Forum menu
aracer, nice try at a 'reductio ad absurdam' move on nealglover but I suspect there's a significant difference between the two cases. Taking a wide position in a narrow road to prevent dodgy overtaking stunts is a safety issue. You do that to protect yourself. Pulling out to overtake a slower rider is a convenience issue. There is no danger in waiting behind the dawdler.
Having said that, it's not certain that there was a fault in the rider's overtaking move in the video. At least he looked behind before moving out of his lane, but it was a bit last minute and he may have already committed himself to the overtake anyway. He could probably have done better.
Am I missing something from the second clip. The guy clearly pulls out of the cycle lane into the path of the car. The expectation on the road is that the overtaking vehicle thats holding its position maintains its speed, and the vehicle thats changing lanes fills a gap. The emphasis is on the vehicle changing lanes to brake, its not hard to follow.
Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you? Because thats not how it works.
Whats the difference between the scenario above and the one in the video?
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.
I've ridden on lots of club rides over the years, and have never encountered any rules. I have learned the skills necessary to ride safely in a group, but I don't think that has cramped my style or spoiled my enjoyment of cycling.
A club run is a celebration of the social side of cycling, whether you are training in a chain gang, or just enjoying a leisurely run to the cafe with your club mates. It's not for everyone, of course, but lots of people enjoy the simple camaraderie of riding together in a group.
Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you?
I've asked him that question already but it seems we're all car driving nazis and he's an eco warrior.
I can see both sides of this. The car driver should have enough anticipation to see a cyclist closing on another and moving towards the middle of the road. Yet the bike rider should be aware of the traffic behind him and the likelihood that a car is going to be where he wants to be.
But until we have totally separate bike lanes we need to learn to share the road and recognise, no matter who's at 'fault', that we're always going to come off worse.
[u]Every[/u] frigging time IMELets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you? Because thats not how it works.
to the argualympians: Would it make a difference if the cyclist had indicated his intention with a hand signal several seconds before moving out ? How many seconds would it have to be ?
[quote=nealglover said]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
I'm so sorry - I thought we were discussing more general principles here "If you pull out in front of another road user" certainly seems to suggest this is a more general point. Can I check that doesn't actually apply to every situation then? (it's fine, I'm not expecting an answer, I'll just carry on assuming your position). Though your complete unwillingness to answer [b]any[/b] of the questions put to you suggests you're actually more interested in point scoring than discussing road safety. If we are limiting discussion in that way, can I retract the earlier answer I gave? The problem with the cyclist using his brakes is that he doesn't have to as there is plenty of road space to the right for him to use to pass.
[quote=crispycross said]aracer, nice try at a 'reductio ad absurdam' move on nealglover but I suspect there's a significant difference between the two cases.
I'm not suggesting otherwise, or really comparing the two cases - the example of a cyclist at a pinch point was simply addressing nealglover's assertion that it's always incorrect to pull out and cause another road user to brake. Once we've accepted that isn't the case (I'm hoping it's only mr glover refusing to accept such a point, or discuss the issue) we can move on to discussing in which situations it is reasonable for another road user to have to wait behind you. To which my argument is that the road user in front has right of way - the HC suggests it is up to the person overtaking to keep clear, not the other way around. Though mr glover's arguments are really asking for some sort of reductio to be carried out on them.
[quote=tpbiker said]Lets take bikes out of it- Aracer, answer me this. If you were driving at 50 on a duel carrigeway approaching a slower car, and a faster vehicle was in the outside lane, would you simply indicate and pull out anyway and expect the car in the outside lane to brake to create a gap for you? Because thats not how it works.
Whats the difference between the scenario above and the one in the video?
The difference is that it's not a DC with multiple lanes - your scenario is completely different. Imagine that there is no white line marked on the road (I'm going to credit you with the ability to cope with imagining such things, unlike nealglover). Legally it makes no difference at all to the situation, as a cyclist isn't obliged to ride in an advisory cycle lane and neither is a driver obliged not to. Would you still consider that the cyclist was changing lanes if that was the case (remember that the white line makes no legal difference to anything)? There is only one lane in the video.
Though to address your point about the DC directly, are you suggesting that lorries are never allowed to overtake slower moving vehicles? Because that will almost always result in cars having to slow down for them. The faster moving vehicle does not have RoW just because it is going faster - that's not how it works. It is the vehicle in front which has RoW, not the one overtaking.
To relate that back to the video, I don't dispute that it is possible that the cyclist is at fault. However I disagree with the assertion that the cyclist must be at fault simply because the car driver had to slow down - some people seem to be struggling with the difference between that and pulling out directly in front of the car causing it to brake sharply, which there is absolutely no evidence to suggest happened. No audio of screeching tyres, and about 2s between the cyclist moving to the right and the car sounding it's horn - at which point for all we know it could still be a second or two behind it and not having yet had to slow down.
So questions for those willing to answer them:
1) what should the cyclist do if he encountered a parked car in the cycle lane?
2) would it be OK if the cyclist had moved to the right 5s earlier and taken the lane?
3) if there was a long line of slower cyclists, would it be OK for the faster rider to pull out to overtake when the car was in the far distance and stay there overtaking them when the car has come up behind him and been forced to slow down?
4) given that there is space for the driver to move to the right by the same amount the cyclist moves to the right, why doesn't he just do that? Nobody need have to brake.
I'm hoping there are at least some on this "discussion" willing to answer these questions, so that we can try to establish exactly what is and isn't OK for a cyclist to do.
1) Check if it was safe to move out past the car. If it is, do it, it not wait until it is
2) If it was safe to do so then yes,
3) Yes
4) Because then the militant cyclist would have posted a video of the impatient driver that blasted past him using the chevron section of the road...
I cycle in London nearly every day, and have done so for nearly 20 years. If I stopped and waited behind a parked car until there was no chance of causing a motorist to apply their brakes I'd never manage to cycle anywhere.
It really does worry me how little some of you supposed cyclists give a toss about or understand how multi modal road use works.
Maybe I should get some of you to come on my commute and see exactly how long it'll take you to cycle 6 miles without pulling out to pass parked cars/ buses/ lorries/ vans/ width restrictors/ other cyclists/ runners/ roller ski-ers/ senior citizens in electric buggies/ potholes etc etc.
Thanks for answering, BoardinBob 🙂
1) Check if it was safe to move out past the car. If it is, do it, it not wait until it is
Are you suggesting that he should brake to a halt if there is a car driver coming up behind who will have to slow down if he pulls out?
2) If it was safe to do so then yes,
Phew - we're getting somewhere. So the only issue you have is that he pulled out too late, possibly causing the driver to have to brake sharply. To which my answer is that you might be right, but there is no evidence in the video to suggest that is the case, so it's unfair to criticise him on that theoretical basis. I'll take back my suggestion that you think car is king - though if you review your posts, you might be able to see why I'm surprised by this answer.
4) Because then the militant cyclist would have posted a video of the impatient driver that blasted past him using the chevron section of the road...
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-it-me-discipline-on-club-runs#post-5561384
Is this [i]still[/i] going?!
It's like having TJ back 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
the example of a cyclist at a pinch point was simply addressing [b]nealglover's assertion [/b]that it's always incorrect to pull out and cause another road user to brake.
As I've said (more than once) I'm discussing the video that was posted.
You seem to be in need of an argument, and insist on making up my position so you can argue with it.
As you seem to be having quite a good imaginary argument between your position, and the position you seem to want me to have, it looks like you don't need me anymore.
So I will leave you to battle it out with yourself and whatever you want to make up.
Adios.
It's great fun on threads like this to read page 1 then skipping to the last page and trying to guess whats happened in between.
FWIW, lolroadbikes.
to be honest it sounds like you are a militant cyclist whos desperate for an argument, and given you've obviously got far more time on your hands to vent than me then bash on.
What i will say however is that when you pull a similar move and the car doesn't brake, regardless of your stance on this one (or the letter of the law) you'll be the one lying broken at the side of the road, and (judging by recent cases that have gone to court) the driver will get off scott free.
Either way its cyclists like the guy on the video who give a bad name to 99% of other cyclists
I'm discussing the video that was posted.
In which case what's the difference between this one and ones where it is OK to pull out and cause a vehicle to brake? Oops, sorry I know you don't answer questions. I have to admit the wording still seems somewhat strange for addressing a single situation - surely you're not back pedalling?
insist on making up my position
I wonder why it is I have to do that?
Lolcopters @
[quote=nealglover said]By the way, you didn't explain what I asked. (Shocker!)
[quote=tpbiker said]to be honest it sounds like you are a militant cyclist
Is that because I think cyclists have equal right to be on the roads?
What i will say however is that when you pull a similar move and the car doesn't brake, regardless of your stance on this one (or the letter of the law) you'll be the one lying broken at the side of the road, and (judging by recent cases that have gone to court) the driver will get off scott free.
Well of course we all know that drivers run down cyclists - I'm not sure that pulling out in front of a driver giving them a good 2s to slow down is going to make that any more likely.
Either way its cyclists like the guy on the video who give a bad name to 99% of other cyclists
In the same way that the bad drivers in his videos (who do things which are far, far worse than anything he does) give a bad name to the [s]99%[/s] 10% of totally law abiding drivers?
Is that because I think cyclists have equal right to be on the roads?
FYI as subjects of her majesty the queen you have an inalienable right to walk, cycle or ride your horse on the queens highway. Motorists are merely licensed and must earn that privilege, this can be revoked by the state at any time.
So cyclists have more rights than motorists.
Oh, can't we all just get along?
If I've got this right, in a car, if you want to pull out and overtake, you do the whole 'mirror signal manoeuvre' thing. Ideally, you don't oblige the faster guy coming up behind you to slow down, you indicate your intention and if absolutely necessary, they slow down to let you out but that's their choice. They might flash you to let you know. You check this, then move. Same with the bike. I find that a good look over my shoulder, not just a quick glance, is enough to let the observant driver know you've seen them and you're about to do something. Nine times out of ten, I don't even feel the need to indicate to move out. I've negotiated for the space, check I've been given it, make my manoeuvre and acknowledge the fact with a wave or whatever. I didn't notice the guy in the video do much in the way of observation behind him, just sayin'.