Forum menu
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 🙂