Cyclists in the inside lane

triggerhappy_2

mikey72 wrote: »

Sounds more like the cyclist tried to undertake a car turning left, and nearly caused the accident himself in that case.

Exactly what was happening, but you put it so much more succinctly than me!

Probably not helped by my inside/outside mixup I suppose. Oh well, think bike!

triggerhappy_2

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

Maybe it was this guy- he likes having it out with drivers-:rotfl:millions there- pick one!

http://www.youtube.com/user/magnatom#p/u/103/T4S1bJTHL9E

Ha, well it was in Glasgow... it may well be him!

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

No, it means it hurts alot more.
Would you undertake an articulated lorry indicating left, if you were driving a car, just because you were in the correct lane and he wasn't?

I see plenty of idiots in cars doing this.

More common is when the lorry is in the left lane indicating to turn right at the roundabout (because it's trailer is going to end up filling the right hand lane) and idiots just keep overtaking it.

andygb

realised wrote: »

I have nothing really constructive to post in this thread
I quite agree

As a fairly new driver of about 5 months, what really really bugs me about some cyclists is that not one i have ever seen has ever stopped at a red light
You must keep your eyes open, because most cyclists stop at red lights, it is only the ones who have a death wish who do not, and they would be the same in a car if they could afford one.
/rant over

It's one of my pet peeves

Have you ever ridden a bike? If so, did you stop at red lights/pedestrian crossings?

The_Banker_5

andygb wrote: »

Have you ever ridden a bike? If so, did you stop at red lights/pedestrian crossings?

Youre wasting your time. He knows everything, he's been driving 5 months.;)

Lum

mealticket wrote: »

triggerhappy initially described the event using the words 'outside lane' twice
he was then 'quoted' twice where outside had been changed to inside. how did that happen?

mikey72

mealticket wrote: »

triggerhappy initially described the event using the words 'outside lane' twice
he was then 'quoted' twice where outside had been changed to inside. how did that happen?
if your brother didn't see the cyclist as he (presumably) drove past him he was probably more focused on keeping up with you than with watching out for cyclists, clearly visible or not. that's how accidents happen.
and if the cyclist had been mum or girlfriend or policeman?......

I've never seen a cyclist that wasn't visible. I have seen ones that were though. I don't see how the op could see a cyclist that wasn't visible.
Don't think a policeman would ride a bike, in black, without lights. I keep trying to get my wife to try though.

Lum

mealticket wrote: »

if you're editing you're not quoting

What if you're quoting but the OP is editing?

Lum

mealticket wrote: »

with a flourescent jacket and headlight on in broad daylight I was obviously not 'clearly visble' to the woman on her mobile phone who hooked a right ...

You're never going to be seen by those nobbers. Even vans and HGVs are invisible to them.

Another reason why the hand held mobile ban is a bad idea. These people are much harder to spot when using handsfree.

mikey72

mealticket wrote: »

be fair, i did say 'clearly visible'.....

with a flourescent jacket and headlight on in broad daylight I was obviously not 'clearly visble' to the woman on her mobile phone who hooked a right ...

I agree with you, there's a lot a cyclist can do, but sometimes they're going to get you. All you can do is improve the odds.
But black, with no lights or reflectors, at night?
Darwinism in action.