[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

I think TJ is spot on with his assessment a few posts above. On the road pictured a safe overtake of a safe cyclist is going to take them well into the opposite lane so no problem with 2 abreast.

For the debris in the cycle lane, it's not so much how often it's swept, it's the amount that's cleared by car tyres. A lot will stick to (or in) them that could damage a bike tyre or get flicked off the main road - straight into the cycle lane. The cleanest part of the road to cycle is usually where the car tyres line up.

cynic-al - Member
really? I wonder if a driver could see past 2-abreast to see an oncoming cyclist.

🙄

Can you see past cars before crossing the white line to overtake?

Yes, they have glass at eye level.

On the road pictured a safe overtake of a safe cyclist is going to take them well into the opposite lane so no problem with 2 abreast.

The highway code doesn't agree.

The highway code doesn't agree.

That depends on how you interpret it. The highway code isn't very clear, I'd say.

I kinda read it as, treat it like car, move into the other lane and overtake properly...rather than stating a distance, which in some instances may well make it impossible. I think it's intentionally vague.

It's pretty clear in saying that you shouldn't ride two abreast on busy roads, which it sounds like this was.

I would not use the bike lane if there were parked cars - you need to be more than a metre away from parked cars at all times to avoid being doored. basic defensive cycling. ... I would not ever go into that metre of safety between me and a parked car

Personally I think this is a bit hard line. If you are approaching parked cars on a long straight road then you'll be aware of cars that are clearly parked up and empty (by seeing them at a distance, seeing no peds near them, and seeing no one through their windows). If I had traffic behind me I'd use that point to move into the "door zone" and let them past.

(Edit: can't be arsed with the two abreast argument again)

Graham - sorry but you are wrong on this. Its another basic defensive measure - always go wider than a metre from a parked car. See yesterdays thread about making cycling safer - being doored by someone in a parked car is a common injury.

I look in every car - every one - as well - a metre is barely enough if somone opens a door. You cannot always tell for sure with headrests, tinted windows etc if a car is empty.

By riding in this way you do not hold up cars at all in any way they will be in the same place in the next jam.

If you go into the door zone you are foolish and putting yourself in unnecessary danger.

You may consider my attitude hardline - I consider yours very dangerous. You are removing your safe margins and allowing cars to squeeze past in a dangerous manner.

Edit - you also need the space to give you somewhere to go if a car does try to squeeze past - same as if you are riding along a stretch with barriers - you ride wider as you cannot escape off the road

Just to say I've not read much past the first few posts. But are you sure what you're looking at is a cycle lane?
There are loads round here on the busier roads. They're about the width of a cycle lane, but they just mark the edge of the carriageway.

grum - Member
It's pretty clear in saying that you shouldn't ride two abreast on busy roads, which it sounds like this was.

Should/should not is advice must/must not is legal requirement.

Agree with TJ on road positioning too, better to leave space inside you than have no-where to go.

cynic-al - Member
Serious Q: riding 2 abreast and 1m+ from parked cars, would cyclists actually be allowing drivers enough room to overtake them safely (while giving parked cars on the other side 1m of room too)?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. That photograph is inaccurate, deceptive, plainly wrong and should not have ever made it into any official / legitmate information about road safety. Everything about it is wrong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. That photograph is inaccurate, deceptive, plainly wrong and should not have ever made it into any official / legitmate information about road safety. Everything about it is wrong.

Explain to me exactly what's wrong with it and why.

Anyway, if you're going to complain that is wrong I feel obliged to point out that IMHO the advice about not riding two abreast on busy roads (as cited above by those who think cyclists should get out of the way of the "traffic") is also incorrect and dangerous, as singling up in such situations is likely to encourage drivers to squeeze past.

My post was about the photo not what was writen. Unfortunately, or thankfully, I don't know how to just quote the photo.

For completion though;
1. That is not the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a 'car'.
2. That is not the road position you'd take if you were overtaking a 'car'.
3. The overtake is being performed right after a roundabout at which point you're 99% unlikely to have been able to properly assess an overtake of a 'car' - unless you weren't paying attention at the roundabout.
4. The car is still on the same side of the road not leaving enough clear space for a 'car'.
5. The attitude of the car is such that it is clearly not settled / under full control therefore demonstrating that the driver hasn't planned the overtake.
6. The car is still 'moving out' to do the overtake even though it is level with the cyclist.

Incredibly basic and simple stuff.

The fact that the photo has been thought out and staged just demonstrates how little road skills are considered.

1. That is not the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a 'car'.
4. The car is still on the same side of the road not leaving enough clear space for a 'car'.

Well make your mind up - is it too far out or not enough?

3. The overtake is being performed right after a roundabout at which point you're 99% unlikely to have been able to properly assess an overtake of a 'car' - unless you weren't paying attention at the roundabout.

I don't see any problem at all with overtaking a bicycle there though - and the HC doesn't suggest you shouldn't overtake cyclists in locations where you wouldn't overtake cars. Though in actual fact I don't see any problem with overtaking a car there either if the driver of the overtaking car is concentrating properly - if you start looking at the overtake as soon as you're clear of the roundabout, then you'd easily be able to safely be making the overtake at that point.

5. The attitude of the car is such that it is clearly not settled / under full control therefore demonstrating that the driver hasn't planned the overtake.

Now you're just being silly. How do you get that from the photo? I see no tyre smoke, skid marks or exaggerated body roll. Sure it might not be totally level with the horizon, but if you're suggesting that shows it's not under full control you're really grasping at straws - you reckon you can tell from that picture how much camber there is on the road and how much the camera is distorting the perspective? Are you also suggesting that the car should overtake without any lateral acceleration at all?

6. The car is still 'moving out' to do the overtake even though it is level with the cyclist.

Is it? Skidding sideways you think? Because otherwise it's hard to see how it's moving out when the front and rear wheels are parallel with the white line (to the level of accuracy you can derive from that photo).

Graham - sorry but you are wrong on this. Its another basic defensive measure - always go wider than a metre from a parked car. See yesterdays thread about making cycling safer - being doored by someone in a parked car is a common injury.

I completely agree with that part. I just think the absolute "[u]never[/u]" is hardline.
IMO sometimes it is quite possible to determine that the cars parked up are in fact empty, and you can then safely choose to enter the doorzone to allow folk past.

For example as you approach you see the driver get out, lock the car and walk away. Or the car could clearly have been there for a while (maybe covered in leaves, rain, dust, snow). Or as I said you may be able to see through the windscreen and clearly see it is empty.

If there is zero chance of getting doored by a car then I'd be happy to pass it in the doorzone to let someone pass me.
It is likely to be less dangerous than frustrating the driver behind me.

You are removing your safe margins and allowing cars to squeeze past in a dangerous manner.

Not on the OPs road, where there is a cycle lane and plenty of room for cars to pass bikes using that lane without any squeezing.

[img] [/img]

In fact, looking at that photo I'd say you could easily ride 1 metre from the parked cars and still remain well within the cycle lane. So I'd probably ride the whole thing with my wheels just inside the lane.

Not on the OPs road, where there is a cycle lane and plenty of room for cars to pass bikes using that lane without any squeezing.

Eh? the overtaking car would be nowhere near giving the cyclist as much room as the HC pic above...aren't you a proponent of the latter?

Here's a wee update following this morning ride. I set a lap on my garmin for this section.

Total distance is 0.34 miles from one set of lights to the next; this took me 51 seconds to ride this morning. As usual there were cars to the left of the path and as usual I didn't ride in the path. To say 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left' is nonsense and certainly isn't 'pretty wide'.

As others have said even if the riders were single file in the path your would still have had to wait for a clear section of road on the other side before overtaking. So them riding two abreast made no difference to you or the progress of your journey.

If someone is riding in a cycle path a vehicle is still obliged to give space when overtaking.

I'm surprised that as a new driver you are totally unaware of how you should safely pass a cyclist. If that’s the standard you can pass a test at then I'm worried.

eat_more_cheese to be fair the cycle path has been swept recently, well as far as floak which is east ayrshire side. There's glass on the donwhill section to Fenwick (from Glasgow) and glass on the bit at the top of newton mearns, apart from that it's okay.

Out of interest what time are you on the path - we must pass each other often.

As for my comment about groups using the path being a pain to riders approaching from the rear, firstly I'm glad it amused you, secondly I'll either go on the road to go round, or wait until they move over, and lastly I certainly wouldn't post about it on a forum. I apply common sense, patience and courtesy as I fully accept this is a shared path for walkers, cyclists, horses, runners, etc.

[i]Not on the OPs road, where there is a cycle lane and plenty of room for cars to pass bikes using that lane without any squeezing.[/i]

No there isn't.

I completely agree with that part. I just think the absolute "never" is hardline.

It is hardline, and you can never say never, but let's say there's a small child lying on the back seat. Mummy locks the door because she doesn't want little Timmy kidnapped in the 5 minutes it will take to pick up the dog from uncle Dave's. But little Timmy can open the door from the inside, he reaches for the handle, and...oops.

Far better places to pullover before letting any traffic past.

Total distance is 0.34 miles from one set of lights to the next; this took me 51 seconds to ride this morning. As usual there were cars to the left of the path and as usual I didn't ride in the path. To say 'But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left' is nonsense and certainly isn't 'pretty wide'.

Gary, the A77 is quite a long road as I'm sure you are aware. I didn't sit on google maps clicking until I found the exact spot I encountered the cyclists. That's the approximate area - however as you know, the markings and road lay out are the same.

I'm surprised that as a new driver you are totally unaware of how you should safely pass a cyclist. If that’s the standard you can pass a test at then I'm worried.

I know perfectly well when it is safe to pass a cyclist, which is why I didn't drive into the path of oncoming traffic trying to get past them.

You really don't come across well at all. Try changing your tone or stop being so condescending if you want people to take anything you say seriously

> plenty of room for cars to pass bikes using that lane without any squeezing.
No there isn't.

the overtaking car would be nowhere near giving the cyclist as much room as the HC pic above...aren't you a proponent of the latter?

Looks fine to me, as this crudely shopped image shows:

[img] [/img]

How much space do you want FFS?

That car's gonna loose a wing mirror if he doesn't serve back in...

Cyclist is still borderline in the door zone too.

That car's gonna loose a wing mirror if he doesn't serve back in...

Only if traffic the other side is driving hard against the centre line too.

Cyclist is still borderline in the door zone too.

That's where I'd ride it. Far enough out that that someone would have to really fling the door open as wide as it goes to catch me, but still in the lane with plenty of room for cars to pass easily.

[i]Looks fine to me, as this crudely shopped image shows:[/i]

You can post as many pics as you want but showing a random part of a path doesn't represent the issue. Go and ride it then come back with your finding.

[i]Only if traffic the other side is driving hard against the centre line too.[/i]

To pass a cyclist or obstacle on the other side for example. I ride a wee bit further out on that section, there's a few junction and parked cars obscure visibility for drivers joining the main road, the cars tend to stick out of the junction and if you don't ride a bit further out you wouldn't be visible.

[i]You really don't come across well at all.[/i] Neither do you to be honest, you appear annoyed that someone who knows the road has come along and spoiled your party. Do you have a grudge to bear or something, ah I know why?

You're an inexperienced driver and have a lot still to learn. Taking umbrage at advice won't help you. You appear to be the only one with taking issue with my posts.

You can post as many pics as you want but showing a random part of a path doesn't represent the issue. Go and ride it then come back with your finding.

That was the photo the OP posted as representative of the issue.

If it is different along other stretches then fair enough, but I though I/we were discussing this stretch?

Neither do you to be honest, you appear annoyed that someone who knows the road has come along and spoiled your party. Do you have a grudge to bear or something.

No grudge at all. I asked a simple question about cycle lane etiquette, it's not really what I'd consider a "party".

Your posts contain some good, factual points, but then you do stuff like this:

if that’s the standard you can pass a test at then I'm worried.

which is such a pointless and predicatable jibe, it undermines the good stuff that you post.

You're an inexperienced driver and have a lot still to learn.

I'm quite aware of this, which I why I drew it to everyone's attention in the thread title.

Taking umbrage at advice won't help you.

What was your advice exactly? Was I incorrect in my action (i.e. sitting behind the cyclists until I considered it safe to overtake)?

So did I GrahamS but apparantly not. There's also a jinction just up ahead so the vehicle shouldn't overtake there anyway. As I said, its a 0.34 mile stretch of road between two sets of lights, from experience very few vehicles even bother to overtake there.

[i]What was your advice exactly?[/i]

Pass when its safe to do so, giving the cyclist plenty of room, so on this stretch of road you would need to move to the other side of the road whether there was one cyclist or two.

I presented the facts which were different to your version of events, you appeared to be annoyed by this. Perhaps you need to adjust your tone so you don't come accross as so defensive?

As others have said even if the riders were single file in the path your would still have had to wait for a clear section of road on the other side before overtaking. So them riding two abreast made no difference to you or the progress of your journey.

In the real world, riding single file where GrahamS' picture shows would be absolutely fine. If there still wasn't room for someone to pass and you were holding up traffic you could have a quick look at the parked cars to see if there was anyone in/around, then pull in a bit, or pull in where there were no parked cars. Riding single file means cars can get round (still perfectly safely) quicker/easier. It wouldn't even have much impact on your Strava KOM attempt.

Of course things are very different in self-righteous 'why should I ever inconvenience myself in any way whatsoever' cyclist world though.

Pass when its safe to do so, giving the cyclist plenty of room, so on this stretch of road you would need to move to the other side of the road whether there was one cyclist or two.

Two cyclists abreast means you have to pull completely over into the oncoming lane, meaning a larger gap in traffic is required, thus holding up traffic completely unnecessarily (and going against what the highway code says about busy roads).

Well said grum

If we are going to have any kind of sensible relationship between drivers and cyclists in this country it needs to be a two way street (no pun intended). Not cyclists screaming 'WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS' and being completely insensitive to any other road users.

I presented the facts which were different to your version of events, you appeared to be annoyed by this.

This is [i]exactly[/i] what frustrates me with your posts Gary.

How can you present different "facts" to what I experienced?

It's all very simple - I was sitting behind cyclists riding two abreast in busy traffic on the A77 in the area where I posted a pic. I asked whether there was a reason for them not using the cycle lane available - somone pointed out quite quickly that it was most likely due to risk of hitting an open door.

I don't really know why you felt you had to time yourself on the route and post it here - it doesn't really add anything to what I asked.

[i]Of course things are very different in self-righteous 'why should I ever inconvenience myself in any way whatsoever' cyclist world though.[/i]

wow, it takes less than a minute to ride this bit of road, the phasing of the lights means that cars are going to be stopping anyway, bikes are always quicker on this stretch than cars, so overtaking is a pointless excercise.

If you're generalising then thats fine, but your reasonong doesn't make sense on this particular stretch of road. The only section with no cars is the junction, in the mornuing cars are tightly parked so difficult to see if there is anyone in them, the only safe option is to ride outside the path.

[i]But...there was a pretty wide and completely clear cycle lane just to the left (part of the road)[/i]

The cycle lane isn't pretty wide and it's not suitable for riding in safely.

The timong of the route was to demonstrate that this is a very short section of road. Whats wrong with adding some detail?

Here's an cycle farcility near me which is similar to the one being discussed. As this picture shows a cyclist needs to be riding with his wheels on a line a minimum of 1.5m away from parked cars to avoid doorings. I prefer 2M

[img] ?v=1[/img]

It annoys drivers but better that than

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/51901-manslaughter-charge-brought-over-death-last-year-london-cyclist-sam-harding ]this.[/url]

Couldn't see you piccy irc. So fixed it:
[img] [/img]
Edit: Oh no I didn't. Grrr. I guess they don't like external hotlinks.

Here it is:

Edit 2: And now it is being actively blocked. Oh well. I guess http://www.crazyguyonabike.com didn't want the traffic.

FWIW I agree dooring is a serious risk.

Of course things are very different in self-righteous 'why should I ever inconvenience myself in any way whatsoever' cyclist world though.

Comments like that are quite annoying. Inconvenience? I find riding on any but the quiestest of roads an inconvenience. It's not something I do for enjoyment, and I certainly wouldn't hold any cars up for the sake of it.

I would probably even ride the position Graham has kindly mocked up in photoshop, as and when I felt it safe to do so. But Graham knows as well as you and I that there will be at least one car hanging out a foot from the curb parked at a jaunty angle, forcing you negotiate your way back into the line of fire.

At the same time, you guys also know some people will give you that much space (there's some good drivers out there too). Many will give you much less and pass worrying about their wing mirrors more than they worry about you.

We also all know about the perceptions on the road, the perceived seperation that a cycle lane like that creates, and reasons for riding primary and secondary position.

I wouldn't chastise anyone for riding in that position, it's not terrible. I believe it's safer further out into the road, and I don't think that should be chastised either. Safety is important. And if that's what it takes to make a cyclist feel safe, so be it.

Speaking as a driver, sometimes I would prefer people to take a stronger road position. The time I lose is minimal, and it also means I feel LESS pressure to overtake. So in some instances it actually makes me feel more comfortable as a driver.

If someone's in the cycle lane, even if they're hovering on the line with their elbows hanging out past you, some people can't understand why you would hang back when the biggest gap you can possibly leave would be measured in centimetres.

Piss funny how I return to check out this forum after a year and the exact same arguments raging.

It's pointless. No matter what rules (laws, road rules or etiquette) you place on drivers or cyclists, we all know there will be a significant number of both that ignore them.

On "doorings" - have you tried using your eyes and looking to see if anyone is in the car and about to vacate? always worked for me, you can have that tip for free 😉

On "doorings" - have you tried using your eyes and looking to see if anyone is in the car and about to vacate? always worked for me, you can have that tip for free

Yep, but it often isn't possible.

On a long straight road where you can easily see into cars then yes (as I mentioned above).

But if there are a lot of cars and you're doing a decent speed whilst keeping an eye on the other traffic, watching side roads and dodging potholes then you might not have time to do a proper check, particularly on cars with tinted windows or no rear window.

Hence why avoiding the doorzone is good general practise.

I've past at least a squillion cars, over 20 odd years, at less than 1m distance and not hit one yet using my patented "look and see" method. Even though I am travelling much quicker than a cyclist with much more to obstruct my view and just as much on my mind and less time to take decisions.

You too can use "look and see" on a royalty free basis. I'll set a website up with instructions and do some presentations in community centers and public toilets in parks.

Even though I am travelling much quicker than a cyclist

Erm... so what are you travelling in exactly?

a car?

ah I see what you are worried about. But I can confirm the license is transferable between modes of transport. You can even use it on foot to avoid standing in dog shit.

🙄

Yes, y'see, the door zone isn't [i]quite[/i] such an issue in a car, because:

a) people tend to see cars on road. They are quite large and tend to be what folk are looking for. Whereas people are often completely blind to bikes (SMIDSY).

b) to be fair, bikes passing that close will likely be in the blindspot of the car anyway.

c) if you did get doored in a car it would just scratch your paintwork, not potentially kill you.

Perhaps you should save your condescending advice for something you've actually done?

I invented "look and see" when I was just 7 years old and have applied the technique to many forms of transport over the years (including bikes). I can vouch for the systems 100% guaranteed success over a period nearing 40 years.

By way of clarification - I am not expecting the door opener to see me and behave accordingly - hence I "Look" and "See" what they are doing and then do something other than plough on at the same speed into the door. This could be as simple of just slowing down or stopping, but use your imagination and see what YOU can do instead of driving into a metal and glass object.

By all means use a bit of common sense when you're on a bike.

But apply that common sense to your driving too and don't expect anyone else to put themselves into a [i]potentially[/i] dangerous situation.

By all means use a bit of common sense when you're on a bike.

gwj72 great idea that 'look and see' but maybe you could clarify a couple of points.

How does this work when

- cars have windows covered in dew
- cars have windows covered in frost
- cars have tinted windows
- its dark
- there's a van parked

I do hope SmartArse Technologies have patented the 'lookandsee' idea but that alone doesn't work for me.

gwj72 - Member
I invented "look and see" when I was just 7 years old and have applied the technique to many forms of transport over the years (including bikes). I can vouch for the systems 100% guaranteed success over a period nearing 40 years.

By way of clarification - I am not expecting the door opener to see me and behave accordingly - hence I "Look" and "See" what they are doing and then do something other than plough on at the same speed into the door. This could be as simple of just slowing down or stopping, but use your imagination and see what YOU can do instead of driving into a metal and glass object.

Ix-nay on the condescension-ay there, Chet.

You could ride out of the door zone and then cars with wide rear pillars that hide rear passengers from view, cars with tinted windows, vans with blocked out windows et al aren't a problem.

Plus I prefer to look where I'm going rather than into every parked car I pass.

You're right. People killed by doorings, like [url= http://road.cc/content/news/51901-manslaughter-charge-brought-over-death-last-year-london-cyclist-sam-harding ]the guy in irc's link[/url], or [url= http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9516706.Police_appeal_for_witnesses_to_fatal_crash_in_Beckenham/ ]this one[/url], or [url= http://highgate.london.myvillage.com/news/cyclist-70-dies-in-chalk-farm-road-crash ]this one[/url], were clearly just not "looking and seeing". 🙄

They should just have "slowed down or stopped", because luckily you always get tons of warning that a door is about to open and all bikes can stop instantly, from any speed, without causing any trouble for people approaching from behind 🙄

The fact that pretty much any bicycle training will mention staying out of the door zone (Bikability Level 2 I believe) is purely because cyclists like to ride around with their eyes shut. 🙄

use your imagination and see what YOU can do instead of driving into a metal and glass object.

Hmmm... I know.. why don't I STAY OUT OF THE DOOR ZONE? Would that work? 🙄

I'd just like to add 🙄

This is why they need to make bikeability part of the driving test.

How must of the frustration and anger felt by motorists towards cyclists is just because they don't understand stuff like this?

This is why they need to make bikeability part of the driving test.

How must of the frustration and anger felt by motorists towards cyclists is just because they don't understand stuff like this?

The problem is the sheer variety in skills/riding styles that you encounter on the road.

When I was taking lessons my instructor continually told me to assume every cyclist was a "moron" (i.e. they will act in the opposite way you would expect them too), since I was the one driving the big lump of metal who could do the damage. His view was just to assume they were idiots (his intentions were meant well, in that it was up to the driver to keep the cyclist safe).

As a cyclist, I used to take issue with this, arguing that I often considered a lot of drivers to be the morons, and as a cyclist on a road you often had to be the one with the sharper road skills. Also, most drivers don't understand how cyclists have to maneouvre (including myself, considering i started this thread!), so how can they assume anything?

In all honesty, there were far more muppet cyclists (hoods up, no lights, swerving in and out) than there were "proper" cyclists on the road., so I can see why some drivers just assume the worst.

That said, I'm still astounded at some of the driving I see on a daily basis. Some people don't know how to drive safely on an open road, never mind a busy one with pedestrians and cyclists around.

It's a no win situation, every good driver will encounter a moron cyclist, and every good cyclist will encounter a moron driver.

NOBODY!! and I mean NOBODY should die just because they didn't have "look and see" technology with them that day. That's why I have made it license free and I encourage you to help with distribution of this life saver.

I drive and ride in a manner I believe keeps me safe, which includes using my apparently unique super power to judge whether a car is about to be vacated or not. The reason I do this is because I am well aware of the risk and realize that no amount of talking shite on a cyclist forum will affect car drivers behavior.

So just ignoring the issues that people have raised and repeating the same stuff? Chapeau.

Your system has failings, see above.

I'm not ignoring any issues, I just don't feel compelled to answer any. Are you the spanish inquisition or something?

My system has worked flawlessly for years whereas you live in a world where people need to be taught how to ride bikes and they're still being slaughtered like dogs in the street.

Ride how you want though. I don't care if you live or die 🙂

My system has worked flawlessly for years

I think you are confusing accepting a very low risk with eliminating it. I see plenty cyclists in the doorzone. Only a handful of cyclists are killed doorings each year. So the risk of being doored is obviously very low. Cyclists can ride in the doorzone for years without checking each car and still not get hit. As you say many potential doorings can be anticipated - exhaust smoke, lights going on or off etc. Not all can though. I prefer to eliminate that risk. If you choose to accept it - your choice - but it doesn't mean you aren't taking an avoidable risk..

My system has worked flawlessly for years

[i]"I've ridden for years completely ignoring this risk and I haven't been killed yet so it must be entirely safe and other people killed or injured this way must have been doing something wrong. Granted I was in a car for most of that 'riding'."[/i]

FTFY.

Unless you really do have superpowers it is not always possible to assess if a car door is about to open or not. The fact you haven't been doored [i]yet[/i], doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to people just like you, who are employing your "system".

If you think you are avoiding risk by putting your bike further into the road then you don't understand risk at all. I'd call that transference at best.

It may well be safe at some points to avoid "dooring zones". Other times it won't be. Riding with your wits about you seems more sensible than riding round with some deluded sense of entitlement to me. YMMV.

Graham do the local kids bully you for cigarettes?

I don't ignore the risk, I do the complete opposite and keep my eyes peeled. I also don't have an issue with losing momentum if its the safer thing to do. And I've ridden more than enough miles, including commuting, to have formed an opinion. Not one you agree with, but that can't be a rare occurrence.

Drivers can see you better the further out you are...

If you think you are avoiding risk by putting your bike further into the road then you don't understand risk at all. I'd call that transference at best.

You reckon that riding outside the reach of a car door doesn't avoid the risk of dooring? What do you reckon they're going to do, pick their cars up and move them sideways in order to get you with the door?

If you think you are avoiding risk by putting your bike further into the road then you don't understand risk at all. I'd call that transference at best.

No doubt, since you do "understand risk", you have detailed comparative figures for this?

Perhaps comparing the number of cyclists injured by car doors, or while avoiding car doors, passengers and errant pedestrians, or being crushed against cars at the side of the road, versus the number hit from behind by a vehicle in an urban environment?

Yes?

It may well be safe at some points to avoid "dooring zones". Other times it won't be.

I suspect that is as close as we'll get to an admission you're wrong. So thankyou.

Riding with your wits about you seems more sensible than riding round with some deluded sense of entitlement to me.

Ahh there we go. Firstly, it's not an either/or choice.
Secondly what exactly is "deluded" about wanting to ride safely?

aracer - you see, I am capable of assessing multiple risks all the same time. On my very own too!

I couldn't be ****ed teaching you how to make a cup of tea, never mind the intricacies of risk management. But lets just say you are lowing one risk while raising another. Whether that is the best possible course of action will depend entirely on that situation at that time. So any babble on here about it is ****ing pointless conjecture.

I think he's rattled.

ah Graham, still trolling a year on. Good on you, we all need a role in life 🙂

Comparative figures you want? So you think when faced with slowing down and playing safe or riding out into a busy road, I stop and weigh up numbers? Maybe reach for a spreadsheet on my mobile before deciding which way to go?

I think you'll find more of a qualitative assessment would be the wise thing to do. But if you wish to stick doggedly to "the stats prove it" and "I'm allowed to so I will" then crack on and ride like that.

I think he's rattled.

awww bless.

GrahamS - you seem to be accepting that the space given to the cyclist in the HC pic I posted is over the top?

I've been arguing that for years.

As for doorings, there are occasions where you can see, but if cars are parked nose to tail on a fast, busy, narrow road, no way am I relying on inspecting every car visually.

gwj72 - Member
So you think when faced with slowing down and playing safe or riding out into a busy road, I stop and weigh up numbers?

Who's suggested 'riding out into a busy road'?

ah Graham, still trolling a year on. Good on you, we all need a role in life

ROFL. You show up in the middle of an interesting discussion, spouting a bunch of patronising, condescending, insulting nonsense to try to get a rise out of people - and you think that I'M the troll? 😆

So you think when faced with slowing down and playing safe or riding out into a busy road, I stop and weigh up numbers?

Oooh a new option: slowing down. At what speed can you conduct a full survey of each car to ensure the doors aren't going to be opened on you?

Or do you just ride at walking pace to ensure you can stop in time?

Doesn't that speed differential with other traffic create any additional risks? Sounds like what us risk experts like to call "transference" y'know.

Ah sensible discourse:

GrahamS - you seem to be accepting that the space given to the cyclist in the HC pic I posted is over the top?
I've been arguing that for years.

Yeah I'd say it is [i]generous[/i]. It's what I try to give a cyclist, but not necessarily what I expect as a cyclist.

But I don't think the space in my ropey photoshop effort was [i]that[/i] much different to the HC image?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]<

Interesting how gwj72's post was about how pointless arguing about this was 😀

Graham - I'm pretty much with you on that (I don't expect anyhing like that space as a cyclist but give more than I need as a driver), but others here (with whom I may have confused you) have I think taken the HC pic to mean one should be over the central line overtaking a cyclist, whic is utterly different.

Your deffo a bit rain man.

I'm not offering a set of prescribed options (like you) and you won't be able to pin down my precise POV as I don't care enough to tell you it. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I am saying that for any given situation, the only thing that matters is your own observation and actions AT THAT TIME. Laws, rules, etiquette, forums posts, tablets of stone, statistics and other lies become irrelevant.

If I read that getting hit from behind was less statistically likely than being doored, would I then always avoid dooring zones? No, because only an idiot would. You look and see, you use your brain, you assess the risk (as only you can) and then you do the right thing. Any attempt at agreeing what is the right thing to do by a 3rd party on a web forum after or before the event is a complete waste of time.

So, and I hate to do this, I am going to have to start charging for "Look and See" licenses from now on. I will still supply a book of "pre-determined actions to take when in danger" for those who can't afford the license fee though. I'm a fair man.

gwj72, what price for "acting like a bell end" activity? 8)

gwj72, what price for "acting like a bell end" activity?

I give discounts for group bookings 😉

Agree with what you're saying about overtaking space, I don't expect people to cross the white line but if they leave a good amount of room they'll get a thanks.

I think your scale is a bit off in that photo though Graham.

I'm not offering a set of prescribed options (like you)... I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

And neither am I.
I'm discussing different options and strategies for keeping us safe on the road.

Your deffo a bit rain man.

And for someone with amazing superpowers of perception and observation, you don't seem to have noticed everyone on this thread telling you to stop being such a condescending arse.

Play nice.

others here (with whom I may have confused you) have I think taken the HC pic to mean one should be over the central line overtaking a cyclist, whic is utterly different.

Yeah, it is a terribly vague photo and text. Personally I think it should be a lot more prescriptive about the amount of room to give. Some countries have minimal passing distances specified in law, which is very handy when it comes to prosecuting dangerous drivers.

FWIW I think the intent of the photo is to show a reasonable passing distance, not to insist you have to cross the central line. On some roads that passing distance will means you have to cross the line, on others (like the OPs) it is wide enough that you can potentially stay in the same lane.

I couldn't be **** teaching you how to make a cup of tea, never mind the intricacies of risk management.

How about your take on English comprehension, given that the point you were replying to about avoiding risk was only referring to avoiding the risk of dooring?

I know plenty about risk though, thanks.

others here (with whom I may have confused you) have I think taken the HC pic to mean one should be over the central line overtaking a cyclist, whic is utterly different.

Have they? Some of the "cyclists get in the way of traffic" advocates do sometimes seem to suggest that's the opinion of others as some sort of strawman, but I don't think I've ever seen it expressed directly. Personally I support that pic being in the HC as it's an easy one to bring out when people think giving a cyclist 1ft of space is plenty, but I agree it's an ideal (or maybe even just an extreme counterpoint), and I certainly don't always give that much room to cyclists when driving, though I will if I can.

In your ropey photoshopped image the cyclist is still far too close to the parked cars - 2 effects. One - a door opening will hit him, two if the car cuts in on him he has nowhere to go.

No wonder you think segregating cyclists is a good thing - you think riding in a dangerous manner is acceptable.

Please - get some training. Try to learn and understand why certain road positioning is always safer.

On some roads that passing distance will means you have to cross the line, on others (like the OPs) it is wide enough that you can potentially stay in the same lane.

Nope - if the cyclist is a safe distance away from the parked car and the overtaking car a safe distance from the cyclist they will have to go over the white line significantly. Half a meter from the parked car is not safe, one meter between the car and the bike is not safe

When you're this superior and in such humble company, condescension is inevitable I'm afraid. It's best to be inspired rather than dwell on it too much.

Actually you're discussing YOUR options and strategies for keeping safe on the road. As an alternative to your options (bound within what you can / can't do by law / quality of cycle paths / assumption that all drivers obey the law / statistics), I am offering (for a small price) the opportunity for cyclists to ignore forum based bullshit and deal with the actual incident in real time using their own eyes and brain.

It is a bit cowardly I admit. As I am leaving it up to the cyclist in question to decide the best thing to do, I can't be accused of giving bad advice. Whereas if a cyclist rides into the road to avoid glass and random swinging doors - their blood will be on your hands 🙂