to the middle to block an overtake, you’re already filling a lane. However, that notwithstanding, you didn’t answer my question: do you move over every time a car comes up behind you? If not, you’re a hypocrite if you’re advocating that cyclist should ‘never obstruct drivers who wish to pass’ if you do not do the same yourself when out driving.

I will address this point - since the HC says:



So by keeping left you should not need to 'move over', just maintain a steady course and speed. If you are in some kind of middle of the lane 'primary' position then you are simply not keeping left and should quite clearly move over.

You keep banging this drum without addressing the point of should you still move over if it puts you in MORE danger?

If you are already keeping left you should never need to move over, just maintain a steady course and speed.

ETA: It is the muppets taking the primary position who are actually putting themselves in danger.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 14th July 16:51

[Centurion07]

And we're back to giving those drivers with no spatial awareness the signal that there IS enough space to overtake when there actually isn't...

[DoubleD]

Ares said:

DoubleD said:

Ares said:

DoubleD said:

Lets keep things civil shall we.

Yes, you are on the wrong side of the road for a little longer, but you have a greater gap between yourself and the bike/car so more wobble room. Its only worse if you pick the wrong time to overtake.

Which is why you leave the 1.5m gap.

You can leave more than 1.5m gap when in single file.

You can leave 100s of metres if you take a different road, but neither are really relevant.

2x2 is safer all round than 4x1.

Depends on a variety of factors, things like this are never black and white.

[Centurion07]

Schmed said:

ETA: It is the muppets taking the primary position who are actually putting themselves in danger.