[Closed] Is it me. Discipline on club runs?

warn of presence/alert incase you are veering towards someone etc etc.

So what's your excuse, because you said you used it once you had passed the cyclists?

Right or wrong Im surprised he's not had a hefty kicking yet 😕

haven't bothered* to watch the video so don't know, but how much room had the car given the first cyclist?

No it's a cyclist overtaking a cyclist and the car's behind both of them. I live about 30 seconds away from where it happened. It used to be a dual carriageway but now it's single carriage way with a cycle lane taking up about 1/3 of what was the inside lane, a lane for traffic and then a chevroned section between the traffic lane and the centre line/ reservation. Car would have had to swerve into chevroned section of the road to perform the overtake in order to have given the guy filming enough safe room. Cyclist moved from cycle lane into traffic lane

b) He did see the car but decided he was pulling out anyway (a common theme in his videos and his attitude seems to be playing drivers at their own game)

Well if there was a two second gap - which would fit in with the 1.5 seconds until the horn sounded mentioned previously - then that's a 35m gap at 40mph. Personally i'd consider that big enough to safely pull out into.

Personally i'd consider that big enough to safely pull out into.

Except it wasn't, hence why the driver sounded the horn. I'd also assume they had to brake

Except it wasn't, hence why the driver sounded the horn. I'd also assume they had to brake

Apparently you're psychic. Because your argument appears to be that the cyclist must have done something bad because the driver sounded his horn - the only evidence you have to dismiss the scenario that the cyclist pulled into a large enough gap is the use of the horn. So it appears you know that the driver didn't use the horn just because he was an arse. Oh, and presumably you also know that the driver wasn't speeding.

FWIW I reckon there's a good 2s between him pulling out and the use of the horn, and as mentioned that makes it more than a 2s gap. Given the mention of the motorway up there, I reckon most people would pull out into a 2s gap on the motorway (that's certainly my experience of what happens in front of me when I leave such a gap).

You reckon the driver had to brake? Well you appear to be quite happy for the cyclist to brake - is the difference that the driver has more right to the road?

Car would have had to swerve into chevroned section of the road to perform the overtake in order to have given the guy filming enough safe room.

Swerve? Would that be due to lack of anticipation? Presumably you're referring to the area of chevrons bordered by a broken white line. Why shouldn't the driver use that to overtake?

Cyclist moved from cycle lane into traffic lane

Cyclists are traffic. "Cycle lane" is also advisory in this case, hence has no particular legal status at all - not only are cyclists not required to use it, but in this instance "traffic" is allowed to use it.

Put it this way, if you were crossing the road as a pedestrian, you saw a car coming and it would be on top of you in less than a couple of seconds, you wouldn't just step out in front of it and expect it to stop, but that appears to be his approach to cycling.

For that, sir, you get one of these:

[img] [/img]

You can defend him as much as you want. I think he's a prick and a horrendous advocate for cycling that appears to be hell bent on confrontation. Its amazing how I manage to cycle 99% of the same roads he cycles, yet I manage to do it without a constant stream of near misses and confrontations with drivers...

I think he's a prick and a horrendous advocate for cycling that appears to be hell bent on confrontation.

You are entitled to your opinion. I note you're not defending yourself against my arguments.

Note I'm not suggesting he is perfect - I actually started off criticising the riding in the first post (and interestingly using the same point to defend the driver in that as I'm using to defend him in your video), I agree with the comments about the second video posted (of the car pulling into a gap well after overtaking him), he's a total arse in the one where the lorry toots him and I found a couple of others where he could have avoided the situation better. However I don't believe he did anything wrong in your video, and your comments about that have at least a hint of "car is king", even though I'm sure that's not your conscious intention. There are also several other videos where he encounters poor driving where not only is he in no way at fault, but it would have been hard to avoid the situation without being psychic. Maybe he rides more than you (on those particular roads), maybe at different times of day, maybe he's just unlucky.

I really wish we could have a short PI film telling motorist and cyclists that riding two abreast is ok,

You reckon the driver had to brake?

I do yes.

Well you appear to be quite happy for the cyclist to brake

I am yes

- is the difference that the driver has more right to the road?

No.

The difference is that the cyclist changed road position and pulled out into the path of the car.

IanW - Member

I really wish we could have a short PI film telling motorist and cyclists that riding two abreast is ok,

There's a difference between it being OK and being a good idea though ?

Being assertive, aggressive, dominant, whatever you want to call it... on a pushbike on the roads may be all well and good. but cars are very hard objects and the floor is made of tarmac. there's only 1 person who's going to lose out long term.

Indeed. 2x4 is easier and safer to pass than 1x8 on anything less than a country lane. You will need to go wider and are less likely to just squeeze past, but the overtake is shorter. And if properly organized, a 2x4 isn't much wider than a solo rider taking the primary position.

The difference is that the cyclist changed road position and pulled out into the path of the car.

So the correct thing for him to have done would have been to piss all the car drivers off by sitting to the right of the cycle lane a lot earlier?

So the correct thing for him to have done would have been to piss all the car drivers off by sitting to the right of the cycle lane a lot earlier?

No, the correct thing to do is wait for an appropriate gap to pull out.

Edit: This

I note you're not defending yourself against my arguments.

is worth a 😆

I've never seen the attraction of having to learn a whole load of 'rules' just so I can cycle in a massive group, it just seems to spoil the essential freedom that cycling's all about.
I tried a running club once and the high percentage of jobsworths instructing me on how they felt I should be running made it a once only affair for the same reasons.

Its amazing how I manage to cycle 99% of the same roads he cycles, yet I manage to do it without a constant stream of near misses and confrontations with drivers...

Me too.

I'm in the busy south east and do a lot of my cycling through towns, on dual carriageways, during the school run etc etc....

....i've only once had a near miss and i take some of the blame for that, i moved up the left of a vehicle wanting to turn left while i wanted to go straight ahead....the two dont match and we nearly hit, words were exchanged by both parties but it was enough to shake me up and make me realise that in a car vs bicycle situation the cyclist will always come off worse.

I ride defensively and in a close situation i give way to cars, the militant 'i have right of way' attitude is no good to your family when you're dead.....this video (like so many on Youtube at the moment) seem to show an increasing number of cyclists that are spoiling for a fight, i have no desire to be associated with this group, as a previous poster said; he looks like a complete prick.

I ride to relax not to look for confrontation and every opportunity to 'educate' car drivers on what rights i may or may not have as a cyclist.
Riders like this pillock give us all a bad name.

^^ this

It seems to be the GoPro brigade, a new niche of angry, self righteous, urban cyclists.

It would be really good if cars had a "polite horn" that went "biiing-bong" like a lift arriving.

The driver could use it when he really didn't mean to be a dick but felt that a sound was called for.

Hear hear! I've had the odd confrontation and an assault, but these video makers are in a different league to my experience. Never seen one thank a good driver, either.

I've never seen the attraction of having to learn a whole load of 'rules' just so I can cycle in a massive group, it just seems to spoil the essential freedom that cycling's all about.

We don't allow massive groups 8-10 is big enough. There is a certain satisfaction in riding smoothly and effortlessly at speed in a close group with good communication with friends who aren't trying to show off.

There are rules, but they are really just about safety and cohesion. Not sure about a running club, but one presumes it is hard to take down seven runners at 25 mph by inattention. The video in the through and off thread is an excellent introduction. Find a welcoming club and try it.

No, the correct thing to do is wait for an appropriate gap to pull out.

Ah, so we're back to car is king. Why does the car have more right to overtake the cyclist than the cyclist does to overtake the car? Perhaps you could explain what the cyclist was supposed to do in order to avoid having to brake behind the other cyclist (despite a perfectly decent amount of road to the right - as you've admitted sufficient for a car to safely overtake even after he'd pulled out).

[quote=Gunz said]I've never seen the attraction of having to learn a whole load of 'rules' just so I can cycle in a massive group, it just seems to spoil the essential freedom that cycling's all about.
Do you also find it frustrating having to learn the skills required to handle a bike off-road?

aracer - Member

Ah, so we're back to car is king. Why does the car have more right to overtake the cyclist than the cyclist does to overtake the car

Because it's common sense.. the car is harder to stop, quicker to pull away and most importantly... a LOT bigger and harder than a pushbike.

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

As long as the group is on the correct side of the road, they are causing no more obstruction than a car or a tractor and any vehicle trying to overtake them just has to wait for the correct opportunity. The driver in that first clip was just being impatient. If the low sun was obscuring their view of the traffic island and bollard ahead then they should have realised something was afoot when they started driving over the hatched area on the road - "do not enter unless it is safe to do so"... not being able to see the road ahead makes it seem pretty unsafe to me.

aracer - Member

No, the correct thing to do is wait for an appropriate gap to pull out.

Ah, so we're back to car is king. Why does the car have more right to overtake the cyclist than the cyclist does to overtake the car? Perhaps you could explain what the cyclist was supposed to do in order to avoid having to brake behind the other cyclist (despite a perfectly decent amount of road to the right - as you've admitted sufficient for a car to safely overtake even after he'd pulled out).

I haven't watched the particular video in question (although I did watch the one in the OP and several others), but there's been enough discussion about it for me to get the gist....

Cyclist overtaking cyclist - closing speed, perhaps 5mph? 10mph tops?
Car overtaking cyclist (assume cyclist doing 20mph to be generous) - closing speed of 40mph.

You are not just supposed to consider the distance from an approaching vehicle (car or otherwise), but also whether you will impede it's passage by moving into it's path.

For example, on the way to work I stick to 60mph. If I need to overtake a lorry on the dual carriageway sections, I don't pull out into the path of a car that is approaching me on the outside, even if it is several seconds away as it will take me longer than that to complete the manouevre so I will impede it's passage.
I will either lift off and wait for it to pass, or if I really want to get past it and think I have enough space, I will change down a couple of gears and accelerate up to the speed of the approaching car as I pull out so I can pass the lorry and not cause the approaching car to slow down at the same time.
When I get to 3 or 4 lane sections of road, I will pull out on approaching cars, but ONLY if the lane to their outside is clear so they have somewhere to move to and remain unimpeded. If it is a bit tight, or if there are cars coming up their outside, I will wait until they are past.

Unless the cyclist can pull out, overtake and move back in without impeding the approaching driver, he should not pull out until the car has passed.

I've never seen the attraction of having to learn a whole load of 'rules' just so I can cycle in a massive group, it just seems to spoil the essential freedom that cycling's all about.

The rules pretty much boil down to don't brake or swerve without warning, signal obstructions on the road, and keep close to the bike in front without crossing your front wheel with his back. Apart from the signalling bit the rest should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, and are none are likely to spoil your enjoyment of a ride.

Gunz said » I've never seen the attraction of having to learn a whole load of 'rules' just so I can cycle in a massive group, it just seems to spoil the essential freedom that cycling's all about.

And he's not the only one. This might be a bit controversial and I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but we're prepared to learn a whole lot of rules to drive cars and whatnot on the roads, why not bikes? Anyway, how many of these oppressive 'rules' are for the benefit of the rest of the group (and I'm sure none of use would say it was a bad idea to look out for each other and not cause crashes) and how many are for the benefit of other road users? Is it even possible to make such a distinction?

And he's not the only one. This might be a bit controversial and I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but we're prepared to learn a whole lot of rules to drive cars and whatnot on the roads, why not bikes?

Because bikes don't kill 1900 people per year.

The rules in the Highway Code apply to all road users. That includes looking, before signalling, before manoeuvring. You have no right to pull out in front of a car to overtake another cyclist or pass a stationery vehicle than you do to pull outbid a slower moving lane on the motorway. If it's not clear to do so, wait.

Ah, so we're back to car is king.

It's got nothing to do with the "car is king" and everything to do with basic common sense, courtesy and safety.

It doesn't matter if you're riding a bike, driving a car or generally walking along the street. If you want to overtake someone

a) Check behind you
b) Make sure no one is going to cycle/ drive/ walk into the back of you
c) Pull out and overtake in a safe manner

I'm beginning to suspect you're the guy in the video. If not then you share the same unfortunate view point.

If you're driving in a car and you want to overtake, if you looked in the rear view mirror and saw a car approaching fast in the lane to your right that you want to overtake in, would you just pull out anyway because you want to overtake, regardless of the fact the approaching car may run into you? That's the "I'm alright Jack and stuff everyone else" mentality.

I bet you stand still on escalators too...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing 😐

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

Perhaps you could explain that ?

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you could explain that ?

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

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

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

Who was changing their position on the road ?

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

It's not complicated really

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

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

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

Who was changing their position on the road ?

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

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

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

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

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

...yet you don't consider it reasonable[b] in any circumstances[/b] for the car to have to slow down

Where did I say that ?

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

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

- so we come back to "car is king".

You are the only person (repeatedly) saying that.

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

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

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

You are the only person (repeatedly) saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple.

So it's nothing to do with the "car is king" opinion you keep trying to force on people.

Any answers to the questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure that you have actually.

You seem to be asking me about theoretical situations again.

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

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