As a 15K miles / year driver, and up to 5K miles / year cyclist (but not so much recently), I see it from both sides.
A cyclist passing parked cars should be giving himself (or herself) enough space to avoid a driver's door being opened. This translates to four feet out from the parked car.
I feel uncomfortable if a car comes any closer than say 4 feet to me when passing, but perhaps not so crucial in slow moving town or city traffic.
Cyclists, for their part, should be no more than 60 cm out from the kerb (unless the edge of the road is in such poor condition, or covered in gravel, that this is impossible.)
They should be riding a bike that fits them, otherwise, they will be prone to wobble and waver.
And they should be wearing a hi-visibility jacket (eg., Altura Night Vision), and have not only the minimum required lighting (if at night) but also additional flashing LED's.
And finally, they should be wearing a properly adjusted cycling helmet. It may not be a lot of help if you are hit by a car, but it will sure protect your head if you come off your bike, and your head hits the road. I know, I've been there. I got off with mild concussion, and a grazed shoulder, elbow and thigh. The helmet wasn't so lucky. When I saw the damage to it, I realised that had it not been the helmet that was badly cracked, it would have probably been my skull.
|
........ how much room do you give cyclists?
Since you're apparently having a go at drivers, what about us looking at the other side of the equation? How much room do you, as a cyclist, give cars when you're squeezing up the inside of them in slow moving or stationary traffic?
|
Uh, well, I haven't ridden in busy traffic for nearly a year now so that's not really relevant. When I did, I was in a cycle lane or on the pavement, so your cars were quite safe. However, if I nudge your car I might be looking at paying for a panel respray or a touch up on a mirror. If you nudge me (particularly when the speed differential is not ~5mph, but about 60) then it's a whole different matter.
I honestly can't see how you could possibly compare the two.
|
I was in a cycle lane or on the pavement
Pavements are for pedestrians - not a motley crew of cyclists, etc.
|
I'd go with Old Navy on this one; it's what I was taught on HGV training too.
I don't ride bicycles any more, but I do ride motorbikes and as such I'm switched on to the extra risks involved in using the road on two wheels. My general take on the issue is that a bit more courtesy and anticipation on both sides wouldn't go amiss.
BTW, to all cyclists; you are not exempt from using lights at night or when visibility is poor, nor are you exempt from looking behind you and then making the appropriate signal before turning. My apologies to those responsible cyclists who do have the good sense and courtesy to do such things; regrettably though you seem to be a minority.
|
deep breath...here goes
i'll admit to an unhealthy dislike of many cyclists...because... so many seem to think that no lights and dark clothing are o.k. at night, that red lights/pedestrian crossings, give way or stop signs etc don't matter...just keep on pedalling
and there's the holier than thou attitude...then there's cycling on pavements, attaching them to the back of cars with no extra plate or lights
it means i'm hard pushed to find many postives. I appreciate that not everyone is the same...but maybe some responsible cyclists could pipe up and condemn what to me seems like a majority
|
LOL!
Here's one. I cycle but follow the rules of the road same on the bike as I do when driving. I don't wear black nor cycle without decent lighting when required. I definitively don't cycle on pavements either. I always stop at red lights and give way as required.
For the record, cyclists who commit all those sins don't get any sympathy from me.
Even as a cyclist myself, if I see some ***** acting in such a way, he gets much less room than others do. Generally I try give at least 3-4 foot of room and try to slow down on faster roads. I'll leave you to guess how much room the arrogant bunch get...
Happy now WP? ;)
|
I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist. I agree with OilBurner except trying to squeeze misbehaving cyclists. You never know; the cyclist might need those extra inches however law-abiding or not they may be.
On Monday I rode my well-lit bicycle through about 8" floodwater on the crown of the empty road. A car pulled up facing me through the rain on the unflooded bit of road, decided I wasn't worth the few seconds wait and set off towards me. I would have taken a swipe at his(her?) mirror but the foot-high bow wave from the car needed care to navigate and filled my boots with icy water. I wished the driver an engine-full of water and a long walk home.
|
|
|
|
I'll use this debate to give a public thankyou to a surprisingly (these days) polite young man in Hereford.
About 3 months ago driving along Roman Rd, Hereford 8.15am ish in my truck (car transporter) , its a busy road and came up behind a young chap wearing the hoodie riding along, well i was turning right in half a mile and to overtake him would have been pointless and i'd have been too close to him anyway, so i stayed about 50 yds behind him.
Well lo and behold he tuned left (and he signalled so) before my turning and just before he did, he turned around and smiled and waved a thankyou.....picture gordenbennet picking himself up off the floor, as a thankyou was the last thing i expected.
If anyone knows who this young man is from my poor description , pass on my good wishes.
Just goes to show, there's good and bad car and cycle users.
|
|
I agree with that sentiment, courtesy costs nowt and it's always good to see it. I do find horse riders to be generally the most courteous of the "vulnerable" groups of road users, followed by pedestrians. I don't expect acknowledgement from cyclists since in fairness they're better off keeping both hands on the bars, but sad to say many of them do tend to take courtesy for granted; a smile and a nod work wonders .
|
|
|
|
Westpig - having, as i explained, just become a cyclist, I've been looking for the equivalent of HJs' and the backroom - can't say I've found anything that comes close, but I can say there are plenty of contributors to cycling fora who are ready to condemn their less responsible brethren for all the things you describe
Not stopping at red lights, undertaking cars and riding on the pavement will get you the same sort of response as coming here and saying you dropped your beer while driving home as you'd picked up your phone to text Nick Freeman because you'd just set off a speed camera (well, that may be an bit of an exaggeration)
Edited by borasport20 on 25/01/2008 at 17:36
|
Dont go over the white lines, but nearside wheels are either straddling them or just on them. Again, always give wobble room, and also worried if get too close then will cause the wobble.
In heavier traffic, is not always possible, but will wait till can give them enough room to pass safely. Sometimes does cause a smallish queue of traffic behind me, but guess if I were to collide with cyclist would cause bigger hold-up.
|
Well the simple answer is as much as possible. If the road is clear, and it is safe to do so pull well out and go round. The white lines in the middle of the road are not some sort of inpenetratable barrier! If clearance is an issue than I would say six feet, or as I used to say when I was a driving instructor, enough room for the cyclist to fall off.
I ride as part of a cycling club and have made several observations as both a cyclist/motorist. I don't mean this as a lecture but as something we as road users can all learn and understand.
First, is the real casual approach by many motorists to overtaking. I am sure some motorists put more thought and planning into a reverse park at Tesco's then what is potentially the most dangerous action they will take behind the wheel of a car ie where and when to overtake. If in doubt -don't!!
A polite tap on the horn before overtaking, as a warning before overtaking, especially large groups of cyclists will also be appreciated. It is not always easy to hear vehicles behind and if the cyclist has not been checking behind then he/she may not be aware of you
|
I usually give cyclist plenty of room except when they ride in groups 2 or 3 abreast, then they get a lot less room and a toot of the horn.
|
Why is that then? As rule 66 of the HC states,
never ride MORE THAN two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
So riding two abreast, in the circumstances outlinded above, is perfectly legal. Lost count of the number of motorists who don't know that - including you kith. ps while dusting off your HC look up correct use of the horn warning as well.
|
This cycling talk has reminded me of when I saw what was nearly a very nasty accident. A cyclist was riding up a fairly steep hill, standing up on the pedals , when his chain snapped. This caused him to fall over to his right hand side and land in the road just as an HGV was starting to overtake him. I don't know how the HGV driver even saw him but he stamped on the brakes , if he had gone another foot he would have gone straight over the cyclists head.
I always take great care not to get too close to bikes as things can go wrong even at low speeds. I ride in London a bit , and while most drivers are fine , some really don't give a damn. Some cyclists ignore the rules of the road but so do most drivers (speeding for example).
Edited by krs one on 26/01/2008 at 08:51
|
However if I nudge your car I might be looking at paying for a panel respray or a touch up on a mirror.
But only if you stop, admit liability, exchange details and actually eventually pay the bill, and I've never yet heard of a cyclist doing any of those things! Cyclists are capable of doing quite large amounts of damage to both motor vehicles and pedestrians, and they (cyclists) should have to have insurance just like motorists.
|
This cycling talk has reminded me of when I saw what was nearly a very nasty accident. A cyclist was riding up a fairly steep hill standing up on the pedals when his chain snapped. This caused him to fall over to his right hand side and land in the road just as an HGV was starting to overtake him.
>>
Exactly the same thing happened to me about a month ago. I had just fitted a new chain and it broke when I was climbing a 1-in-5, fortunately there were no cars behind and I fell to the left and onto the soft verge. It worried the life out of me though thinking if I had been on a busy road and had gone down in front of something.
And if Derick with the VW Golf who is also a cyclist reads this, thanks for sticking the bike in the back and running me home as the battery on my mobile had died.
|
...... A cyclist was riding up a fairly steep hill standing up on the pedals when his chain snapped.
In a lighter vein, a male colleague once quoted this scenario as being the reason for him having a child's seat on the crossbar!
|
you sometimes see cyclists on main A roads... for example, the twisty ones that haven't got very wide carriageways...or...dual carriageways that look a bit like motorways and take a lot of 'heavy' traffic
i'm sorry, but whatever right they've got to be there, they are still incredibly foolish in my eyes.....an accident just waiting to happen, even if it wouldn't be their fault
in the same fashion that when i'm riding my m/c i'm expecting someone to pull out on me....whether i have the right of way or not.....it's the only way to stay alive
the worst i've seen is a family on the A82 Fort William to Inverness... unbelievably stupid
|
..... I was ......... on the pavement,
David Horn,
I can hardly believe that you dare to make an admision like that when you're having a go at motorists for not giving you enough clearance when they overtake. And it's not as if it's the first time on this forum that you've admitted to doing it! I'd just like to recount the sad story of an elderly neighbour who was knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement as she walked from the end of her drive onto the pavement. As a result of the collision her hip was broken. Shortly afterwards she contracted gangrene from which she subsequently died. I just hope you'll bear that in mind the next time you're tempted to cycle on the pavement. If I promise that in future I'll give cyclists a wide berth, will you promise never again to cycle on the pavement? I'd like an answer to that question, please.
|
Tell you what, L'Escargot, we'll swap the metalwork that's holding my wrist together after a car drove into me while I was in a cycle lane and then see how you feel about riding around cars. While I do ride on the pavement occasionally, I don't do it at a speed where I couldn't stop if someone stepped out in front of me.
Sounds like the cyclist that hit this poor lady was riding at a completely inappropriate speed and I hope he was prosecuted for what he did.
|
While I do ride on the pavement occasionally I don't do it at a speed where I couldn't stop if someone stepped out in front of me. Sounds like the cyclist that hit this poor lady was riding at a completely inappropriate speed and I hope he was prosecuted for what he did.
That is a bit like saying that you don't drive at 40 mph in 30 mph limit but only at 35.
Whilst I sympathise with you regarding getting injured whilst doing something perfectly legal, the cyclist would only be prosecuted for doing what you did; riding on the pavement. Not riding TOO FAST on the pavement, or riding BADLY on the pavement ; just riding ON the pavement. Make as many excuses as you like but you're as guilty as he was.
|
Its the very short hairy legged ones, wearing shorts and burdened with panniers and pulling a bread bin sized trailer that concern me.
Invariably called `Brian` and with a personal `fuel supply`to pedal twice around the globe without dismounting.
Stuck in permanent ultra low first gear, the leg hairs can trigger speed cameras and allegedly,put Plod off their tea break in the control room.
Regards
|
Its the very short hairy legged ones wearing shorts and burdened with panniers and pulling a bread bin sized trailer that concern me.
Don't forget the straggly grey beard, ponytail and steel-rimmed specs; obligatory!
|
sqDon't forget the straggly grey beard ponytail and steel-rimmed specs; obligatory!
It's the ones who shave their legs which concerns me. :-)
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 26/01/2008 at 18:10
|
|
Ha! Yes cycling does attract all soughts...
|
"Tell you what, L'Escargot, we'll swap the metalwork that's holding my wrist together after a car drove into me while I was in a cycle lane and then see how you feel about riding around cars. While I do ride on the pavement occasionally, I don't do it at a speed where I couldn't stop if someone stepped out in front of me."
I have three plates holding my lower jaw and teeth in place, can I pick and choose which laws I obey please?
|
I think there's a difference, though it is obviously my own opinion. In making an assessment of risk, I consider that pootling down a wide pavement at 5mph is safer than riding down a busy road - for me, anyway. In the extremely unlikely event that I did hit someone, the overwhelming probability is that they'd be a bit teed off, but uninjured.
On the other hand, choosing to drive at 35mph in a 30 zone is completely different, because while it might seem unlikely for you to run someone over, if you did, you'd either kill or critically injure them. Not so on the bike.
As an aside, the one and only time I've hit a pedestrian was when I was riding along a road and they stepped into it without looking. She was unhurt, mostly because I nearly catapulted myself over the bars trying to stop.
|
....... I consider that pootling down a ..... pavement at 5mph is safer than riding down a busy road - for me anyway.
But not for pedestrians. How selfish can you get?
<< In the extremely unlikely eventthat I did hit someone ...........
Why is it unlikely? What about if they veer to one side at the last moment? What about if you're coming up behind them? And do you ring your bell as you approach? You do have a bell I hope.
............ the overwhelming probability is that they'd be a bit teed off but uninjured.
Clearly you've never been run into by a cyclist.
|
|
I often complain about pavement cyclists here, but the ones I mean are young or thuggish ones who go very fast or jink at you unpredictably. People who do it in a measured manner because discretion is the better part of valour are all right in my view. There are a lot of roads in this town where a cyclist isn't really safe. Nevertheless, there are plenty who brave it and don't go on pavements any more than necessary.
|
I often complain about pavement cyclists here but the ones I mean are young or thuggish ones who go very fast or jink at you unpredictably. People who do it in a measured manner
I think Lud's about right. While it's easy to portray David's attitude as hypocrisy the real issue is proper provision for cyclists.
That can be acheived by sharing with pedestrians, but at the cost of reducing the cyclist to near walking pace. Don't like it personally as, aside from the failure to make progress, I don't buy the implied message that cyclists are "wheeled pedestrians".
I'm happy to share the roads and be treated as a vehicle. But unlike David I've yet to have my accident.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 28/01/2008 at 22:05
|
L'escargot - many of the cycle lanes in my part of the world are part of the pavement rather than part of the road, and I can assure you pdestrians take no heed that part of the pavement is allocated to cyclists
|
L'escargot - many of the cycle lanes in my part of the world are part of the pavement rather than part of the road and I can assure you pdestrians take no heed that part of the pavement is allocated to cyclists
That's as maybe, but it doesn't justify the OP's ambivalence in wanting maximum consideration when cycling on the road but yet not obeying the Highway Code regarding not cycling on the part of the pavement which is allocated to pedestrians.
|
L'escargot - many of the cycle lanes in my part of the world are part of the pavement rather than part of the road and I can assure you pdestrians take no heed that part of the pavement is allocated to cyclists
There's hardly any point putting these in place. Does anyone know Priory Lane, running from the South Circ up into Richmond Park (running past the Priory and LTA centre). There is a lovely cycle lane on the pavement, but these lycra clad maniacs NEVER use it.
As for giving cyclists room, I really think that most drivers have absolutely no idea how wide their car is. I did my early driving in Cambridge, where if you crossed the white line to give cyclists room you really would not get anywhere.
Riding on pavements - I have been known to do this but not for a long time. I still remember an old lady trying to push me off because I was riding on pavement. It can be a frightening experience cycling on many roads, but as part of your own risk assessment perhaps a different route should be chosen to avoid such dangerous bits. "Oh but why should I have to go out of my way?" Simple really - risk being killed or go a safer route.
|
many of the cycle lanes in my part of the world are part of the pavement rather than part of the road and I can assure you pdestrians take no heed that part of the pavement is allocated to cyclists
I think that you will find that the Highway Code says that cyclists must remain on the side of shared footpaths intended for cyclists, but there is no requirement for pedestrians to do the same and they can use the full width of the pavement.
|
you sometimes see cyclists on main A roads... for example the twisty ones that >> the worst i've seen is a family on the A82 Fort William to Inverness... unbelievably stupid
I think your a bit heavy there WP.
A 82 is not the busiest road in Scotland by a long chalk. Wouldn't worry me now with two teenagers and subject their road sense I can't see too much trouble with younger kids in a well supervised family convoy. No easy alternative at least until Fort Augustus.
TBH sweeping roads with good sightlines are a lot safer than banked/hedged "quiet" country lanes
If cycletouring in Scotland the main railheads fo the highlands would be FW and Inverness.
|
I think those `lay on your back` 3 inches from the ground, (base before apex) pedal jobs are to be recommended. Rather than emitting `sock` fumes to be drawn into passing vehicles, at least they are breathing it back in and catalysing it, in the (down wind) lungs and liver.
There is also the possibility of `taking on water` from puddles, in the procedure best demonstrated by the scoop lowering Steam locomotives of days gone by.
Hence no doubt the shorts ;)
Regards
|
I think those `lay on your back` 3 inches from the ground
Called "Recumbants" some different types available to purchase - some homemade varieties about. Do offer slightly less wind resistance qualities but lose the jet propulsion effect (in a sporadic way )of bending forward over the handlebars. Only ever ridden one -off road - not impressed - but it takes all sorts :-)
Happy Motoring Phil I (QX Driver with five cycles in the garage -not put foot to pedal since 2001 -too old and decrepit. Used to commute 17m each way across Birmingham. Only knocked off twice!!! in more years than I care to remember.
|
B'tonaut,
That road is fairly narrow, fast, twisting and being a main route takes all the heavy traffic. All the locals beetle along fairly swiftly and then there's dozy tourists looking at the views...I think it to be foolhardy in the extreme to subject yourself or your family to that risk when in effect your a pedestrian with wheels.
There's quite simply not enough room.... and the loser is going to be the cyclist.
Near there recently a Scottish cycle racer was killed in an accident, can't remember his name unfortunately, but was in all the papers. Would imagine he was pretty competent on a bike and used to cycling on the roads.
|
WP
Jason MacIntyre was killed in the urbanish outskirts of Fort William. While the precise facts may need to be argued in court press reports suggest a collision with a truck exiting the A82 to access a factory/depot. Drivers statement in a local media says he believes MacIntyre was on a cycle track rather than the road - though I think the racing community will find that hard to credit.
I think you and I have different perspectives on the risks of cycling. I would not regard the A82 as a pleasure trip, but it's do able by a careful and competent cyclist. The problem in Scotland is that for many bike journeys there is no alternative to the trunk roads. Since the A74 was upgraded in the nineties there is at least a decent North/South route along it's old line - that really was dangerous.
|
>>
So riding two abreast in the circumstances outlinded above is perfectly legal. Lost count ofthe number of motorists who don't know that - including you kith. ps while dusting off your HC look up correct use of the horn warning as well.
Sorry, I WAS talking about in the circumstances you mentioned, i.e. narrow roads and bends, and my use of the horn was in keeping with the highway code, i.e. to let other road users (cyclist in this case) know you are there.
|
|
Excellent, so why less clearance to cyclists two abreast and the horn warning then? A horn warning if necassary is relevant for the driving situation, not the numbers abreats across the road. The point is the horn warning is used purley as a warning not to signal displeasure at what we think might be someones inappropriate actions (either on a bike or in a car)
|
Excellent so why less clearance to cyclists two abreast and the horn warning then? A horn warning if necassary is relevant for the driving situation not the numbers abreats across
The toot of the horn when approaching the 2 or 3 abreast is to let them know I am approaching in the hope that they might move into single file as is more sensible in the road situation. If they don't move over then they have less clearance when I pass because I have less to give them, simple as.
|
|
Sorry, I am still a little confused. If you cannot give the safe amount of clearance then you should not overtake, regardless of how many abreast they are, you should simply wait. No good having the results of collision with a welll officer 'they where three abreast', right-or-wrongs don't look good in the morgue!. By all means use the horn as an appropriate warning, especially if you suspect the cyclists are unaware of your presence.
|
Sorry I am still a little confused. If you cannot give the safe amount of
clearance then you should not overtake regardless of how many abreast they are you should simply wait.
>>
Well Mr confused, Anyone would think that I said I would mow them down the way you go on. I never mentioned colliding with them, Just giving them less room. I think that about 12" is enough clearance in the circumstances. You think I should wait for mile after mile, holding up the traffic behind me because some ignorant cyclists don't want to move over after they have courteously been informed of my presence by an approaching toot of the horn . do you think the vehicles behind me are going to wait ? I don't, I think they will just overtake me and do the same as I was going to do.
|
If you think twelve inches is enough you stand every chance of mowing them down.
What happens if one of them wobbles or swerves to avoid road debris??
|
Just 12 inches clearance? I tell you what walk along a road with your back to traffic and see how that feels if a car goes by 12 inches away from you, say at 30MPH. The reason we allow more is because of the 'what if' factor. What if its windy, what if the cyclists chain broke, what if there is a bad pothole ahead, what if the cyclist is inexperienced etc, etc, etc.
Reagardless if the cyclist is ignorant or a Vicar of the Parish, the fact remains he is someone son or daughter, or the loving father/mother to children. Are you really saying you would take risks with a fellow human beings life rather than applying some patience and look to give the correct clearance required for a safe overtake. Of course you can give give 12 inches clearance and 99,999 times, and apart from causing alarm and distress to fellow human beings, you will not hurt anyone. Sadly the 100 000 time someone will not be so lucky. Still thats OK just an injured/dead ignorant cyclist ah Kith?
|
|
as much room as their is to spare.
|
Because, in France, rules were framed around cyclists and still are the legal requirement - IIRC - is 2 metres clearance and if the white line is against you, tough, you have to wait before legally crossing it.
By and large this rule is extensively obeyed. I'm ashamed to say it took me some time to figure out why French drivers gave cyclists such a wide berth but then someone suggested I look at their equivalent of the Highway Code (which is a weighty tome compared to the UK one).
I have to say, though, I do get annoyed by the cycling clubs who go around in groups of 20 or 30 and show no consideration to other road users whatsoever, because they can.
|
|
It is a difficult one re. cycling clubs. After all you join any club for the frienship and chatter with others with a similiar interest. So why not enjoy a ride together, after all if you where in the Lotus car car club you could go out en-masse and enjoy a drive could you not? I do agree that a little common sense is required. My cycling club might have twenty odd riders going out, and we generally stick to country lanes/quieter roads. The general technique is to ride two a breast in a reasonably compact formation, this is both sociable and better than a twenty long single-file group (almost un-overtakable as that would be a long group) If a car comes up behind, or we do ride through a busier area, the run leader or his deputy would put up a shout of 'single-file' and the rider's would then organize themselves into that to provide a safe overtake. Thats how my club goes about it anyway! Just a quick point, this sometimes takes a little while to sort out as this required some shouting and organizing amongst 20 odd people, so a little patience would be appreciated!
|
Excellent, jmaccyd.
If you could possibly do a French translation for me I'll circulate the clubs round here!
|
|
Ah the French, a law to themselves!
|
|
|
|
