Arrogant cyclists

Bongles

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Actually it does make a difference

You'll see that I said it "doesn't make much difference" . I was very careful to say that and not "it makes no difference", because you're quite right - there is a difference and it's what you've pointed out: you of course can't achieve as much lateral separation passing three cyclists abreast. As long as it's safe to go fully offside you can achieve enough though (I'm still picturing a typical B-road). They're certainly not un-overtakeable.

Idiophreak

Bongles wrote: »

You'll see that I said it "doesn't make much difference" . I was very careful to say that and not "it makes no difference", because you're quite right - there is a difference and it's what you've pointed out: you of course can't achieve as much lateral separation passing three cyclists abreast. As long as it's safe to go fully offside you can achieve enough though (I'm still picturing a typical B-road). They're certainly not un-overtakeable.

It depends how you view it, I suppose.

As isf says, I like to keep, roughly, a cyclist-height gap to my left when passing, so if they fall down, they'll fall into the road and not under my wheels...In practice, on your typical B-road, this means me being completely on the other side of the road, while they're toward the kerb. If they are 3 abreast, on the same road, you're going to be passing within a couple of foot of the third cyclist, even when on the other side of the road. This is just closer than I like to get...

Personally, I tend to take the view that it's *them* reducing the maximum space between us - and so just overtake gently and, basically, hope for the best...but I can understand why some people may be uncomfortable passing at all in that situation...

interstellaflyer

Bongles wrote: »

You'll see that I said it "doesn't make much difference" . I was very careful to say that and not "it makes no difference", because you're quite right - there is a difference and it's what you've pointed out: you of course can't achieve as much lateral separation passing three cyclists abreast. As long as it's safe to go fully offside you can achieve enough though (I'm still picturing a typical B-road). They're certainly not un-overtakeable.

Sorry, I'm at work and read through your post whilst doing other things, so didn't quite take in what you posted :embarasse

Strider590

Bongles wrote: »

They're certainly not un-overtakeable.

Exactly....

But with many drivers, they see a cyclist and go straight into "must overtake cyclist because they're holding me up" mode. Then when they see two cyclists riding abreast, or a cyclist riding outside the cycle lane (probably avoiding glass/holes/etc) the red mist completely decends and they go into "must teach this little insignificant sub-human a lesson" mode.

It's so crazy, I was following a slow driver the other day, he/she was driving me mad, braking for every oncoming car, slowing right down (too slow) for corners and constantly dabbing the brakes for nooooo reason....... Then when they come to a cyclist, do they brake? do they panic? No, they boot it and overtake on a blind bend with a 7.5 tonne truck coming the other way!!!!!! :eek:
Me? despite my earlier annoyance with this fool, I just sat there until I could see a good stretch of road and caught up with the slow driver again just a few minutes later (and overtook them)

It's like people see a cyclist and their brain just turns itself off

benjus

I was almost taken out on by a van on the way home this evening.

Approaching a crossroads (box junction) I see that the lights have just turned green, so I go into a sprint to get there before the lights change back to red. In the yellow box is a van wanting to turn right. The driver makes a judgement that he can make his turn before I get there, but underestimates my speed and has to slam on the brakes at the last moment to avoid hitting me.

I just gave him an evil look and shook my head - he probably thought "bloody arrogant cyclists" and went on his way...

Dave_C_2

Weird_Nev wrote: »

There was this nightmare cyclist in London a couple of days back. Thought he owned the bloody road! Tooling along well in excess of the speed limit, none of the pedestrians could cross the road for fear of him hitting them, and he was even holding up a BMW which was clearly faster. It caused absolute traffic chaos!

Several points

• How did you measure the speed of the cyclist?
• There is mostly no speed limit for a bicycle
• Pedestrians should give way to cyclists except for crossings, which weren't mentioned.
• If the cyclist was "speeding" then the BMW would also be speeding
• If the cyclist was holding up a BMW then no pedestrian in their right mind would have tried to cross in front of a cyclist in front of a BMW
• How does one cyclist being followed by a BMW cause absolute traffic chaos?

Dave

Dave_C_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

Sadly, it's fundamentally impractical for British roads to accommodate both safely *together*. Changing the roads to accommodate both safely *apart* would be a much better idea

Not really, the Dutch did it starting in the 1970s - after they realised the carnage on the roads caused by by motor vehicles.
Even more important is Sustainable safety
Finally the myths about why UK roads can't be made safer for all.

Dave

Dave_C_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

<snip sensible stuff>
I really think that making a certain number of miles cycling a pre-requisite to a driving licence would really change people's attitudes more than anything else...

Or at the very least take up cycling at a later stage - like I did.

I'm a driver and a cyclist and I'm always considerate to cyclists when driving and vice versa. But it does get annoying when I'm riding in the centre of the lane to avoid the door zone and some twit in a car is a foot away from my rear wheel itching to get past.

Dave

Idiophreak

Dave_C wrote: »

Not really, the Dutch did it starting in the 1970s - after they realised the carnage on the roads caused by by motor vehicles.

If you read the article you've linked to, you'll see that the Dutch actually use my model, not yours. Wherever possible, cyclists are given their own lanes, completely away from cars. If cyclists need to use the roads, all efforts are made to remove cars from those roads.

Dave_C_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

If you read the article you've linked to, you'll see that the Dutch actually use my model, not yours. Wherever possible, cyclists are given their own lanes, completely away from cars. If cyclists need to use the roads, all efforts are made to remove cars from those roads.

My mistake, I wasn't very clear that I was replying to the overall safety of mixing cars and bikes on the same road structure, not one or the other.:(

In the same post I did point out the more important sustainable safety. This is where safety of vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians) is "built-in" to the system, not bolted on as an afterthought.

I get so frustrated at the UK, where too many cyclists are still being killed, especially on urban roads. At some point in the near future, when fossil fuel becomes more expensive and cycle riding increases, we must move to the Dutch system of sustainable safety, why not now? ... and breathe

Dave