nope im for deciding when its safe for me to be overtaken - she can make her own assumption after that
Yeah - that's a better way of putting it t_r.
It's not "deciding when it is safe" - it's giving a clear signal when it is definitely not safe.
I've not tried it but I hear they still can't cure being dead, even if you go private. On this basis I will take an active role in staying safe and alive.
If there isn't room to get past two cyclists riding abreast, then you shouldn't be overtaking.
I disagree.
Take my commute home, there are loads of places where a driver can overtake me and someone drafting me with complete safety. There's far far fewer places where they could do it safely two abreast.
Car drivers [u]always[/u] travel two abreast...even when there's only one person in the car.
Why do they do that?
someone should set up a Motorists Single File Please facebook page....showing what our city streets would look like if cars were half the width they currently are.
Indeed.
[img] 
[/img]
bit like that ?
[quote=IanMunro ]
Take my commute home, there are loads of places where a driver can overtake me and someone drafting me with complete safety. There's far far fewer places where they could do it safely two abreast.
Yep. Roads aren't exactly a standardised width.
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/84602-proud-be-bloodycyclist-buy-jersey-and-tell-world ]Bloody cyclists[/url]
I prefer to be a non bloody cyclist, but I wear my blood with pride when it happens! 😉
Page has been pulled already 🙂
The comment I was unable to post would have read…
Yes, last year 122 cyclists were killed in road traffic accidents, most of those were individuals that were riding single file. What does that tell you? Riding in groups is safer, it might be an inconvenience, but it's safer and 2 a breast is not the law. Stop trying to push your petty grievances as some 'for the greater good' safety thing.
Are you deciding for her when it's safe to overtake?
No, I image they were deciding for her when it [b]wasn't[/b] safe to overtake – subtle differences…
awwww i was enjoying that... he's already resort to internet shouting. 😈
[s]There is a far more hardcore one though, "Cyclists who ride in grouds should stay in single file!!!! [sic]" with a very calming and tasteful profile pic. [/s]
scrap that, its quite dormant.
Hast the page been deleted or have they blocked me?
its deleted
I disagree.
Take my commute home, there are loads of places where a driver can overtake me and someone drafting me with complete safety. There's far far fewer places where they could do it safely two abreast.
[img] 
[/img]
if he rides on singletrack roads then its possible.
[quote=ransos ]
[img] [/img]
br />
[b]Read.the.words. [/b]
If you had to leave the space shown in that photograph when overtaking a car then it would be impossible to overtake any vehicle on most single carriageway roads.
Page has been pulled alreadyThe comment I was unable to post would have read…
Gah!!! I just spent 10 minutes making this...
[img] 
[/img]
Can i just point out that rule 66 says you should never ride [b]more than[/b] 2 abreast....... This means 3 or above. So on a roads that are not narrow or busy 2 abreast is not against the law.
If you had to leave the space shown in that photograph when overtaking a car then it would be impossible to overtake any vehicle on most single carriageway roads.
The photograph - of a single carriageway road - shows that you are completely wrong.
27abreast is not against the law.....it would be stupid but not against the law.
lets face it - they dont have the same moans about tractors do they..... one of my best rides to work was the day i overtook a tractor and was chased to town by it - meant i had no mad cars trying to squeeze me off the road - they were all stuck behind the tractor 😉
2If you had to leave the space shown in that photograph when overtaking a car then it would be impossible to overtake any vehicle on most single carriageway roads.
The photograph - of a single carriageway road - shows that you are completely wrong. "
someones not reading it right. blinkers off ....
put a car where the bike is .... put the space between the car and the bike between a car and a car - the cars in the field somewhere....
the key is - cars are not affected by the draft suck of cars like a cyclist is - cars dont tend to wobble or deviate from their line much to avoid pot holes as they dont tend to get chucked over the bars by big holes in the road etc etc .
I really must mock up that photo to show another car
put a car where the bike is .... put the space between the car and the bike between a car and a car - the cars in the field somewhere....
The clue is in "at least".
Anyway, I would agree that the wording could be clearer. But what is quite clear from the photo is that the car is giving the cyclist plenty of room, and would not be able to overtake if there were a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction. In other words, cyclists riding single-file would not present any additional overtaking opportunities compared with cycling two abreast.
never mind - we are clearly fighting the same war - just coming at it from different sides 😉
[i]On that particular stretch of road.[/i] However, there are wider single carriageway roads where a [i]solo [/i]cyclist and two vehicles could quite safely pass each other. It's not always true, but it often is.Anyway, I would agree that the wording could be clearer. But what is quite clear from the photo is that the car is giving the cyclist plenty of room, and would not be able to overtake if there were a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction. In other words, cyclists riding single-file would not present any additional overtaking opportunities compared with cycling two abreast.
put a car where the bike is .... put the space between the car and the bike between a car and a car - the cars in the field somewhere....
I [i]think[/i] the vague wording around that Rule/photo is [i]supposed[/i] to mean [i]"as if you were passing a car whose [b]left[/b] (not right) wheels are where the cyclist is"[/i], and not [i]"the space between you and a cyclist should be the same as you and that Audi you banged wing mirrors with the other day"[/i].
But sadly it is a terribly worded rule.
It would be FAR clearer if they actually specified a minimum safe distance as they do in some other countries: http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacy
I always used to teach my punters to leave enough room when overtaking cyclists so that if the cyclist falls off sideways you dont run over their head.
On that particular stretch of road. However, there are wider single carriageway roads where a solo cyclist and two vehicles could quite safely pass each other. It's not always true, but it often is.
Even if we accept your premise, we're down to a small subset of road types (of the sort cyclists don't tend to use much), some of the time. Doesn't sound like something to get motorists worked up about, does it?
[quote=ransos ]
Even if we accept your premise, we're down to a small subset of road types ([i]of the sort cyclists don't tend to use much[/i]), some of the time.
Really? I had a stretch like that on my daily commute and I've ridden hundreds of miles on similar roads.
Really? I had a stretch like that on my daily commute and I've ridden hundreds of miles on similar roads.
Perhaps that tells us it would be better to not draw a conclusion from a single example.
scotroutes - Member
On that particular stretch of road. However, there are wider single carriageway roads where a solo cyclist and two vehicles could quite safely pass each other. It's not always true, but it often is.
They also tend to be much higher speed limited roads. The kind I would choose to avoid simply because they may have enough space to get past but the speed and wind does not make me feel safe at all.
Whack-a-mole!
(Never mind it's from 2010)
