Passing Cyclists!!
Discussion
Here's a prime example of a bit of road I take primary on, how it doesn't stop overtakes, but does save lives.
It's slightly deceptive as the google car is on the other side of the road but that corner is pretty blind in real life. There's even a (faded) double white line.
It's at the crest of a hill and quite a wide bit of road through a village with dashed white lines so I'd be in secondary upto that point as there really isn't any reason not to be. As the road starts to descend and approaches the corner I ride right out to the line (and probably going fast enough to be the speed limit minus the usual speedo error). So fast enough not to really warrant an overtake and definitely not safe.
And still twice in the past week I've been overtaken on that corner. The second resulted in both cars braking and the idiot had to pull back in and make a very wide and sheepish overtake when the road straightens out again. I'm confident that if I'd been in a secondary position I'd have disappeared into their blindspot and the idiot would have just instinctively swerved to avoid the other car and I'd have been in the hedge, hospital or morgue.
|https://thumbsnap.com/L7ykhzZj[/url]
It's slightly deceptive as the google car is on the other side of the road but that corner is pretty blind in real life. There's even a (faded) double white line.
It's at the crest of a hill and quite a wide bit of road through a village with dashed white lines so I'd be in secondary upto that point as there really isn't any reason not to be. As the road starts to descend and approaches the corner I ride right out to the line (and probably going fast enough to be the speed limit minus the usual speedo error). So fast enough not to really warrant an overtake and definitely not safe.
And still twice in the past week I've been overtaken on that corner. The second resulted in both cars braking and the idiot had to pull back in and make a very wide and sheepish overtake when the road straightens out again. I'm confident that if I'd been in a secondary position I'd have disappeared into their blindspot and the idiot would have just instinctively swerved to avoid the other car and I'd have been in the hedge, hospital or morgue.
|https://thumbsnap.com/L7ykhzZj[/url]Edited by thisisnotaspoon on Tuesday 14th July 18:59
Edited by thisisnotaspoon on Tuesday 14th July 19:06
Ares said:
It doesn't matter how often you say it....there is not a single circumstance where voluntarily being in the opposite lane for longer is better. See 'Time Exposed To Danger' for further information on what the rest of us called basic common sense.
If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
what about when passing a horse and rider? slower = safer = longer.If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
TimoMak said:
Antony Moxey 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.
Gweeds said:
thisisnotaspoon said:
A load of car drivers adopting primary position because it's not safe to overtake (no gap infront of them to pull into)
Look at all those bloody cyclists holding people up. grudas said:
evoraboy12 said:
What a bunch of unwatchable crap videos - sped up with the most irritating music. Ffs.
YouTube's music library is a funny place 
they're not sped up I can guarantee you that. Ares said:
Salted_Peanut said:
spogxy said:
I should say though that I'm not a 'normal'cyclist as I actually ride in the yellow lines, gutter or as close to it as I can get
If you were a kid, you’d fail your cycling proficiency 
This position is one of the most dangerous because – aside from the fickle quality of the road surface – you’re less conspicuous in the gutter. It makes me wince when I see people cycling in the gutter, and I would rather overtake cyclists who position themselves confidently.
Even children doing Bikeability learn to be in the ‘secondary position’ – around 1m from the kerb generally (and in the ‘primary position’ when required for their safety). And I’m struggling to think of an occasion I’ve ever been held up for any meaningful time by a cyclist positioning correctly.
When I ride I stay as far left as is practical. Avoiding s
t road surfaces or about to turn right (and therefore making that intention clear) is pretty much the only time I'm not as far left as possible.I call it common sense.
One less tax dodger on the roads!Got to admit those videos made me uncomfortable, and I used to (and occasionally still do) commute 25miles each way by bike.
Filtering past a taxi rank is going to get you doored eventually! And lots of half completed filtering, I always aim to get back into a primary position before the lights change otherwise there's a likelyhood of them not knowing you're allongside and doing something stupid like turning left without indicating.
Filtering past a taxi rank is going to get you doored eventually! And lots of half completed filtering, I always aim to get back into a primary position before the lights change otherwise there's a likelyhood of them not knowing you're allongside and doing something stupid like turning left without indicating.
thisisnotaspoon said:
Ares said:
It doesn't matter how often you say it....there is not a single circumstance where voluntarily being in the opposite lane for longer is better. See 'Time Exposed To Danger' for further information on what the rest of us called basic common sense.
If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
You're typing that from the perspective of someone sat in a 2ton metal box with crumple zones.If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
You don't want to share a lane with another 2 ton metal box traveling at a high relative speed because it's going to hurt.
A cyclist equally doesn't want to share a lane with a 2 ton metal box traveling at a high relative speed because it's going to hurt.
What the primary position does is make the driver consider the overtake before doing it. It doesn't stop them at all, just means they have to consider whether there is room to do it rather than either squeezing past the cyclists without crossing the central lines.
Secondary position is then for allowing cars past when the road is perhaps wide enough for a car to share the lane, as someone previously said that's a judgment based on speed and space, around town I'd use it 90% of the time because most of the traffic is moving at 20-30mph at most and I'm probably doing 15-20 so there's not much overtaking anyway. As the road opens out, I'd move back out to primary as the default pulling in when it's safe to overtake.
JimSuperSix said:
Ares said:
It doesn't matter how often you say it....there is not a single circumstance where voluntarily being in the opposite lane for longer is better. See 'Time Exposed To Danger' for further information on what the rest of us called basic common sense.
If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
what about when passing a horse and rider? slower = safer = longer.If you genuinely think there is, you should be giving your driving licence back as you are a too idiotic to drive a heavy metal box on the public highway.
Foss62 said:
I call it bloody dangerous if you actually mean as far left as possible. However you also said ‘as far left as practical’ which in most circumstances at any speed above about 15mph is likely to be primary - so I don’t see what your point is?
Well in 120,000km of cycling in the last 6/7yrs it's served me safe and well enough. Maybe you would benefit from seeing the point?Ares said:
But that is geared towards not spooking a live animal. Irrelevant when talking about overtaking cyclists (who also have to overtake horses, and slow down to do so)
Irrelevant? I'd call it almost exactly the same.Whilst a human being may understand they're sharing the roads with motor vehicles it's still very easy to creep up on a cyclist as 1. they probably won't hear you till the last second due to wind noise and 2. when you combine that with passing too close it's very easy to see how a bad overtake might cause an incident.
grudas said:
cyclists do hold up cars, especially in london
Driving in London, gets held up by cyclists ?At the end of the day, people need to get where they are going, to get to work, for leisure, for shopping and whatever.
Its people that hold other people up and a bike takes up a hell of a lot less space on the road and to park relative to the size of that person, but goes slower. Cars are a terrible way to get round cities like London, cars are ace but they are a clumsy and inefficient way of moving round a city most of the time.
If those cyclists that "do hold cars up" all changed to another method of transport, do you believe you would then be held up, less, more or the same ? Those cyclists arent generally just going to be "out for a ride" in the centre of London as that isnt much fun.
Only a certain number of the people in a city can drive a car before the sheer weight of numbers brings the system to its knees, only a certain percentage of people need or can afford a car but still need to get around.
Bikes arent the problem...
Centurion07 said:
Ares said:
But that is geared towards not spooking a live animal. Irrelevant when talking about overtaking cyclists (who also have to overtake horses, and slow down to do so)
Irrelevant? I'd call it almost exactly the same.Whilst a human being may understand they're sharing the roads with motor vehicles it's still very easy to creep up on a cyclist as 1. they probably won't hear you till the last second due to wind noise and 2. when you combine that with passing too close it's very easy to see how a bad overtake might cause an incident.
You can overtake a cyclist with a 30/40/50mph speed differential if you are 1.5m away and it will be 100% fine. You couldn't and wouldn't do that to a horse.
Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff