[Closed] Cycle lane etiquette - new driver question

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 🙂

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

I tried to make it the same as the HC photo, the rider's shoulders sitting roughly at the car roof height. But I'm the first to admit I'm no artist!

2 effects. One - a door opening will hit him, two if the car cuts in on him he has nowhere to go.

Hmm.. I don't think he'd get hit there unless someone really had a good go at suddenly throwing the door open as wide as it would go. And he does still have a fair bit of space to his left to move to if the car cuts in on him (though why would it given it can pass in the same lane?)

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

That's just how I would balance the risks on that photo.

I'm perfectly happy to take the primary in other circumstances where I think it is necessary and have said as much before on here. I typically back you up in such debates.

Not sure what that has to do with my views on segregation though? surely if I was happy to ride in a dangerous manner I'd be against segregation? 😕

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

Not done any official training (I'd like to sometime soon). But I have read Cyclecraft and I do understand the point of the primary position.

Half a meter from the parked car is not safe, one meter between the car and the bike is not safe

I'd say that's quite a bit more than 50cm from the parked car in my image. That was my intent anyway. Looks to be about the height of his handlebar away to me.

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, [b]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[/b], though I will if I can.

There are cases when it's difficult. As I said before, common sense n all that, on both sides. Sometimes you have to pass a little closer, and a little more cautiously.

But the highway code used to state that you should give a cyclist enough room to fall in the road. Which I quite like. Not the bit that cyclists are randomly falling in the road, but it suggests that the driver should expect the unexpected, rather than to leave loads of room, just because.

It has reason that way. And if you look at the picture, imagine the cyclist is about to unknowingly sink into a pothole, slip a foot from the pedal and crack his stotts on the cross bar. A good bit of wobbling later and he's faceplanting the centre of the lane.

Suddenly that space doesn't just seem 'generous'. It's vital to that dude's survival.

aracer - Member

[i]'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'.'[/i]

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

It's two different points. Firstly, you wouldn't leave a 2.5M gap between two cars during an overtake. Secondly, if you were overtaking a car then you wouldn't do it and still keep that side of the lines as that wouldn't leave enough space for the car being overtaken.

The tag line is refering to leaving the same space as if you were over taking a car. The photo though shows a much larger gap between the two road users and the car positioned not far enough over to pass a car [safely].

[i]'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]

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.

I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.

[i] 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.[/i]

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?

What sort of an idiot would think that the only indication of lack of control is tyre smoke, skid marks etc... The car is clearly not level to the ground. It's you who is 'straw grasping' if you think that's caused by road chamber at that point. IMO you should take your position before starting the overtake not be aiming to reach it part way through or even after the overtake.

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

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).

Who said anything about skidding? It's a follow-on point from 5.

I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.

Easily if the car was going at the same speed that bike is probably doing (15mph?) but then presumably you're objecting because you wouldn't be able to overtake a car doing 30mph at that point 🙄

The car is clearly not level to the ground. It's you who is 'straw grasping' if you think that's caused by road chamber at that point.

Ah, so your whole objection is because the roof of the car isn't parallel with the horizon? Try actually looking a little harder at the pic - like at the amount of tyre showing below the front bumper on each side - to get an idea of how much body roll there is. You might end up with a slightly different impression...

Though actually even if there was the amount of body roll you're imagining, it's a huge leap from there to being out of control.

Who said anything about skidding? It's a follow-on point from 5.

No it's not. Even were there the amount of body roll you're imagining, that doesn't mean the car is moving out - you could easily have lots of lateral acceleration whilst the car is already moving back in. The only indication of which direction the car is moving laterally is the direction it's pointing in (if you're happy to discount skidding). Basic GCSE physics, acceleration != velocity

Yes it is a follow-on point. Regardless of whether that car is moving out or (more worringly) starting to move back in, at that point in an overtake (being next to the other road user) a car should be moving forward not moving over or in.

It's not an objection. The car is not level, you may well be 'special' and able to see the driver's side front wheel but I don't see anything in the shadow.

Regardless of what points you wish to make up to fit you point of view, the photo, tag line and implied advice don't really tally up. It's not the position to take or the width of gap to leave if it were a car being overtaken.

Personally, when I'm driving and overtaking a cyclist I leave a wider gap between my car and the cyclist than I would if I were overtaking another car.

I disagree that you'd be able to perform a safe overtake in that short a distance.

Easily

Is that road going downhill? Cos that's where this thread has headed very rapidly (more rapidly than that car passing a cyclist) 😉

wow, this thread needs a red and a blue corner. ding ding, round 3.
Gary M, I'm a shift worker so there's no specific time I'm up and down that section of road, but I'll be the guy on the black Dolan cx wearing baggies so gis a wave if you see me.

Having lived in many parts of the UK I can say that the section the OP is talking about is one of the worst 'marked' cycle lanes I've ever seen. Specificaly the section from the VW garage near Giffnock north into Shawlands. I actually find myself going quicker here to stay ahead of the cars (regardless of the so called cycle lane) to beat them all into Shawlands where there is NO cycle lane and the road narrows dangerously IMO. I totally understand why Gary M timed himself, in fact, from the Eastwood Toll to Shawlands I can beat most cars during my commute home, making overtaking utterly pointless.

It's not an objection. The car is not level, you may well be 'special' and able to see the driver's side front wheel but I don't see anything in the shadow.

It's the basis on which you describe that photo as "inaccurate, deceptive, plainly wrong" - apologies if you think there's some better word than "objection".

Thought about taking an eye test before you next drive? The outline of the drivers side wheel can quite clearly be seen - so maybe the very bottom is a bit lost in the shadow, but it's fairly straightforward to work out where it is. Mention of the shadow reminds me of another important point though - if the shadow of the car is parallel to the car (as is the case in that picture), then the car is level with the road surface.

Regardless of what points you wish to make up to fit you point of view, the photo, tag line and implied advice don't really tally up. It's not the position to take or the width of gap to leave if it were a car being overtaken.

Personally, when I'm driving and overtaking a cyclist I leave a wider gap between my car and the cyclist than I would if I were overtaking another car.

Good job it says "at least" then - or did you miss that bit?

"at least"

That just makes it more inaccurate.

so maybe the very bottom is a bit lost in the shadow,

So you can't tell where it is. or see it.

Well done for perpetuating things though, if only those nasty people who buulied you at school could see you now! 🙄

Dispite your insistances to knowing exactly what's going on in the photo you still haven't said anything to counter my point. The photo and advice doesn't tally up and is inaccurate.

To be honest, I suspect that any photographer taking that photo would have done so with the car completely stationary to ensure A) he gets everything in focus, B) he can take multiple shots without requiring the car to drive in circles all day, C) he doesn't get himself or his equipment run over.

To me the apparent "roll" of the car is probably just the road camber.

Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule than subtle details about the implied directional force acting on the car in the supporting photo.

Dispite your insistances to knowing exactly what's going on in the photo you still haven't said anything to counter my point.

No - you're just ignoring all the things I say which contradict your position. As I said, given quite normal visual interpretation powers you can easily work out where the tyre is on both sides, but you claim you can't, which you appear to think supports your case. I presume you can't work out any way of refuting my point about the parallel shadow, so have just ignored it.

The thing is, it's you who's claiming that you can tell from the photo how hard the car is cornering etc., so it seems to me it's you who need to prove your case, not me. I'm simply pointing out that the photo doesn't show what you claim.

Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule than subtle details about the implied directional force acting on the car in the supporting photo.

Bingo.

I'm not ignoring the points you make, I'm not agreeing with the assumptions you've made up to justify your beliefs about the attitude of the car.

Moving on from that, you still haven't countered my overiding points about the photo. It isn't the road position you take when overtaking a car or the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a [moving] car.

Either way I think there are far more problems with that particular HC rule

Exactly, and poorly illustrated in a bad photo.

I have ridden the segregated bit of the A77 coming down from Whitelees and I think it's a great idea,much better than riding with cars ,HGVs etc whizzing a couple of feet past you at 60mph.Every A road should have one.
Also ridden the A77 cycle lanes back in towards town but only of an evening so no commuter chaos experience but plenty of parked cars.I ride on the edge or just outside of the cycle lane so I won't get doored. The road layout is not ideal due to space constraints mainly I reckon but it's a damn site better than many others I have ridden on.

I'm not ignoring the points you make, I'm not agreeing with the assumptions you've made up to justify your beliefs about the attitude of the car.

So if you're not ignoring it, explain to me why you disagree with my point about the parallel shadow? Not that you've provided a sliver of evidence to support your beliefs - remember you're the one complaining about what the car is doing, based solely on the evidence from that photo.

Exactly, and poorly illustrated in a bad photo.

So why have half your points about how hard the car is turning if they're so unimportant? Anybody might think you're busy trying to discredit the photo by any means possible. We could have spent our time discussing the important point rather than wasting it all discussing your photographic interpretation skills.

Moving on from that, you still haven't countered my overiding points about the photo. It isn't the road position you take when overtaking a car or the space you'd leave if you were overtaking a [moving] car.

How about you answer my initial question then - do you think the car is too far out or not far enough?

It doesn't matter what you agree is a safe distance really does it?

X% of people will still ignore it and even for the ones who apply it there will be times when they can't (due to other road users or conditions).

Use your common sense and if you keep getting knocked off or keep running cyclists over then perhaps you don't have any.

How about you answer my initial question then - do you think the car is too far out or not far enough?

Answered on several occasions.

You're the one who asked why I thought it was a bad photo. I gave you a list of points. You're the one who has made the 'attitude' of the car an issue and repeatedly raised it. If you believe that the car is level and moving forward because you can 'see' something in the shadows then that's your choice. I disagree.

We could have spent our time discussing the important point rather than wasting it all discussing your photographic interpretation skills.

It's nice to know I have such power over what you choose to type. You've had plenty of opportunity to 'discuss' the 'important point' but you chose not to.

It doesn't matter what you agree is a safe distance really does it?

X% of people will still ignore it and even for the ones who apply it there will be times when they can't (due to other road users or conditions).

Perhaps a good reason to make it law? As they have done in some US States:
http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacy

That doesn't guarantee everyone will obey it obviously - but it does make it easier to prove dangerous driving for those that ignore it then cause injury.

Answered on several occasions.

Go on then, remind me. I've checked your initial response and you didn't give a straight answer there.

I gave you a list of points. You're the one who has made the 'attitude' of the car an issue and repeatedly raised it.

Did I? One of your initial points included "The attitude of the car is such that it is clearly not settled / under full control", and you then claimed that one of your other points was a follow on from that. I've simply showed why you're wrong. Given you still seem to be claiming you're correct on those points it seems you're the one making a big thing about the attitude of the car...

Still not got an answer about how the parallel shadow shows the car isn't rolling?

I see that I'm still exerting that power over you.

You haven't showed me I wrong, you've made a load of assumptions and then stated them as fact. You seem to be able to 'see' something in the photo I can't. Well good for you sport, well done. For the third time I disagree with you that the car is level and only moving forward. If you wish to beleive it is then huzaar.

Your actual question;

aracer - Member

[i]'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'.'[/i]

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

And my response;

It's two different points. Firstly, you wouldn't leave a 2.5M gap between two cars during an overtake. Secondly, if you were overtaking a car then you wouldn't do it and still keep that side of the lines as that wouldn't leave enough space for the car being overtaken.

I think that quite clearly answers the question you asked.

Is this the 'important point' you wanted to discuss? I'm not sure as you're quite clearly incapable of accepting someone has a different opinion to you.