Wales again 1.5metres filming

[PAULJ5555]

What does happen when a car overtakes a cyclist giving them the required gap and the cyclist closes the gap by moving over to the right more to avoid a pothole, those at fault?

[oyster]

V8RX7 said:

james7 said:

I assume this 1.5m distance applies all the time to everyone?

So 2 or 3 abreast cyclists, there still needs to be a 1.5m gap? If not why not?
That would make some overtakes impossible due to some road width.

Cyclists riding the other direction, the bow wave would after all be greater, if thats what this is actually about. So stopping your car when a cyclist is coming the other way, and within that distance, then restarting when they have passed.

Central london, lots of cars would be breaking the law because the cyclist decided they wanted to be closer when overtaking, then traffic starts moving etc.

^^^ Some valid points

It simply won't work in cities - it's already frustrating when you've waited to safely overtake a cyclist and then they catch up at the lights and filter through stationary traffic and hold you up again. If they pull up next to you in multi lane traffic there might be less than 30cm - are we supposed to stop until they move off ?

I generally meet cyclists on country lanes, they understandably don't ride in the potholes so I wouldn't be able to overtake them for miles - at least tractors periodically move over.

You're admitting this on the public website?
Can you not see that if the cyclist is catching (and passing) you at each set of lights, then they CANNOT be holding you up.

If you didn't overtake them, you'd still end up in the same part of the queue at the next lights - so why overtake them in the first place??!!! That's just moronic.

[heebeegeetee]

PAULJ5555 said:

What does happen when a car overtakes a cyclist giving them the required gap and the cyclist closes the gap by moving over to the right more to avoid a pothole, those at fault?

There is no fault.

[Ares]

PAULJ5555 said:

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

If only we all had the same experience you've had.

Maybe we could have an IQ test/brain cell count for riding a bike or driving a car, Until then cyclists & drivers dont mix well, if they did we would not be even talking about it.

It's the chips on shoulders that cause the problem.

From drivers and cyclists unfortunatly

Don't doubt it, and never tried to say otherwise.

[oyster]

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

The net result of which will be further and further legislation to restrict/slow/tax motor vehicles. It certainly won't be the cyclists who become restricted - which politician will do that?

[Byker28i]

Ares said:

They rode, purposefully blocking the road for 5 miles?

I call bullst.

See the first pic as he looks behind then moves over.
But you carry on, all cyclists are perfect. I was mearly pointing out some are knobs just as much as some drivers are

[Byker28i]

yellowjack said:

You call bullst, and I agree. Looking closely at those photos, they're no more than a couple of hundred yards from start to finish.

because I couldn't be arsed to pull more than a few frames from the video
But yup - it's fine for cyclists to ride on the wrong side of the road, deliberately blocking

[Ares]

Byker28i said:

Ares said:

They rode, purposefully blocking the road for 5 miles?

I call bullst.

See the first pic as he looks behind then moves over.
But you carry on, all cyclists are perfect. I was mearly pointing out some are knobs just as much as some drivers are

No you weren't. You were having a pop at cyclists, not motorists. As normal.

As for looking behind, pretty standard behaviour before pulling out to pull past a parked car? If you don't, you're part of the problem!

I probably look behind me 2 or 3 times a minute when riding to be sure I know what is (or isn't) behind me.

[Ares]

Byker28i said:

yellowjack said:

You call bullst, and I agree. Looking closely at those photos, they're no more than a couple of hundred yards from start to finish.

because I couldn't be arsed to pull more than a few frames from the video

Call bullst on that as well.

Post the video then? Or pull a frame off each 30 secs to show the 5mins.

I'll put a Veloforte cycling bar down as a wager that you 'can't be arsed'.

[Ares]

oyster said:

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

The net result of which will be further and further legislation to restrict/slow/tax motor vehicles. It certainly won't be the cyclists who become restricted - which politician will do that?

More reason for those in metal boxes to stop being arses (see Mr 20cm above). Maybe the arses on two-wheels might play ball too.

[Tomo1971]

So if cycling 2 abreast is legal and we often see it - what happens on a road with double white lines that goes on for miles, group of cyclists doing 15 mph - do we just create the worlds longest rolling road block?

Both motorists and cyclists need education in my opinion - I have personally, changed my behaviour to cyclists in recent years, although would never drive as close to them as have seen on youtube

The way I see it is that the more people that use cycles, the less burden on the roads infrastructure and traffic - so as motorists that CANT use a cycle for their commute, lets at least encourage those that can to do so!

[Toltec]

oyster said:

V8RX7 said:

james7 said:

I assume this 1.5m distance applies all the time to everyone?

So 2 or 3 abreast cyclists, there still needs to be a 1.5m gap? If not why not?
That would make some overtakes impossible due to some road width.

Cyclists riding the other direction, the bow wave would after all be greater, if thats what this is actually about. So stopping your car when a cyclist is coming the other way, and within that distance, then restarting when they have passed.

Central london, lots of cars would be breaking the law because the cyclist decided they wanted to be closer when overtaking, then traffic starts moving etc.

^^^ Some valid points

It simply won't work in cities - it's already frustrating when you've waited to safely overtake a cyclist and then they catch up at the lights and filter through stationary traffic and hold you up again. If they pull up next to you in multi lane traffic there might be less than 30cm - are we supposed to stop until they move off ?

I generally meet cyclists on country lanes, they understandably don't ride in the potholes so I wouldn't be able to overtake them for miles - at least tractors periodically move over.

You're admitting this on the public website?
Can you not see that if the cyclist is catching (and passing) you at each set of lights, then they CANNOT be holding you up.

If you didn't overtake them, you'd still end up in the same part of the queue at the next lights - so why overtake them in the first place??!!! That's just moronic.

It does depend if the reason you get held at the lights is because you could not get past the cyclist in time to get through before they changed.

Mind you there are plenty of car drivers that mince around and cause this too, though if traffic is heavy enough it does not make a lot of difference in the end.

[Ares]

Tomo1971 said:

So if cycling 2 abreast is legal and we often see it - what happens on a road with double white lines that goes on for miles, group of cyclists doing 15 mph - do we just create the worlds longest rolling road block?

Both motorists and cyclists need education in my opinion - I have personally, changed my behaviour to cyclists in recent years, although would never drive as close to them as have seen on youtube

The way I see it is that the more people that use cycles, the less burden on the roads infrastructure and traffic - so as motorists that CANT use a cycle for their commute, lets at least encourage those that can to do so!

1) Cyclists will normally cease riding two abreast when there are cars behind to allow them past.
2) IIRC, a vehicle is allowed to cross a double white line to overtake a slow moving vehicle travelling under a certain speed (20mph?)

[yellowjack]

heebeegeetee said:

PAULJ5555 said:

What does happen when a car overtakes a cyclist giving them the required gap and the cyclist closes the gap by moving over to the right more to avoid a pothole, those at fault?

There is no fault.

There'll be no one at fault because nothing will happen. That's what thicko drivers are being pulled over to have explained to them. If you pass with 1.5 metres between you and the bicycle, 999 times out of 1000 that means there'll be plenty of space for the cyclist to shift position to avoid an obstruction and smoothly move back to their original line without a hint of conflict. IE: The whole point of leaving the space is to allow for lateral movements by the cyclist without risking a collision. It's explained in more than one place in the Highway Code too. Again I say that it shouldn't need campaigns like the one in the OP's linked article to teach people how to drive properly. It's stunningly obvious logic to anyone with an IQ in double figures...

[Ares]

yellowjack said:

It's stunningly obvious logic to anyone with an IQ in double figures...

Alas, there is the problem. Too many road users that fail that test.

[Red Devil]

yellowjack said:

[They're not issuing points/fines for offences. What they are doing is observing driver behaviour, and then challenging behaviour they feel is inappropriate, before giving advice. Far better for a police officer to give that advice than for a driver/cyclist road rage incident to blow up when an individual cyclist challenges an errant driver's behaviour. It's relatively quick, and a relatively efficient way of passing advice on, and if it makes a difference for the better, then PHers ought to be pleased that those same police officers cannot be out pointing hand-held radar guns at "innocent motorist wot is only drivin' to the conditions, innit, bruvv".

There is quite a difference between 'giving advice' (which most people would interpret as a roadside conversation with a police officer) and being, as the article states, 'offered training''
I'll bet that is a NDORS course which may well be from a private provider and delivered by someone who is not a police officer.
That supposition is supported in the article where it says a refusal of the training means you 'can be prosecuted'.
The former would, in my world, be 'relatively quick', the latter, at half a day (or more depending on where you live) and much later on, not so much.

The longer the lapse of time between errant/dangerous behaviour and education (or punishment) the less effective it will be.
If your child decides to try poking a metal object into an electrical socket you don't wait for a week to deliver the explanation of the likely outcome/s and how dangerous it is.
The connection ('scuse the pun) will most likely be lost.

Byker28i said:

yellowjack said:

You call bullst, and I agree. Looking closely at those photos, they're no more than a couple of hundred yards from start to finish.

because I couldn't be arsed to pull more than a few frames from the video
But yup - it's fine for cyclists to ride on the wrong side of the road, deliberately blocking

Are you're seriously trying to convince us that the vehicle in which the camera is installed travelled in front of those cyclists matching their pace for 5 miles?
I too reckon there is distinct whiff about your story and the emphasis should be on the 'couldn't' rather than the 'be arsed' part of your comment. More holes than a slab of Emmenthal imo.

I always go offside (and, if necessary, wait until I can). Likewise with horse riders. In the latter case slowly and with minimum exhaust noise.
A startled horse can easily unseat the rider and do severe damage to your p&j.

[Ares]

Red Devil said:

Byker28i said:

yellowjack said:

You call bullst, and I agree. Looking closely at those photos, they're no more than a couple of hundred yards from start to finish.

because I couldn't be arsed to pull more than a few frames from the video
But yup - it's fine for cyclists to ride on the wrong side of the road, deliberately blocking

Are you're seriously trying to convince us that the vehicle in which the camera is installed travelled in front of those cyclists matching their pace for 5 miles?
I too reckon there is distinct whiff about your story and the emphasis should be on the 'couldn't' rather than the 'be arsed' part of your comment. More holes than a slab of Emmenthal imo.

I always go offside (and, if necessary, wait until I can). Likewise with horse riders. In the latter case slowly and with minimum exhaust noise.
A startled horse can easily unseat the rider and do severe damage to your p&j.

Of course he did. He drives round looking for incidents like this.... Then usually wakes up with an awkward sticky mess to deal with.

If you can't find any facts to back up your irrational hatred, just make something up.

[silentbrown]

Byker28i said:

See the first pic as he looks behind then moves over.

You mean the pic where you're clearly over the centre line, most likely to pass a parked car? Can't think why the cyclist would possibly need to move over...

[echazfraz]

Pica-Pica said:

Be assured I always pass a cyclist using the other carriageway, where possible, I like to do my bit to retain the gap.

I may be due a parrot but, if I'm not, then hats off to you sir.

It must be a bugger getting over the central divider sometimes though.

[Bennet]

If we're going to talk about 1.5 metres, we really need to specify whether we are talking about NSL A and B roads, or the urban crawl at rush hour. The two are totally different conversations.

I've often cycled my suburban commute and I certainly don't expect a full 1.5 metres clearance on every road. I think I'd also consider it mostly my fault if I suddenly fell off and went under the wheels of an overtaking car... The fact that I'm confident in my ability not to suddenly fall is part of the basis on which I choose to take the risk of cycling to work...

If I thought every car would feel obliged to give a true 1.5 metres of clearance in every situation, or to have to put all four wheels on the other side of the road, I probably wouldn't ever cycle because I just wouldn't consider it reasonable for me to hold up the traffic like that.