Go past ?

[Markjag12]

Was following a cyclist along a narrow winding road with loads of blind corners recently. The first opportunity to overtake came at the point of the attached photo. (This is from street view, the road was clear at this point). I considered overtaking but would have liked to see the road to be clear just a little further. After getting a bit frustrated that we had not been able to get past up untill now (about half a mile at this point). The guy behind took the chance and overtook both me and the cyclist. He did it decisively and nobody came round the corner ahead as he was going past. Im not here to say the guy has done wrong. Nobody came from the other direction whilst he was going past. And he moved back over before the corner. But as i know that people dont always drive at a speed which allows them to stop in the distance they can see to be clear on this road, i didnt want to risk it. As far as im concerned ive done no wrong ethier, whilst i was perhaps being abit too cautious, there was no hesitation in my decision to not pass, i didnt try to go round then change my mind for example. I chose not to take the - albeit small - risk that someone could come round the corner ahead quickly.

This particular road is a nightmare for cyclists. Whilst going past here is justifiable, i didnt think it was so clearly safe that not going past was injustifiable. Anybody see this as a mistake ? (Understand its hard to say without seeing exactly what we were seeing).

Anybody else feel like alot of people take risks too readily with cyclists because they get frustrated ?

[Markjag12]

Driving along this road has led me to believe recently that i might be overly cautious when overtaking cyclists. Although i think that is just me letting impatient people behind make me second guess myself. But i was not indecisive, i know that being indecisive can be dangerous in some contexts.

Im not to clear on the rules in this scenario regarding double solid white lines and cyclists ?

[Markjag12]

MaxSo said:

What type of cyclist was it, and how fast were they going?

1. It depends on the speed, type and behaviour of the cyclist. For example, if it was casual cyclist on an old mountain bike tootling along I would have gone past. If it was a more serious cyclist on a fast road back, going at 20-25mph I probably wouldn't have. If it was a commuter cyclist somewhere in between I probably would have. Then it may also depend on my knowledge of what is after the next bend (either local knowledge or looking at the sat nav). If I knew there was a village with single lane traffic, or traffic calming, or a windy downhill section where the cyclist will pick up speed I probably wouldn't have. As I understand it, the rule is that you shouldn't go past a cyclist if they are exceeding 10mph and to do so safely would require you to cross the solid lines. In most cases I would choose to set aside the 10mph limitation and instead rely on my own judgement based on the above, the distance to the the next bend, and all other potential hazards. Rigidly applying the 10mph limitation is arguably more dangerous as it will invariably cause a long queue of traffic behind and perhaps increase the likelihood of dangerous overtakes.

2. I would say from my viewpoint as a driver, rather than a cyclist, the majority of people take risks too readily with cyclists. I see this most in London where all types of vehicle will try to squeeze past cyclists only to arrive at red light queue and the cyclist to then filter past them.. and so it continues. Then you get the scenarios where there are cyclists on both sides of the road which meet just as the vehicles following them both try to squeeze past. There's a distinct shortage of patience amongst a large proportion of drivers.

I would say they were a medium pace cyclist. And, like i say, going past may have incurred a very small risk. Risks including - but not limited to - someone quickly coming round the corner ahead, possibly on the wrong side of the road as they themselves had just overtaken a cyclist - lots of cyclists on this road. I considered all this in my decision not to pass.

My criticism would not be of someone who safely passed here. It would be of the person behind, who, upon being frustrated with my - possibly unnecessary (but i dont think so) - caution. Decided to pass us both and then, if faced with a car coming quickly around the corner ahead, would have likely put the responsibilty on me. Simply because i chose to mitigate the risk on front of me to as close as zero as possible. Like i said, this was not irratic and indecisive driving. Just potentially a little too cautious.

Not saying you are one of these people btw, , just mentioned it because you touched on people behind making overtakes.

If i had to guess, they were going over 10mph.

[Markjag12]

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 ?

[Markjag12]

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.

[Markjag12]

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 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.