Wish they would show a version of these Public Safety films nationally, ideally as compulsory viewing Clockwork Orange style:
(Not perfect but one of the best I've seen)
IME many motorists will patiently sit behind a tractor till they can pass, but want past cyclists immediately.
FFS, you are not 'in the way' you are using the road just like everyone else, you can't just expect cyclists to jump off the road just every time a car comes up behind them, and moving into the gutter just makes everything worse and less safe as well as perpetuating the idea that that's where cyclists should be
GrahamS - I have seen that picture on here lots of times and still find it a bit confusing.
Yep - another fine example of the Highway Code being to vague to be useful.
riding 2 abreast, then the road in the pic would not be wide enough to ever overtake giving the outside cyclist that much room.
I think a more reasonable proposition is to say that if cyclists are riding two abreast then the outside cyclist should ride where the outside wheels of a car would be.
Overtaking cars would need to give them "as much space as you would a car" (e.g. overtake by completely entering the next/opposite lane).
But sadly it is all too vague (deliberately so IMO) to decide what they actually mean.
There's a common sense angle though, surely?
Seems to me there's some righteous cyclists out there, who prefer to feel indignant about car drivers' behaviour than to ride in a way that's harmonious with other road users. The harmonious bit is hugely vague, of course. But IMO it involves (a) no shooting red lights or pavement jumping to avoid a 15 second delay, (b) no two-abreasting when the road is evidently busy and (c) no ****ing texting whilst in the saddle.
The Sanity Assassin - Member
I genuinely think that in most cases passing a moving cyclist doesn't actually register as an overtaking manoeuvre to motorists.
This seems to nail it for me in much the same way as cars overtake parked cars irrespective of whether there is room without hitting oncoming traffic.
Seems to me there's some righteous cyclists out there
IMO there are two types of "righteous cyclist":
1: the one drivers think we all are: who smugly regards every road user as wrong, who delights in winding up "cagers", and who will ride on a dangerous road or in the primary with 50 cars queued behind him/her just to "make a point".
2: the one that is actually much more common, who gets "righteous" about their right to use the public road safely without feeling bullied or threatened by other road users.
Actual 1's are quite rare.
The trouble is that drivers see someone in the primary and automatically think they are 1, when actually most of the time they are 2. And cyclists who are actually a 2 fear that they might look like a 1.
You must live in a different part of the country to me; there's lots of roads I ride on where cars pass me safely on my own but would be blocked by 2 abreast.
Well if that's the case, then singling out is reasonable, and actually safer as the road will be wide enough that a car can squeeze past 2 abreast if it decides to. The tone of the post I responded to suggested he was talking about narrower roads where he couldn't physically fit past 2 cyclists. And no, if you can't physically fit past 2 abreast cyclists then it's not safe to pass one.
I'm far from being a militant cyclist and will single out or give way to cars where it is safe and will help their progress, but a lot of drivers (and people on here ) seem to think singling out will help them, where it won't or will make it more dangerous for the cyclists. One example I can think of where I wouldn't ride 2 abreast is a very wide road near me where a driver can safely overtake a single cyclist without crossing the central white line (to be honest the vast majority do actually cross the line as there is plenty of space for them to do so even with oncoming traffic, and I don't think I've ever actually had a close pass on that road which tells a tale for those who suggest restricting space helps).
I should point out as part of this discussion that once when riding 2 abreast with my sister we got stopped by the police who suggested we should single up. My sister explained carefully to the policeman why 2 abreast was actually safer on that road (where a driver couldn't pass a single cyclist safely with oncoming traffic, but could pass one dangerously) and the policeman went away agreeing with her - she can be very persuasive!
In the first post, the OP struggles to imagine what would happen if the two cars collide, my experience is there's a hell of a crunch, the overtaker swerving then going up the right hand banking, then 50ft down into the woods. The innocent motorist(in his car he's only owned for 2 days)get's thrown sideways across the road and into the opposite banking, and I get to brake so hard that I "stoppy" an inch from his front wheel, and gently topple onto his bonnet on my hands and knees. Innocent driver was a bit shaken, whilst we had to rescue a confused old chap because nobody else at the scene had headtorches to see in the darkness.An eventful evening, all up.
There was a recent case I think in NZ where someone overtook a line of cyclists - single file seems to have become a convention for avoiding too much conflict/annoyance. Half way past a car came round the corner and he pulled into the line of cyclists groups are easier to pass like tractors lines on narrow/country roads are plane dangerous (cyclists, motorist & former driver of large agricultural vehicles) pulling in when you can is courteous hopping off into every gateway to let a car past is pointless.
Here's a thought for you, people are a bit thick. A lot of drivers aren't making the rational calculations people on here assume, they're not mentally engaged.
Try this some time. In a supermarket check-out queue or airport check-in, let a small gap develop in front of you, say three feet or so, invariably the person behind you will become agitated at the lack of movement to the point of nudging you with their trolley, steeping on the backs of your heels and so on.
It's bonkers, totally irrational, what slows things down is the bag check or check-out process and if people thought it through, they'd know that shoving their trolley into you isn't going to make any difference to the time they spend standing there.
I reckon a lot of people do the same thing on the road. They just feel a sort of basic need to feel they're progressing, they can't help themselves. Rational thought has nothing to do with it and trying to project that sort of reasoning process onto some motorists - and some cyclists - is a waste of time.
Then again as a nation we seem happy to spend billions on a completely pointless nuclear deterrent so rationality clearly isn't really our strong point...
[edit - too impatient to post, pressed button twice, no hope for me]
You must log in to post.