Discussion
Markjag12 said:
Part 2.
Please see below picture.
But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
I'd basically apply the same thought process I outlined for the initial scenario - except in this case it's likely all but the most serious of cyclist would be going nearer to 10 mph due to the incline. I'd probably slow down and come to a close but safe following distance behind the cyclist, and then look to nip past in 2nd gear as smartly as possible, straddling the solid lines. Headlights on, indicator on.Please see below picture.
But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
Then make sure you keep accelerating away firmly up to the limit to make sure cars following you have room to slot in, incase something does come over the hill.
The alternative is that someone will possibly seek to over take you and the cyclist, or from further back. But this is where I'd also be making a judgement on the vehicles behind and how they'd been driven up to this point.
MaxSo said:
I'd basically apply the same thought process I outlined for the initial scenario - except in this case it's likely all but the most serious of cyclist would be going nearer to 10 mph due to the incline. I'd probably slow down and come to a close but safe following distance behind the cyclist, and then look to nip past in 2nd gear as smartly as possible, straddling the solid lines. Headlights on, indicator on.
Then make sure you keep accelerating away firmly up to the limit to make sure cars following you have room to slot in, incase something does come over the hill.
The alternative is that someone will possibly seek to over take you and the cyclist, or from further back. But this is where I'd also be making a judgement on the vehicles behind and how they'd been driven up to this point.
Perhaps i would go past in more scenarios if i was more comfortable with this "nipping round" style. It requires you be quite close to the cyclist before turning to the right (so as to be out of lane for as little time as possible). What if - at your closest point to them - they hit a pothole, or slow down because they dont know quite how close you are ? Or their chain breaks. (That last ones a bit silly but you get the picture). This IS NOT a criticism, as i have never seen you pass a cyclist, so im in no position to pass judgement, you may well be a better driver than i am, and you make it work safely each and every time.Then make sure you keep accelerating away firmly up to the limit to make sure cars following you have room to slot in, incase something does come over the hill.
The alternative is that someone will possibly seek to over take you and the cyclist, or from further back. But this is where I'd also be making a judgement on the vehicles behind and how they'd been driven up to this point.
Markjag12 said:
Perhaps i would go past in more scenarios if i was more comfortable with this "nipping round" style. It requires you be quite close to the cyclist before turning to the right (so as to be out of lane for as little time as possible). What if - at your closest point to them - they hit a pothole, or slow down because they dont know quite how close you are ? Or their chain breaks. (That last ones a bit silly but you get the picture). This IS NOT a criticism, as i have never seen you pass a cyclist, so im in no position to pass judgement, you may well be a better driver than i am, and you make it work safely each and every time.
By nip around I was really just trying to convey starting from a low speed, in a low gear and overtaking with a spurt of acceleration. Rather than sweeping past without slowing much. At all times you need to be able to stop before hitting an obstacle - so the amount you are able to close in on them depends on their speed, how quickly you are reducing the gap and all sorts of other factors (road surface, weather etc etc). Upon first seeing the cyclist, I would begin reducing speed proportionally to the distance I am from them. So the closer I get to them, the slower I get - whilst always being comfortable that if something happened causing them to stop suddenly I would be able to stop within my lane and not hit them. (This is ideally how everyone should drive everywhere regardless of what the apparent or potential obstacle is).Once I've reached a following speed and distance that is slow enough to follow them and large enough not to hit them should they stop suddenly, I'd then look to overtake as smartly as possible. Ordinarily, when overtaking another vehicle, you'd move to the right first, without accelerating, to gain a better view, without committing. With a cyclist, however, the view is normally good already, so there is an argument to say a banana shaped overtake would be okay. But, I'd stick to the correct procedure as this also helps to make intentions clear to cars behind and also to any car who may be thinking of overtaking from the actual oncoming lane. I'd be very careful to check for other vehicles (especially) motorbikes already or about to overtake from further back.
I have found that out of my life, when driving, very little time is spent sat behind a cyclist, it happens, and it is part of driving, a aprt you shouldnt get so irate about as folk do.
I know some cyclists are selfish or oblivious, that chorus line of them sat across the road ignoring the tailback they are creating, but think about it, they are moving, just slower than you want to go, it isnt for miles even though it can feel like it and it isnt every day, its weekends and evening in the summer mainly, winter is for the hardier commuters, the groups of roadies arent as prevalent during winter.
If you add up all that time, it amounts to very little.
I know people who have a 30 second delay before going apoplectic behind a cyclist, chap I used to work with used to call cyclists "your lot" as I commuted by bike, and it was always a solitary cyclist that had got in his way during his hour long commute of 13 or so miles from Sale to Knutsford, A journey that can be done with no traffic in 20 minutes, so he wasnt waiting 40 mins behind the cyclist, no, he was waiting in queues of other cars.
Funny how folk are happy to sit all content behind a queue of other cars for 40 or so minutes, but a 2 minute delay behind a cyclist is just unacceptable, then he spent 20 minutes moaning about it.
I know some cyclists are selfish or oblivious, that chorus line of them sat across the road ignoring the tailback they are creating, but think about it, they are moving, just slower than you want to go, it isnt for miles even though it can feel like it and it isnt every day, its weekends and evening in the summer mainly, winter is for the hardier commuters, the groups of roadies arent as prevalent during winter.
If you add up all that time, it amounts to very little.
I know people who have a 30 second delay before going apoplectic behind a cyclist, chap I used to work with used to call cyclists "your lot" as I commuted by bike, and it was always a solitary cyclist that had got in his way during his hour long commute of 13 or so miles from Sale to Knutsford, A journey that can be done with no traffic in 20 minutes, so he wasnt waiting 40 mins behind the cyclist, no, he was waiting in queues of other cars.
Funny how folk are happy to sit all content behind a queue of other cars for 40 or so minutes, but a 2 minute delay behind a cyclist is just unacceptable, then he spent 20 minutes moaning about it.
Its a little hard to judge accurately from the pictures and without seeing the whole situation.
I think I'd be more inclined to pass the cyclist in the first scenario than in the second (definitely so if the second has oncoming traffic). Overtaking anything on double white lines needs to done with even more care than a normal overtake. But I will also say that peoples judgement on what is a good and safe overtake varies hugely. I've seen some people get extremely upset at being overtaken for absolutely no reason.
Side note : About 20 years ago I got pulled over by the police for overtaking on a road with double white lines, it was a very wide lane and I could (and did) easily over take with plenty of room to the car I passed and staying well away from the double white lines. They told me they were writing me a ticket for overtaking on white lines and I (politely) explained that I had not crossed the line and had plenty of room to stay well away from it and the car. They agreed but said that white lines are there for a reason, and that reason is to prevent overtaking - before handing me a producer for my motorcycle.
I think I'd be more inclined to pass the cyclist in the first scenario than in the second (definitely so if the second has oncoming traffic). Overtaking anything on double white lines needs to done with even more care than a normal overtake. But I will also say that peoples judgement on what is a good and safe overtake varies hugely. I've seen some people get extremely upset at being overtaken for absolutely no reason.
Side note : About 20 years ago I got pulled over by the police for overtaking on a road with double white lines, it was a very wide lane and I could (and did) easily over take with plenty of room to the car I passed and staying well away from the double white lines. They told me they were writing me a ticket for overtaking on white lines and I (politely) explained that I had not crossed the line and had plenty of room to stay well away from it and the car. They agreed but said that white lines are there for a reason, and that reason is to prevent overtaking - before handing me a producer for my motorcycle.
Markjag12 said:
Part 2.
Please see below picture.
Now imagine this is your view and a cyclist is ahead of you. Also the lane coming towards you is full of traffic as far as you can see over the hill.
Something i know from driving this route alot, Is that, this hatched area - which starts over the brow of this hill - is treated by some as lane 2 of a duel carriageway. I have seen people move straight into it the moment it starts and go over the blind brow, coming towards "your" view, whilst "overtaking" the cars to their left. This happens rarely, but it happens.
All this means that, in the past, with the picture as my view, with a cyclist infront of me and the real lane coming towards me full, i dont pass untill over the brow. Despite the fact that this hatched portion looks free to use going up the hill.
This infuriates people behind. And this is honestly not criticism - as i have made mistakes before. But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
Cars coming towards you are allowed to go into the hatched area - it is a dashed line on their side of it (long lines means they should be cautious - but coming the other way I would be assuming bad driving and lack of caution!)Please see below picture.
Now imagine this is your view and a cyclist is ahead of you. Also the lane coming towards you is full of traffic as far as you can see over the hill.
Something i know from driving this route alot, Is that, this hatched area - which starts over the brow of this hill - is treated by some as lane 2 of a duel carriageway. I have seen people move straight into it the moment it starts and go over the blind brow, coming towards "your" view, whilst "overtaking" the cars to their left. This happens rarely, but it happens.
All this means that, in the past, with the picture as my view, with a cyclist infront of me and the real lane coming towards me full, i dont pass untill over the brow. Despite the fact that this hatched portion looks free to use going up the hill.
This infuriates people behind. And this is honestly not criticism - as i have made mistakes before. But would many pass here ? Too cautious this time ?
Cars going in your direction (left lane on this picture) are not allowed into the hatched area as the left of the two middle lines (your line) is solid...
Cars coming towards you can not come further across the hatched area into 'your lane' as the right of the two central white lines is solid so prohibiting passage across that line (other than exceptions) into your lane...
therefore you should not be crossing that solid white line unless the bicycle is going at <10mph (which is really not very fast), equally, you should only cross it (if allowed) if visibility shows that the other side of the solid white line (the hatched area) is clear for an overtake...
as it is perfectly legal for a car coming the other way to be in that hatched area, if you can not see enough clear space, then even if the bike is <10mph you should not go past...
it sounds as though your choices and decisions are valid and based on good sound logic / safety - there is rarely a need to get past a bike as quickly as people try to - it is a big issue here in the Cotswolds, I suspect that while it may seem forever, in fact the average car waiting behind a bike will lose no more than a minute or two of progress - not difficult to make that up... I will tend to sit back and wait - I rarely find that I have difficulty in then being back behind the impatient car a few minutes later... today on the Stow -> Burford road, there was a cyclist I sat back and waited - and also pulled right to give a view for the car behind - and indicated to show that I would be passing - the car behind still nearly killed the cyclist... impatience and bad driving...
Alasdair
akirk said:
Cars coming towards you are allowed to go into the hatched area - it is a dashed line on their side of it (long lines means they should be cautious - but coming the other way I would be assuming bad driving and lack of caution!)
Cars going in your direction (left lane on this picture) are not allowed into the hatched area as the left of the two middle lines (your line) is solid...
Cars coming towards you can not come further across the hatched area into 'your lane' as the right of the two central white lines is solid so prohibiting passage across that line (other than exceptions) into your lane...
therefore you should not be crossing that solid white line unless the bicycle is going at <10mph (which is really not very fast), equally, you should only cross it (if allowed) if visibility shows that the other side of the solid white line (the hatched area) is clear for an overtake...
as it is perfectly legal for a car coming the other way to be in that hatched area, if you can not see enough clear space, then even if the bike is <10mph you should not go past...
it sounds as though your choices and decisions are valid and based on good sound logic / safety - there is rarely a need to get past a bike as quickly as people try to - it is a big issue here in the Cotswolds, I suspect that while it may seem forever, in fact the average car waiting behind a bike will lose no more than a minute or two of progress - not difficult to make that up... I will tend to sit back and wait - I rarely find that I have difficulty in then being back behind the impatient car a few minutes later... today on the Stow -> Burford road, there was a cyclist I sat back and waited - and also pulled right to give a view for the car behind - and indicated to show that I would be passing - the car behind still nearly killed the cyclist... impatience and bad driving...
Alasdair
Generally agree, but... if there is a cyclist climbing the hill at 10mph or less and cars are carefully passing them by straddling the double white lines, then all cars coming down the hill should observe the cyclist and the cars overtaking (or likely to overtake) the cyclist and should refrain from using the hatched area, as to do so would not be safe. Additionally, vehicles coming down the hill should only use the hatched area if "necessary" (which is a grey area as far as I can see).Cars going in your direction (left lane on this picture) are not allowed into the hatched area as the left of the two middle lines (your line) is solid...
Cars coming towards you can not come further across the hatched area into 'your lane' as the right of the two central white lines is solid so prohibiting passage across that line (other than exceptions) into your lane...
therefore you should not be crossing that solid white line unless the bicycle is going at <10mph (which is really not very fast), equally, you should only cross it (if allowed) if visibility shows that the other side of the solid white line (the hatched area) is clear for an overtake...
as it is perfectly legal for a car coming the other way to be in that hatched area, if you can not see enough clear space, then even if the bike is <10mph you should not go past...
it sounds as though your choices and decisions are valid and based on good sound logic / safety - there is rarely a need to get past a bike as quickly as people try to - it is a big issue here in the Cotswolds, I suspect that while it may seem forever, in fact the average car waiting behind a bike will lose no more than a minute or two of progress - not difficult to make that up... I will tend to sit back and wait - I rarely find that I have difficulty in then being back behind the impatient car a few minutes later... today on the Stow -> Burford road, there was a cyclist I sat back and waited - and also pulled right to give a view for the car behind - and indicated to show that I would be passing - the car behind still nearly killed the cyclist... impatience and bad driving...
Alasdair
Of course, following the letter of the law, unless the cyclist is definitely at 10mph or less no one should be passing them if to do so safely would require crossing a solid line. In reality, where there is a high level of confidence that the hatched area is not being used or not likely to be used in the next 10 or so seconds, it may be beneficial to pass the cyclist if they are doing slightly above 10mph in order to mitigate the risk of other drivers behind deciding to do what the driver in the first example did.
In the ideal world, where a queue is building behind the cyclist, they would see as such in their mandatory rear view mirror and pull off the road to allow traffic to safely pass before safely continuing their journey.
Pica-Pica said:
Just been out. Cars queued behind a cyclist when there is a perfectly good and wide cycle path running alongside with a grass verge separation from road.
I believe the speed limit for a cycle path is 15mph. I used to commute in Nottinghamshire on my bike and used the road over the cycle lane due to it never being swept and was a haven for punctures! MaxSo said:
akirk said:
Cars coming towards you are allowed to go into the hatched area - it is a dashed line on their side of it (long lines means they should be cautious - but coming the other way I would be assuming bad driving and lack of caution!)
Cars going in your direction (left lane on this picture) are not allowed into the hatched area as the left of the two middle lines (your line) is solid...
Cars coming towards you can not come further across the hatched area into 'your lane' as the right of the two central white lines is solid so prohibiting passage across that line (other than exceptions) into your lane...
therefore you should not be crossing that solid white line unless the bicycle is going at <10mph (which is really not very fast), equally, you should only cross it (if allowed) if visibility shows that the other side of the solid white line (the hatched area) is clear for an overtake...
as it is perfectly legal for a car coming the other way to be in that hatched area, if you can not see enough clear space, then even if the bike is <10mph you should not go past...
it sounds as though your choices and decisions are valid and based on good sound logic / safety - there is rarely a need to get past a bike as quickly as people try to - it is a big issue here in the Cotswolds, I suspect that while it may seem forever, in fact the average car waiting behind a bike will lose no more than a minute or two of progress - not difficult to make that up... I will tend to sit back and wait - I rarely find that I have difficulty in then being back behind the impatient car a few minutes later... today on the Stow -> Burford road, there was a cyclist I sat back and waited - and also pulled right to give a view for the car behind - and indicated to show that I would be passing - the car behind still nearly killed the cyclist... impatience and bad driving...
Alasdair
Generally agree, but... if there is a cyclist climbing the hill at 10mph or less and cars are carefully passing them by straddling the double white lines, then all cars coming down the hill should observe the cyclist and the cars overtaking (or likely to overtake) the cyclist and should refrain from using the hatched area, as to do so would not be safe. Additionally, vehicles coming down the hill should only use the hatched area if "necessary" (which is a grey area as far as I can see).Cars going in your direction (left lane on this picture) are not allowed into the hatched area as the left of the two middle lines (your line) is solid...
Cars coming towards you can not come further across the hatched area into 'your lane' as the right of the two central white lines is solid so prohibiting passage across that line (other than exceptions) into your lane...
therefore you should not be crossing that solid white line unless the bicycle is going at <10mph (which is really not very fast), equally, you should only cross it (if allowed) if visibility shows that the other side of the solid white line (the hatched area) is clear for an overtake...
as it is perfectly legal for a car coming the other way to be in that hatched area, if you can not see enough clear space, then even if the bike is <10mph you should not go past...
it sounds as though your choices and decisions are valid and based on good sound logic / safety - there is rarely a need to get past a bike as quickly as people try to - it is a big issue here in the Cotswolds, I suspect that while it may seem forever, in fact the average car waiting behind a bike will lose no more than a minute or two of progress - not difficult to make that up... I will tend to sit back and wait - I rarely find that I have difficulty in then being back behind the impatient car a few minutes later... today on the Stow -> Burford road, there was a cyclist I sat back and waited - and also pulled right to give a view for the car behind - and indicated to show that I would be passing - the car behind still nearly killed the cyclist... impatience and bad driving...
Alasdair
Of course, following the letter of the law, unless the cyclist is definitely at 10mph or less no one should be passing them if to do so safely would require crossing a solid line. In reality, where there is a high level of confidence that the hatched area is not being used or not likely to be used in the next 10 or so seconds, it may be beneficial to pass the cyclist if they are doing slightly above 10mph in order to mitigate the risk of other drivers behind deciding to do what the driver in the first example did.
In the ideal world, where a queue is building behind the cyclist, they would see as such in their mandatory rear view mirror and pull off the road to allow traffic to safely pass before safely continuing their journey.
however, bearing in mind general standards of driving and the fact that the hatched area has solid whites on one side - a driver on this side should assume that a driver coming over the hill may be making assumptions about priority / 'right of way' / and all sorts of other assumptions - therefore a driver going in the OP's direction should exercise extra caution...
I am with the OP - I would be reluctant to enter that area (esp. as he mentions that there is a full road of traffic coming in the other direction - non-hatched lane)
OP, if it was safe, I’d have used the legal exemption & passed the cyclist. Remember that, if you’re using the exemption, it’s worth making full use of it by pulling right over the white lines to give the cyclist as much room as possible. No point in just nipping a bit - the exemption allows you to cross the white lines & does not specify by how much, so if you’re going to cross them, cross good and wide if it’s safe.
I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
Reg Local said:
OP, if it was safe, I’d have used the legal exemption & passed the cyclist. Remember that, if you’re using the exemption, it’s worth making full use of it by pulling right over the white lines to give the cyclist as much room as possible. No point in just nipping a bit - the exemption allows you to cross the white lines & does not specify by how much, so if you’re going to cross them, cross good and wide if it’s safe.
I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
Ive paid attention to the way other drivers approach this recently and even those who do it well dont get all the elements right. Myself included.I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
I saw a cyclist ahead of me today whilst doing around 40mph. Slowed in preperation, as i got nearer i could see that the road ahead was clear far enough such that i wasnt going to have to slow all the way to the speed of the cyclist. Got nearer, did one final check in my mirror/BS and then turned back to the road to move out right. When i looked back the cyclist was much closer than my relative speed calculations had just informed me he would be. Not so close that i had to turn sharply, but close enough to think that - for example - if he fell the moment i looked in my mirror/bs i may not have been able to react in time once looking back. I really doubt that a cyclist falling over at this precise moment is something that most consider. But i do. For whatever reason.
Markjag12 said:
Ive paid attention to the way other drivers approach this recently and even those who do it well dont get all the elements right. Myself included.
I saw a cyclist ahead of me today whilst doing around 40mph. Slowed in preperation, as i got nearer i could see that the road ahead was clear far enough such that i wasnt going to have to slow all the way to the speed of the cyclist. Got nearer, did one final check in my mirror/BS and then turned back to the road to move out right. When i looked back the cyclist was much closer than my relative speed calculations had just informed me he would be. Not so close that i had to turn sharply, but close enough to think that - for example - if he fell the moment i looked in my mirror/bs i may not have been able to react in time once looking back. I really doubt that a cyclist falling over at this precise moment is something that most consider. But i do. For whatever reason.
combine that with Reg Local's approach...I saw a cyclist ahead of me today whilst doing around 40mph. Slowed in preperation, as i got nearer i could see that the road ahead was clear far enough such that i wasnt going to have to slow all the way to the speed of the cyclist. Got nearer, did one final check in my mirror/BS and then turned back to the road to move out right. When i looked back the cyclist was much closer than my relative speed calculations had just informed me he would be. Not so close that i had to turn sharply, but close enough to think that - for example - if he fell the moment i looked in my mirror/bs i may not have been able to react in time once looking back. I really doubt that a cyclist falling over at this precise moment is something that most consider. But i do. For whatever reason.
- approach the bike
- when you are still far enough behind that you can comfortably slow to its pace... pause and if it could be clear, move right at that point to do your final check
- if it is clear, move forward and pass
- if it is not clear, you are far enough back to follow without issue
if you want to maintain your speed, move right for the check earlier so you still have time to slow down... otherwise, slow to the bike's pace, but still far enough back that you can move right to check without coming into conflict wih the bike
otherwise, you are hinking of overtaking, and spacing and slowing etc all at the same time...
Reg Local's concept is still right even if you hope to pass, by assuming you will have to slow, you either do things earlier or slow first... ie prioritise the cyclist
Reg Local said:
OP, if it was safe, I’d have used the legal exemption & passed the cyclist. Remember that, if you’re using the exemption, it’s worth making full use of it by pulling right over the white lines to give the cyclist as much room as possible. No point in just nipping a bit - the exemption allows you to cross the white lines & does not specify by how much, so if you’re going to cross them, cross good and wide if it’s safe.
I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
I think this pretty much accords with the approach I suggested I'd probably follow (except perhaps the nipping past part - although as I said earlier on I was using "nip" in the sense of a burst of acceleration from low speed, rather than nipping a bit of the hatched area. I would probably straddle the solid line though, with nearside wheels just inside 'my' solid line, as the hatched area 'lane' doesn't look (at least from the photo) to be quite as wide. That would leave the cyclist a large amount of space, whilst not coming unnecessarily close to vehicles travelling towards me, especially as they may not be expecting me to come over onto "their" side.I sit next to many drivers with a variety of different levels of skill and experience and I’ve noticed a common theme when it comes to cyclists. When we’re approaching a cyclist we have two plans to choose from:
1. Pull in behind the cyclist and follow them at a safe distance, and;
2. Overtake the cyclist.
I’ve noticed that 95% of drivers approach cyclists with these plans in the wrong order. Their first plan is to pass the cyclist and they approach them assuming that the overtake is definitely on. Sometimes it is definitely on and they pass the cyclist with no issues. Often, however, the overtake isn’t on, which leads to last-minute hard braking and then a very tight, intimidatingly close follow on the cyclist until they can pass.
I teach people to approach cyclists with plan 1 first in their mind every time. This encourages them to lift off the gas early and brake gently until they can either see that the pass is definitely on, or until they fall into a following position on the cyclist, which is inevitably longer and less aggresive.
This approach tends to result in better progress as the drive isn’t unecessarily interrupted by heavy braking and accelerating. Keeping the plans in the right order helps to maintain a much better flow.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff