but they’re still wrong

It doesn’t matter if they are wrong or not.
It only matters what the majority of car drivers THINK…

it’s STILL NOT the cyclist introducing the danger – it’s still the ton of metal hitting the pedestrian which is the problem

It’s the position of the pedestrian and the ton of metal that’s the problem which is introduced in that case by the cyclist.

Lets replace the cyclist with a car…. the car goes through red lights causing another car that is going through a green light to swerve and hit a pedestrian… ?

But let’s come back to filtering, which is what we were discussing here – do you really not see the difference between 80kg of cyclist filtering at 10mph and 1000kg of car overtaking at 30mph or more? Do you think they both result in the same amount of danger, and therefore require the same amount of space?

Nope I think that if you demonstrate to a non cyclist driver how much room YOU need they will expect that is how much room YOU need.

But let’s come back to filtering, which is what we were discussing here

I thought we were discussing overtaking cyclists…

Ah, so traffic rules are reduced to the level of the average ignorant driver? Thankfully not the view of WMP (and now other police forces).

So effectively you’re either saying that cyclists can’t filter or that drivers can pass closer than the recommended (and now enforced) 1.5m – could you clarify which?

It’s the position of the pedestrian and the ton of metal that’s the problem which is introduced in that case by the cyclist.

It’s still a strawman, but if you want to persist in beating it, then let’s remove the cars from the road – are the cyclists actions causing danger? Quite clearly it’s only the presence of cars on the road which makes the situation dangerous (and handily also applies to your latest deflection).

So, instead of a toddler we have another bloke with a gun walking down the street bumping into original bloke with gun who sprays everybody with bullets – which of them has introduced the danger?

Can I just check again – you consider the situation to be symmetrical and cyclists introduce as much danger as vehicles despite the stats because of some hypothetical?

Nope I think that if you demonstrate to a non cyclist driver how much room YOU need they will expect that is how much room YOU need.

Ah, are we back to something similar to “giving cyclists a bad name” here? (though in this case by the interesting action of doing something perfectly safe and legal). Presumably drivers can’t be expected to pay any attention to what the HC says and are reliant on demonstration from cyclists.

I don’t ever signal cars to overtake me. Not my responsibility

Correct. It’s also potentially dangerously distracting to signal others to overtake. They should be making such a life/death decision to overtake on a lot of ever-changing factors, not a hand-wave. Humans being suggestible and all.

cyclists ignoring red lights, riding down a one way the wrong way etc. might or might not kill someone … but causing a car to swerve into a pedestrian because a cyclist doesn’t believe a red light applies to them is a cyclist introducing danger.

Read that back to yourself and imagine you’re on MailOnline. Not hard is it?

🙄

I don’t ever signal cars to overtake me. Not my responsibility;

Depends if you want to be helpful, polite or kind I guess

I don’t ever signal cars to overtake mehold open doors for people. Not my responsibility;

I generally wave cars past on single track (or nearly so) roads when I reach a wide bit (passing place or otherwise) where I can slow up and drift into it a bit. That way the car gets off my arse with minimum hold-up to all parties. Sometimes I stop of course, often it’s not necessary especially if the driver is paying attention and responds reasonably well to my signal.

The OP had better be trolling, otherwise what the **** hell were they taught when they learnt to drive? We’re all **** doomed if you can get a license and not know the answer to the question!

I don’t ever signal cars to overtake mehold open doors for people. Not my responsibility;

False equivalence. Overtaking is a potential life/death decision. This decision should be taken by the motorist and only when it is safe to do so. Waving them on opensup a whole can of potential worms:

– They may squeeze-pass
– They may get nervous/make a mistake because they may not wish to pass yet
– If something goes wrong some fingers will be pointing at you

I certainly remember my driving instructor tellng me that it’s usually safer to ignore ‘encouraging’ signals from other road users.

I’d prefer to pull off the road for a few if oncoming traffic + me is causing a tail-back.

I sometimes signal cars to pass, but only when I can see it’s totally safe. They seem to appreciate the courtesy.

A lot of the time I don’t, if I feel there’s any potential risk to them, myself or others.

Ah, so traffic rules are reduced to the level of the average ignorant driver? Thankfully not the view of WMP (and now other police forces).

So effectively you’re either saying that cyclists can’t filter or that drivers can pass closer than the recommended (and now enforced) 1.5m – could you clarify which?

Nope I’m simply pointing out it doesn’t matter what the RULES say.
Because ….

.. because most drivers don’t cycle and many read the Mailonline…

Ah, are we back to something similar to “giving cyclists a bad name” here?

nope …

(though in this case by the interesting action of doing something perfectly safe and legal). Presumably drivers can’t be expected to pay any attention to what the HC says and are reliant on demonstration from cyclists.

Firstly it’s NOT perfectly safe …. it may be perfectly legal but it is not safe because you can’t rely on drivers to have read the HC in decades.
The thing is most drivers don’t cycle… they will see a bike pass them and so assume they can pass a bike at the same distance.

As to giving cyclists a bad name… don’t we have Boris for that ??

This decision should be taken by the motorist and only when it is safe to do so

Are you saying you cannot tell when there is a clear section of road ahead with no oncoming traffic?

I have also gone into the middle of the road holding my hand up in the stop sign as well when i can see something they cannot that is ahead.

I have yet to falsely deem it safe to overtake me and been killed in the process.

Out of interest do you ignore everyone who flashes you in a car as its not their decision? Would i be correct in I assume assuming you never flash other cars either to let them go?

Sometimes cooperation between road users is essential and helping someone get past me safely falls into this category for me if nor for you.

Are you saying you cannot tell when there is a clear section of road ahead with no oncoming traffic?

No I did not say or mean that.

Out of interest do you ignore everyone who flashes you in a car as its not their decision?

Not customarily, no. Do I ignore some? Yes, if I note/foresee that their decision/judgement has been or could be compromised by a quickly changing situation, or simply bad-judgement/blind-spot on their part. It all rather depends on the situation. I also prefer to trust my own judgement, as a motorist (who also cycles), when passing a cyclist. This applies whether or not they wave me past.

TiRed – Member
Patience. It’s not the cyclist holding you up, it’s the oncoming traffic preventing you from passing safely.

Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Don’t pass until the other side of the road is clear. Then swing over to the other lane and pass.

Pity though that when I look in the RVM, 99% of the time, the following idiot drivers then pass, usually with only the O/S wheels having crossed the white lines, if you’re lucky!

I see lots of close passes, which make me wince.
It’s frustrating to see, but until there’s a collective willingness on behalf of all drivers to be patient and pass only when it’s proper to do so, the current behaviours will persist.

Right, hang on a minute here. I’ve read back through the thread to find out where we started discussing the DM rules of driving, and it appears to be your lone crusade. The rest of us are busy fairly sensibly discussing what drivers and cyclists SHOULD do, which is after all what the OP was after.

nope …

yep, because “they will see a bike pass them and so assume they can pass a bike at the same distance” is exactly that mindset, given it’s not the cyclist who safely and legally filtered past them who gets the close pass by the ignorant driver.

Firstly it’s NOT perfectly safe …. it may be perfectly legal but it is not safe because you can’t rely on drivers to have read the HC in decades.

So in what way is filtering past a stationary queue of traffic not safe (notwithstanding being Graylinged)? Even drivers completely ignorant of the HC would struggle to break it whilst stationary. Ignorance of the HC is another matter, but not a reason or an excuse for any driving failure.

BTW you still don’t appear to have answered whether you consider cyclists shouldn’t filter, or drivers should be allowed to pass them closer than 1.5m, nor who is introducing the danger, the toddler or the bloke with the gun.

aracer – Member
nor who is introducing the danger, the toddler or the bloke with the gun.

And breath.
😉