Scotroutes – It’s a little more ambiguous than that – you’re already on the carriageway, contemplating a safe overtake of the bike in front. You’re not changing lanes or entering the carriageway from a side-turning.

Sure, you should shoulder-check as you plan it, and perhaps not pull out directly in front of a car that is closing fast and lining both of you up for a overtake, but equally, the car should prepare for the possibility that a fast bike approaching a slow bike will move out to overtake, just as it would when approaching a parked car. There’s no automatic right of way for the approaching car – it’s got a responsibility to overtake you both safely, even if that means waiting for you to finish your overtake first.

I’m beginning to suspect you’re the guy in the video.

I’m beginning to suspect you’re the car driver – it would certainly explain how you know how close the car was when he pulled out.

So a couple of questions for those who think the cyclist was in the wrong:

1) what was the correct thing for him to do to overtake the other cyclist without having to slow down for it?

2) would it have been OK for him to pull out if he was approaching a parked car in the cycle lane?

I think the big issue here is that you’re all reading too much into that dashed white line, which actually has no mandatory significance at all – not only are bikes not required to ride in it, cars are allowed to drive (and park) in it. That and that it’s the responsibility of the vehicle overtaking to keep clear.

Perhaps you could explain what the cyclist was supposed to do in order to avoid having to brake behind the other cyclist

Nothing 😐

What is the problem with him having to use his brakes to avoid riding into another cyclist ?

Perhaps you could explain that ?

I live on one of Cheshire’s numbered cycle routes and every weekend in summer, hordes of aggressive, younger, urban roadies descend on us riding 4, 5 even 6 abreast.

They piss all the car drivers off… then go home, leaving me to put up with the aftermath on my commute all week.

It does seem to be a specific branch of “Go-Pro, self righteous, shouty, 30-something” roadie which didn’t exist 6-7 years ago. 🙁

What is the problem with him the driver having to use his brakes to avoid riding driving into another a cyclist ?

Perhaps you could explain that ?

I’ve cycled on the roads with groups of 20 or so other riders without having to adopt some formal “chain gang” type of approach, where folk drift up and down the “peleton” all day, chatting to other folk as they ride and meeting up at stops, cafes, pubs etc for a good chinwag. That’s what I would like a bike club to do, to get away from all this rules nonsense and an expectation that you must be out riding because you are in training for a race of some sort. No wonder roadies get a reputation for being miserable

That’s fine. I’ve seen plenty of such groups. They’re probably following the law of common decency. If I’m seen as a miserable roadie, then it’s probably something to do with where I’m riding. There’s always a place to have fun as long as you remember you’re on the road.

What is the problem with him the driver having to use his brakes to avoid riding driving into another a cyclist ?
Perhaps you could explain that ?

Who was changing their position on the road ?

The car was maintaining its path, the bike pulled out in front of him.

It’s not complicated really

(unless you really want it to be, which it seems you do)

By the way, you didn’t explain what I asked. (Shocker!)

So what is the problem with the cyclist needing to use his brakes to avoid hitting a slower moving cyclist ?

Who was changing their position on the road ?

Who was passing the other (and therefore required to keep clear)? Your point appears to be that in that situation there is nothing acceptable for the cyclist to do to avoid having to brake behind the other cyclist, yet you don’t consider it reasonable in any circumstances for the car to have to slow down – so we come back to “car is king”.

By the way, you didn’t explain what I asked. (Shocker!)

How about you go first, given I asked my questions first…

So what is the problem with the cyclist needing to use his brakes to avoid hitting a slower moving cyclist ?

Clearly there is nothing wrong with that if there is no alternative – but there is an alternative (I still note that there is sufficient space for the car to move right the same amount the cyclist has moved right).

…yet you don’t consider it reasonable in any circumstances for the car to have to slow down

Where did I say that ?

I’m talking about a particular incident in a video.

But for some reason, You seem to be imagining my possible responses to fictional scenarios that aren’t being discussed

– so we come back to “car is king”.

You are the only person (repeatedly) saying that.

I’m talking about a particular incident in a video.

But for some reason, You seem to be imagining my possible responses to fictional scenarios that aren’t being discussed

and I’m wondering what the cyclist could have done differently given the circumstances in the incident in the video – you could try answering my questions if you want to avoid me making assumptions about your attitude (and avoid looking like a hypocrite when complaining that I’m not answering yours). Would it have been OK to pull out 5 seconds earlier? What if there was a parked car?

You are the only person (repeatedly) saying that.

I wasn’t aware we were having a vote. That is simply the logical conclusion of expecting the cyclist to do something you’re not requiring of the driver, in order to avoid impeding the progress of the car (though you could also try addressing the point that the cyclist didn’t impede the progress of the car by pulling out).

Do you agree that your position is that the cyclist should have slowed down?
Do you agree that your position is that the car shouldn’t have been required to slow down?
Do you agree that it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to overtake the other cyclist if the car wasn’t there?
Do you agree that the logical conclusion of those points is that it’s the presence of the car which means the cyclist is required to slow down (according to you)?

One thing I notice from all the videos of angry cyclists on youtube is the lack of “livesaver” checks, the look over the right shoulder when changing direction. In that Ikea truck video, I would be looking over my shoulder before I pull out to overtake the parked cars, in fact I’m always checking just in case something is coming up behind me. Strikes me as odd that all these people in the videos dont do this but then get really arsey when cars overtake or cut them up. Could all be avoided with some anticipation and awareness.

As for general road riding skills/behaviour, club runs have fallen out of fashion and most people seem to learn abour roadcraft from sportives where there is safety in numbers and the roads can be fairly quiet. Then they get out on to busier roads and are a danger to themselves…

The cyclist shouldn’t have pulled out to overtake if it meant that someone approaching from behind had to brake to avoid them.

Wether the person approaching from behind was a car, a bus, a wagon or a cyclist. Makes no difference.

If you pull out in front of another road user, and your change of position means they have to brake to avoid you, then you shouldn’t have done it.

Simple.

So it’s nothing to do with the “car is king” opinion you keep trying to force on people.

Any answers to the questions?

If you pull out in front of another road user, and your change of position means they have to brake to avoid you, then you shouldn’t have done it.

Can I check I’ve understood correctly – it’s not OK for a cyclist to take the lane coming up to a pinch point, as that change of position means the car behind has to brake to avoid them?

On a casual club run I’d not expect to have more than 2 riders wider normally, and would be a lot tighter than they are, maybe a handlebars width between riders. As said above, I’d expect some hand signals for whats up ahead from riders in front, and a call from the back wrt traffic behind that may want to pass.

I’d ride defensively and move towards the middle of the lane for things such as traffic islands where a numpty may try to squeeze you between their car and the kerb.

Fortunately where I live the roads are wider than the majority in the UK and the drivers more patient and used to cyclists, but there are more larger vehicles to be aware of too.

I have road cycled in the UK, and it wasn’t really pleasant, combination of weather, traffic and the road layouts meaning a relaxing ride is hard to find.

Can I check I’ve understood correctly – it’s not OK for a cyclist to take the lane coming up to a pinch point, as that change of position means the car behind has to brake to avoid them?

I’m not sure that you have actually.

You seem to be asking me about theoretical situations again.

I’m talking about a cyclist choosing to overtake another cyclist, pulling out into the path of another road user causing them to brake to avoid a collision

You seem to be talking about something different for some reason.

aracer, nice try at a ‘reductio ad absurdam’ move on nealglover but I suspect there’s a significant difference between the two cases. Taking a wide position in a narrow road to prevent dodgy overtaking stunts is a safety issue. You do that to protect yourself. Pulling out to overtake a slower rider is a convenience issue. There is no danger in waiting behind the dawdler.
Having said that, it’s not certain that there was a fault in the rider’s overtaking move in the video. At least he looked behind before moving out of his lane, but it was a bit last minute and he may have already committed himself to the overtake anyway. He could probably have done better.

Am I missing something from the second clip. The guy clearly pulls out of the cycle lane into the path of the car. The expectation on the road is that the overtaking vehicle thats holding its position maintains its speed, and the vehicle thats changing lanes fills a gap. The emphasis is on the vehicle changing lanes to brake, its not hard to follow.

Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you? Because thats not how it works.

Whats the difference between the scenario above and the one in the video?

that’s what I would like a bike club to do, to get away from all this rules nonsense and an expectation that you must be out riding because you are in training for a race of some sort. No wonder roadies get a reputation for being miserable.

I’ve ridden on lots of club rides over the years, and have never encountered any rules. I have learned the skills necessary to ride safely in a group, but I don’t think that has cramped my style or spoiled my enjoyment of cycling.
A club run is a celebration of the social side of cycling, whether you are training in a chain gang, or just enjoying a leisurely run to the cafe with your club mates. It’s not for everyone, of course, but lots of people enjoy the simple camaraderie of riding together in a group.

Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you?

I’ve asked him that question already but it seems we’re all car driving nazis and he’s an eco warrior.

I can see both sides of this. The car driver should have enough anticipation to see a cyclist closing on another and moving towards the middle of the road. Yet the bike rider should be aware of the traffic behind him and the likelihood that a car is going to be where he wants to be.

But until we have totally separate bike lanes we need to learn to share the road and recognise, no matter who’s at ‘fault’, that we’re always going to come off worse.

Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you? Because thats not how it works.

[u]Every[/u] frigging time IME

to the argualympians: Would it make a difference if the cyclist had indicated his intention with a hand signal several seconds before moving out ? How many seconds would it have to be ?

I’m so sorry – I thought we were discussing more general principles here “If you pull out in front of another road user” certainly seems to suggest this is a more general point. Can I check that doesn’t actually apply to every situation then? (it’s fine, I’m not expecting an answer, I’ll just carry on assuming your position). Though your complete unwillingness to answer any of the questions put to you suggests you’re actually more interested in point scoring than discussing road safety. If we are limiting discussion in that way, can I retract the earlier answer I gave? The problem with the cyclist using his brakes is that he doesn’t have to as there is plenty of road space to the right for him to use to pass.

I’m not suggesting otherwise, or really comparing the two cases – the example of a cyclist at a pinch point was simply addressing nealglover’s assertion that it’s always incorrect to pull out and cause another road user to brake. Once we’ve accepted that isn’t the case (I’m hoping it’s only mr glover refusing to accept such a point, or discuss the issue) we can move on to discussing in which situations it is reasonable for another road user to have to wait behind you. To which my argument is that the road user in front has right of way – the HC suggests it is up to the person overtaking to keep clear, not the other way around. Though mr glover’s arguments are really asking for some sort of reductio to be carried out on them.

The difference is that it’s not a DC with multiple lanes – your scenario is completely different. Imagine that there is no white line marked on the road (I’m going to credit you with the ability to cope with imagining such things, unlike nealglover). Legally it makes no difference at all to the situation, as a cyclist isn’t obliged to ride in an advisory cycle lane and neither is a driver obliged not to. Would you still consider that the cyclist was changing lanes if that was the case (remember that the white line makes no legal difference to anything)? There is only one lane in the video.

Though to address your point about the DC directly, are you suggesting that lorries are never allowed to overtake slower moving vehicles? Because that will almost always result in cars having to slow down for them. The faster moving vehicle does not have RoW just because it is going faster – that’s not how it works. It is the vehicle in front which has RoW, not the one overtaking.

To relate that back to the video, I don’t dispute that it is possible that the cyclist is at fault. However I disagree with the assertion that the cyclist must be at fault simply because the car driver had to slow down – some people seem to be struggling with the difference between that and pulling out directly in front of the car causing it to brake sharply, which there is absolutely no evidence to suggest happened. No audio of screeching tyres, and about 2s between the cyclist moving to the right and the car sounding it’s horn – at which point for all we know it could still be a second or two behind it and not having yet had to slow down.

So questions for those willing to answer them:

1) what should the cyclist do if he encountered a parked car in the cycle lane?
2) would it be OK if the cyclist had moved to the right 5s earlier and taken the lane?
3) if there was a long line of slower cyclists, would it be OK for the faster rider to pull out to overtake when the car was in the far distance and stay there overtaking them when the car has come up behind him and been forced to slow down?
4) given that there is space for the driver to move to the right by the same amount the cyclist moves to the right, why doesn’t he just do that? Nobody need have to brake.

I’m hoping there are at least some on this “discussion” willing to answer these questions, so that we can try to establish exactly what is and isn’t OK for a cyclist to do.

1) Check if it was safe to move out past the car. If it is, do it, it not wait until it is

2) If it was safe to do so then yes,

3) Yes

4) Because then the militant cyclist would have posted a video of the impatient driver that blasted past him using the chevron section of the road…

I cycle in London nearly every day, and have done so for nearly 20 years. If I stopped and waited behind a parked car until there was no chance of causing a motorist to apply their brakes I’d never manage to cycle anywhere.
It really does worry me how little some of you supposed cyclists give a toss about or understand how multi modal road use works.
Maybe I should get some of you to come on my commute and see exactly how long it’ll take you to cycle 6 miles without pulling out to pass parked cars/ buses/ lorries/ vans/ width restrictors/ other cyclists/ runners/ roller ski-ers/ senior citizens in electric buggies/ potholes etc etc.

Thanks for answering, BoardinBob 🙂

1) Check if it was safe to move out past the car. If it is, do it, it not wait until it is

Are you suggesting that he should brake to a halt if there is a car driver coming up behind who will have to slow down if he pulls out?

2) If it was safe to do so then yes,

Phew – we’re getting somewhere. So the only issue you have is that he pulled out too late, possibly causing the driver to have to brake sharply. To which my answer is that you might be right, but there is no evidence in the video to suggest that is the case, so it’s unfair to criticise him on that theoretical basis. I’ll take back my suggestion that you think car is king – though if you review your posts, you might be able to see why I’m surprised by this answer.

4) Because then the militant cyclist would have posted a video of the impatient driver that blasted past him using the chevron section of the road…

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-it-me-discipline-on-club-runs#post-5561384

Is this still going?!

It’s like having TJ back 🙂

the example of a cyclist at a pinch point was simply addressing nealglover’s assertion that it’s always incorrect to pull out and cause another road user to brake.

As I’ve said (more than once) I’m discussing the video that was posted.

You seem to be in need of an argument, and insist on making up my position so you can argue with it.

As you seem to be having quite a good imaginary argument between your position, and the position you seem to want me to have, it looks like you don’t need me anymore.

So I will leave you to battle it out with yourself and whatever you want to make up.

Adios.

It’s great fun on threads like this to read page 1 then skipping to the last page and trying to guess whats happened in between.

FWIW, lolroadbikes.

to be honest it sounds like you are a militant cyclist whos desperate for an argument, and given you’ve obviously got far more time on your hands to vent than me then bash on.

What i will say however is that when you pull a similar move and the car doesn’t brake, regardless of your stance on this one (or the letter of the law) you’ll be the one lying broken at the side of the road, and (judging by recent cases that have gone to court) the driver will get off scott free.

Either way its cyclists like the guy on the video who give a bad name to 99% of other cyclists

I’m discussing the video that was posted.

In which case what’s the difference between this one and ones where it is OK to pull out and cause a vehicle to brake? Oops, sorry I know you don’t answer questions. I have to admit the wording still seems somewhat strange for addressing a single situation – surely you’re not back pedalling?

insist on making up my position

I wonder why it is I have to do that?

Lolcopters @

Is that because I think cyclists have equal right to be on the roads?

What i will say however is that when you pull a similar move and the car doesn’t brake, regardless of your stance on this one (or the letter of the law) you’ll be the one lying broken at the side of the road, and (judging by recent cases that have gone to court) the driver will get off scott free.

Well of course we all know that drivers run down cyclists – I’m not sure that pulling out in front of a driver giving them a good 2s to slow down is going to make that any more likely.

Either way its cyclists like the guy on the video who give a bad name to 99% of other cyclists

In the same way that the bad drivers in his videos (who do things which are far, far worse than anything he does) give a bad name to the 99% 10% of totally law abiding drivers?

Is that because I think cyclists have equal right to be on the roads?

FYI as subjects of her majesty the queen you have an inalienable right to walk, cycle or ride your horse on the queens highway. Motorists are merely licensed and must earn that privilege, this can be revoked by the state at any time.

So cyclists have more rights than motorists.

Oh, can’t we all just get along?
If I’ve got this right, in a car, if you want to pull out and overtake, you do the whole ‘mirror signal manoeuvre’ thing. Ideally, you don’t oblige the faster guy coming up behind you to slow down, you indicate your intention and if absolutely necessary, they slow down to let you out but that’s their choice. They might flash you to let you know. You check this, then move. Same with the bike. I find that a good look over my shoulder, not just a quick glance, is enough to let the observant driver know you’ve seen them and you’re about to do something. Nine times out of ten, I don’t even feel the need to indicate to move out. I’ve negotiated for the space, check I’ve been given it, make my manoeuvre and acknowledge the fact with a wave or whatever. I didn’t notice the guy in the video do much in the way of observation behind him, just sayin’.