Dangerous/stupid driving near cyclists

Lum

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How would they know the cyclist intends to turn right, if they don't indicate their intentions?

Thank you, let me give a specific example which is what I had in my mind when I posted that.

Hot summers afternoon and I'm on one of the mountain roads just south of the brecons. I'm pretty high up and the area is mostly flat, nothing but grass either side pretty much visibility is about a mile ahead before the road disappears.

There is a cyclist ahead, decked out in all the spandex/lycra cycling gear, proper helmet, decent expensive looking mountain bike and generally giving off the vibe of someone who is enthusiastic about their cycling. He's riding about a foot to the right of the leftmost edge of carriageway marker, doing about 30 at a guess. The only other thing of note is a layby on the opposite side of the road, there is no actual attraction such as a river or anything attached to this layby, just a gravel covered bit of tarmac and an overflowing bin that is never emptied.

I overtake the cyclist and decide to do this by moving completely to the opposite side of the road. "Give a cyclist as much room as you would give a car"

When I'm less than 10 yards away, the idiot decides to make a sudden right turn into the layby with no check, no lifesaver and definitely no signal.

I ended up having to swerve into the bloody layby to avoid hitting that guy.

My car isn't exactly quiet when I put my foot down either.

I wonder if the spray of gravel hurt?

thelawnet

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How would they know the cyclist intends to turn right, if they don't indicate their intentions?

That depends.

You need to watch cyclists very carefully because they are a 'hazard' (hazard perception is a part of the driving test).

*If the cyclist looks over his shoulder but doesn't signal, it is quite likely he wants to move right.
*If the cyclist is moving right, it is likely he is doing it because he wants to turn right
*If the cyclist is riding near the right of the lane, it's likely he is preparing to turn right.

It's not that easy to signal on a bike for 10 seconds or more while preparing to turn, they might have signalled already but you didn't notice. Pay attention to their behaviour, try to develop a sixth sense.

Of course sometimes people just go without signalling, nothing you can do in that case, but usually there is some clue.

sequence

I do signal and I do look, that doesn't stop people overtaking me whilst I'm just about to turn right.

I was just commenting on the fools who will gladly overtake a clearly indicating cyclist who is to the right of their lane, about to turn.

Those people who don't look and don't signal, that's their problem.

Bongles

Lum wrote: »

Thank you, let me give a specific example which is what I had in my mind when I posted that.

Hot summers afternoon and I'm on one of the mountain roads just south of the brecons. I'm pretty high up and the area is mostly flat, nothing but grass either side pretty much visibility is about a mile ahead before the road disappears.

There is a cyclist ahead, decked out in all the spandex/lycra cycling gear, proper helmet, decent expensive looking mountain bike and generally giving off the vibe of someone who is enthusiastic about their cycling. He's riding about a foot to the right of the leftmost edge of carriageway marker, doing about 30 at a guess. The only other thing of note is a layby on the opposite side of the road, there is no actual attraction such as a river or anything attached to this layby, just a gravel covered bit of tarmac and an overflowing bin that is never emptied.

I overtake the cyclist and decide to do this by moving completely to the opposite side of the road. "Give a cyclist as much room as you would give a car"

When I'm less than 10 yards away, the idiot decides to make a sudden right turn into the layby with no check, no lifesaver and definitely no signal.

I ended up having to swerve into the bloody layby to avoid hitting that guy.

My car isn't exactly quiet when I put my foot down either.

I wonder if the spray of gravel hurt?

Without wanting to make excuses for the cyclist in your example - because that's absolutely not what I'm doing - do you think you could have timed your overtake so it didn't coincide with the offside hazard?

Norman_Castle

How would they know the cyclist intends to turn right, if they don't indicate their intentions?

Road position. A competant road user should understand a cyclist riding next to the centre line is likely to be turning right.


From the highway code
167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

Lum

Bongles wrote: »

Without wanting to make excuses for the cyclist in your example - because that's absolutely not what I'm doing - do you think you could have timed your overtake so it didn't coincide with the offside hazard?

I performed my overtake on the straightest section of that road.

Even with the excellent visibility that road has, I'd rather not overtake on a corner if I don't have to. It's a case of weighing up the probability of coming a cropper on the corner and sideswiping the guy (very very low) with the probably of someone who appeared competent doing something monumentally stupid and not hearing or in any way being aware of my presence (very very very low)

Besides, the layby provided an additional escape option! Imagine if I'd overtaken at a different point and the cyclist had chosen to veer right to stop and admire a particularly pretty stream or farmhouse or one of the other things along that road that would be much more pleasant to stop for than an overflowing stinky bin surrounded by wasps.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

That depends.

You need to watch cyclists very carefully because they are a 'hazard' (hazard perception is a part of the driving test).

*If the cyclist looks over his shoulder but doesn't signal, it is quite likely he wants to move right.
*If the cyclist is moving right, it is likely he is doing it because he wants to turn right
*If the cyclist is riding near the right of the lane, it's likely he is preparing to turn right.

It's not that easy to signal on a bike for 10 seconds or more while preparing to turn, they might have signalled already but you didn't notice. Pay attention to their behaviour, try to develop a sixth sense.

Of course sometimes people just go without signalling, nothing you can do in that case, but usually there is some clue.

That's fine, except, as in Lum's example, it doesn't happen all the time.

If a cyclist looks over his shoulder, I would typically (as would most drivers) assume he is checking what is behind him, just the same as a driver would check their mirrors from time to time. Do cyclists not check what is behind them from time to time? I would think that if more did, it would prevent a lot of the issues we hear about.

Flyboy152

sequence wrote: »

I do signal and I do look, that doesn't stop people overtaking me whilst I'm just about to turn right.

I was just commenting on the fools who will gladly overtake a clearly indicating cyclist who is to the right of their lane, about to turn.

Those people who don't look and don't signal, that's their problem.

I totally agree with everything you have written.

martinthebandit

thelawnet wrote: »

People are crazy. The penalties for dangerous driving need to be made more severe and more people punished, even if no accident is caused.

as long as there is proper evidence I think that you will find it already happens

thelawnet wrote: »

Things I've experienced:

* sports car overtaking on a blind bend at 60mph+ in a 40mph zone because there was a cyclist in front. I was coming the other way in my car and had to brake to avoid a collision. He could have safely overtaken within a few seconds round the bend, the road was not busy

Are you sure he was that close that you had to brake to avoid a collision, the time taken for a sports car to overtake a cyclist and get back into its line is very quick, it could have been an over-reaction on your part

thelawnet wrote: »

* today I was driving into Guildford, speed limit 40mph, single carriageway constant traffic, there was a cyclist four vehicles in front, doing about 25mph (on a proper road bike), and a full-on articulated lorry was sitting on his back wheel even though it was clearly never going to be safe to overtake and there was a roundabout ahead within less than a mile leading to multiple lanes.

You must have good vision if you can judge just how close a lorry was to a cyclist from that far away. I think that considering just how much better a view the lorry driver must have had than you I suspect he/she was more than happy that he was within a safe stopping distance especially at a low speed.

thelawnet wrote: »

* was riding my bike down the hill just now, my GPS was showing 26mph, 30mph zone, residential street, cars parked on the left-side of the road, t-junction at the bottom within a couple of hundred yards (meeting a busier road). Got overtaken by a car which went hurtling down the hill on the wrong side of the road couldn't stop at the bottom and turned right across oncoming traffic.

Clearly an idiot, although 26 mph downhill relying on a cycles brakes to stop you would not be something I would want to do either

thelawnet wrote: »

* I was riding my bike a couple of weeks ago along the road (30mph limit, residential area through road, fairly narrow) and a car came up behind me and beeped its horn at me. There was traffic coming the other way and I needed to turn right, so I signalled right and moved over to the centre line, waited there about 5 seconds for a car to pass and then turned right. While this was happening the car driver that had beeped his horn was going psycho, revving his engine several times, beeping at me repeatedly and gesticulating when I looked round to take his numberplate (which I supplied to the police). He was behind me for under 30 seconds, and if it had been a car in front of him signalling right he wouldn't have got angry.

Again another idiot, although again it would not have hurt you to wait the 5 seconds on the inside of the road while a car was oncoming which may have allowed the driver behind you too overtake

thelawnet wrote: »

What is wrong with these people? If there is a bicycle in front, do not panic, it is not harmful, if you are in an urban situation and the bicycle is keeping up with traffic, don't bother trying to overtake, they'll only filter past at the light; otherwise you might need to wait 10 or 20 seconds for an appropriate point to pass - please do so, your arrival at your destination is not going to be significantly delayed by being courteous and your chances of dying/killing someone today fall substantially.

Entirely agree, all road users should be courteous and considerate to all other road users

thelawnet wrote: »

Car driving is for most people the only activity they take part in that carries a real risk of death/injury to others, but still people take it so lightly. Lock em up!

Fortunately the don't do that in this country on the sole word of one other person without considering the full facts

thelawnet

martinthebandit wrote: »

as long as there is proper evidence I think that you will find it already happens

Well evidence is the problem. Tachographs in all cars?

Are you sure he was that close that you had to brake to avoid a collision, the time taken for a sports car to overtake a cyclist and get back into its line is very quick, it could have been an over-reaction on your part

I wouldn't have want to collide into him at a combined speed of 100mph+, and the car was not in his lane, it is not appropriate to be on the wrong side of the road when you don't know what's coming.

You must have good vision if you can judge just how close a lorry was to a cyclist from that far away. I think that considering just how much better a view the lorry driver must have had than you I suspect he/she was more than happy that he was within a safe stopping distance especially at a low speed.

I think you've missed the point, it's not the stopping distance of the lorry it's the fact that you've got a cyclist doing a decent speed for the conditions, no room to overtake, but the lorry is still positioning itself as if it's going to overtake, and yes I could see as the road bended left. When you're on a 10kg bike, having 30 tonnes of lorry making its intentions to pass you when there's never going to be room to do so nicely, is intimidating and unsettling.

A large lorry is one of the worst things that can pass you on the road.

Clearly an idiot, although 26 mph downhill relying on a cycles brakes to stop you would not be something I would want to do either

My bike is regularly serviced and has powerful discs, I am quite happy with its stopping power.

Again another idiot, although again it would not have hurt you to wait the 5 seconds on the inside of the road while a car was oncoming which may have allowed the driver behind you too overtake

Eh? I was turning right, why would I encourage people to overtake me? If I do that I get stuck on the left side of the lane with cars passing me on my right, and I'm likely to end up stationary on the wrong side of the lane, it's quite likely I'll forget to change down my gear and find it difficult to move off, so I'd have to walk my bike across the road in the end.

No thank you. My business on the road is important as any car driver, if I am turning right I will signal and position accordingly in good time. I have right of way over vehicles behind me - if they want to overtake they are free to do so at any time, but I'm not going to invite them to take advantage of me by cycling in the gutter on a 30mph residential road.

Fortunately the don't do that in this country on the sole word of one other person without considering the full facts

Tachographs, definitely. And lock up those idiots who crash their cars into railings, traffic lights, etc. (just look around your local area - the trail of violence caused by bad drivers is astonishing) or come off the road without injury 'losing control' is just bad driving. How often do these no injury except street furniture cases get prosecuted?