Passing Cyclists!!

[Centurion07]

Ares said:

You can always hear a car behind when on a bike.

No, you can't.

[Fastpedeller]

J4CKO said:

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...

Indeed, bikes aren't the problem. many studies over many years have concluded that the average speed of traffic in London (as an example) can be achieved on foot! If every road user was on a bike in London the average speed would possible go up by at least 50%

[Fastpedeller]

Ares said:

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 always hear a car behind when on a bike
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.

I agree with your comment "Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist." but have to question whether you have ever ridden a bike.

[thiscocks]

Fastpedeller said:

Ares said:

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 always hear a car behind when on a bike
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.

I agree with your comment "Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist." but have to question whether you have ever ridden a bike.

Probably not if he thinks going past a cyclist at 50mph with 1.5m to spare (ie not totaly over the centre line) is 100% fine.

[Ares]

Centurion07 said:

Ares said:

You can always hear a car behind when on a bike.

No, you can't.

OK. I can always hear a car behind, which when coupled with 360 observation & spatial awareness means I've never not been aware of a car by the times its passed me.

One of the reasons I'm so vocal in my disgust of cyclists that wear on/in-ear headphones

[Ares]

Fastpedeller said:

J4CKO said:

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...

Indeed, bikes aren't the problem. many studies over many years have concluded that the average speed of traffic in London (as an example) can be achieved on foot! If every road user was on a bike in London the average speed would possible go up by at least 50%

.....and the roads free of congestion as we know it.

[Ares]

Fastpedeller said:

Ares said:

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 always hear a car behind when on a bike
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.

I agree with your comment "Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist." but have to question whether you have ever ridden a bike.

I've ridden over 18,000km this year alone, so far.

[Ares]

thiscocks said:

Fastpedeller said:

Ares said:

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 always hear a car behind when on a bike
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.

I agree with your comment "Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist." but have to question whether you have ever ridden a bike.

Probably not if he thinks going past a cyclist at 50mph with 1.5m to spare (ie not totaly over the centre line) is 100% fine.

Maybe I'm just more confident. But a safe distance of 1.5m is all the buffer I feel I need.

[anonymous-user]

so lets say you're overtaking a cyclist on a straight empty road. there is no danger just being on the other side of the road, so overall is it safer for everyone involved if you go past faster or slower?

[thiscocks]

Ares said:

Centurion07 said:

Ares said:

You can always hear a car behind when on a bike.

No, you can't.

OK. I can always hear a car behind, which when coupled with 360 observation & spatial awareness means I've never not been aware of a car by the times its passed me.

One of the reasons I'm so vocal in my disgust of cyclists that wear on/in-ear headphones

There have been plenty of time I have not heard a car behind when cycling into a strong head wind (or crosswind) and shat myself a bit when one comes past at 50 odd

[Centurion07]

Ares said:

Maybe I'm just more confident. But a safe distance of 1.5m is all the buffer I feel I need.

And that right there is the issue; what suits YOU might not suit someone else, hence me likening overtaking a cyclist to a horse since in both cases you never know exactly what you're dealing with.

Just because you passed one cyclist at 50mph at 1.5m doesn't mean the next one you do it to won't have a bit of a wobble and come off.

[grudas]

J4CKO said:

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...

My comment was sarcastic hence the videos showing the complete opposite

[Ares]

JimSuperSix said:

so lets say you're overtaking a cyclist on a straight empty road. there is no danger just being on the other side of the road, so overall is it safer for everyone involved if you go past faster or slower?

Assuming perfect vision and a dead straight empty, flat road. it doesn't really make any difference if the car is into the opposite lane and the bike to the left of their lane.

Nitpicking, the car would be better being faster (less TED, despite clear road), the cyclist might prefer slower, but some would rather the overtake be quicker to reduce the time next to a fast moving car.

I wouldn't mind either way as long as they gave me space.....unless the car was only going 5-10kph faster than me so I could get a draft

[Ares]

Centurion07 said:

Ares said:

Maybe I'm just more confident. But a safe distance of 1.5m is all the buffer I feel I need.

And that right there is the issue; what suits YOU might not suit someone else, hence me likening overtaking a cyclist to a horse since in both cases you never know exactly what you're dealing with.

Just because you passed one cyclist at 50mph at 1.5m doesn't mean the next one you do it to won't have a bit of a wobble and come off.

I was talking as a cyclist, I've never gone passed a cyclist at 50mph without leaving a full lane distance.

But it is still very very different to passing a horse, which you should reduce you speed to little more than walking pace, including when on a bike.

[Ares]

thiscocks said:

Ares said:

Centurion07 said:

Ares said:

You can always hear a car behind when on a bike.

No, you can't.

OK. I can always hear a car behind, which when coupled with 360 observation & spatial awareness means I've never not been aware of a car by the times its passed me.

One of the reasons I'm so vocal in my disgust of cyclists that wear on/in-ear headphones

There have been plenty of time I have not heard a car behind when cycling into a strong head wind (or crosswind) and shat myself a bit when one comes past at 50 odd

You need a better aero position

[Castrol for a knave]

Ares said:

I've ridden over 18,000km this year alone, so far.

Join a club, then someone will ride with you.

[Ares]

Castrol for a knave said:

Ares said:

I've ridden over 18,000km this year alone, so far.

Join a club, then someone will ride with you.

Very funny

[J4CKO]

Ares said:

Fastpedeller said:

Ares said:

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 always hear a car behind when on a bike
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.

I agree with your comment "Overtaking a horse on a road is very different to overtaking a cyclist." but have to question whether you have ever ridden a bike.

I've ridden over 18,000km this year alone, so far.

So you average over 50 miles per day, every day ? 3 hours or so ?

I like a ride but not that much

[Centurion07]

[Centurion07]

Show 'im Ares!