You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes I have often thought this – why people on bikes aren’t treated similarly to horse riders I’ll never know.
Simple. A horse can do a lot of damage to their car if they hit it or it gets spooked. A bicycle doesn't, it just bounces off. At no point in the above does the driver consider the human sat on each, it's all about who comes off worst hence the rush to buy SUV's, 4x4's and the like.
Driver behind a cyclist, even one doing 25mph and it’s right up the arse, trying to squeeze through, hooting…
Yeah had that one recently too - going down a quiet country lane at a fair speed so lots of wind noise and I didn't hear the car behind me. The first I know about it was when he stamped on his horn (not a brief 'bleep', a full on 'getoutofmy****ingway' sounding). I very nearly went into a ditch in panic as he then close passed me (there really wasn't room even if I moved to the very left of the narrow road). His partner in the passenger seat had that look of 'I'm sorry, but spare a thought for me, I have to live with this tosser'.
Generally I find the level of bellendery is independent of the form of transport the bellend is in control of (questionable I know).
And the other driver is definitely in the bellend camp.
I think there is also something Malvern Riders post, a tractor in front of you presents (on narrower roads especially) and object you simply cannot pass, where as a cyclist, and to an extent a horse and rider, something that you could get past if conditions allow. People generally deal better with absolutes rather than indeterminates. With the tractor, there is no option, with the others there is the chance of getting past, so they try...and the longer the delay, no matter that it’s still small, the greater the desire to try.
The stupidity of this is that, if he was in such a rush, why did he feel the need to stop, get out, shout etc. That must’ve delayed him more than waiting for a safe overtake..
This is the bit that baffles me, and something I do ask on the occasion someone’s thrown a wobbler because I’d dared to hold them up whilst cycling.
Must Get In Front.
Most common type of “dangerous” or inconsiderate overtake, there’s absolutely nothing gained from it. I’ve had overtakes up to junctions, red lights, traffic jams
If one of these passes me while on the bike I ALWAYS go into the advanced stop box at the lights and sit in the middle of it. MGIF driver then has to wait while I start off and get clipped in.
You did the right thing and just unlucky to meet someone like that. The best action you can now take is get a dash cam. We use a little wedge shaped Akaso one from Amazon which is tiny and very unobtrusive.
I've actually wondered if a bit of subliminal behaviour modification happens with most (reasonable) drivers. If I overtake a cyclist in a deliberately careful way, then 9 times out of 10 the car behind me does the same. Did my behaviour influence theirs? Would make an interesting research study for someone.
If I overtake a cyclist in a deliberately careful way, then 9 times out of 10 the car behind me does the same. Did my behaviour influence theirs?
I've noticed the same thing. We need to lead by example. There are always some dickheads it won't affect though.
I'm pretty sure I did the right thing when overtaking even when I wasn't a cyclist, but I'm more aware of it now for sure.
The problem imo is that most drivers just have no idea they're doing anything wrong. Even when told the law, even when stopped by the police, the mindset is still that they're being unfairly harassed for their dangerous driving. If you ever see a police force doing a "close pass" operation and posting about it on the internet, check into the comments to see an endless procession of people declaring how dangerously they drive, on the police's facebook page... Says it all really.
Completely with the OP and everyone that not overtaking was definitely the right call, however...
but using road craft i cross the doubles for a look up the road
So you illegally crossed double solid lines to check further down the road if you could overtake a cyclist you shouldn't be overtaking because it's double solid lines?
The double solid lines are there for a reason - no overtaking as it's a blind corner or creat or whatever. If the cyclist is doing more than 10mph you cannot overtake them on double solids so why the need to look further down the road to check it's clear to overtake?
Once you are clear of the double solids, that's the point you can then start to think about whether it is safe to overtake.
I will fully admit I may have misunderstood this action and in that case I apologise and take it back, but to call this 'roadcraft' is very incorrect.
That's the theory, but in practice there are loads of places where you'd be better overtaking a bike on double whites than not.
That’s the theory, but in practice there are loads of places where you’d be better overtaking a bike on double whites than not.
Why? And when?
If you are driving where it's 'better' to cross the doubles whites than not, then you haven't given yourself enough room to the car/cyclist/whatever in front. Holding up traffic is not a valid reason. If it feels unsafe to be behind the car/cyclist/whatever in a period of double solids then the correct response is to give even more room to the car/cyclist/whatever in front and wait until there is a safe and legal place to pass.
Anyone posted Ronnie Pickering yet?
Anyone posted Ronnie Pickering yet?
Who?
😉
thegeneralist
MemberThat’s the theory, but in practice there are loads of places where you’d be better overtaking a bike on double whites than not.
The generalist is Ronnie Pickering, lol.
No no no.
I'm always exceedingly careful overtaking cyclists. Very very.
I still stand by my statement that there are some places where there are double whites because it's unsafe to overtake a car, where I would and do overtake bikes.
That’s the theory, but in practice there are loads of places where you’d be better overtaking a bike on double whites than not.
Just no, there never are. That's probably a straight 6 points if observed by a traffic officer.
129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
I thought it was 20mph.
I still stand by my statement that there are some places where there are double whites because it’s unsafe to overtake a car, where I would and do overtake bikes.
Given you should leave a bike as much room as you give a car this is utter nonsense and if you are doing this then you are making an unsafe overtake
I thought it was 20mph.
You thought wrong.
It's perfectly legal to cross solid whites to overtake a cyclist doing 10mph or lower. The same is true of passing slow / stopped vehicles and horse riders. Though how you're expected to gauge this speed as a driver I've no idea.
Given you should leave a bike as much room as you give a car this is utter nonsense and if you are doing this then you are making an unsafe overtake
Maybe the difference here isn't vehicle width so much as differential speed? Overtaking something travelling at walking pace and something doing 40mph are very different propositions.
I must admit I thought it was higher than 10mph too but then
Though how you’re expected to gauge this speed as a driver I’ve no idea.
Unless you are driving behind the cyclist and matching their speed perhaps? Still gonna be a difficult one to be prosecuted for I'd say 🤔
A car driver will have no idea if a bike is doing 10mph and most cyclists won't even know if they are doing 10mph due to no speedometer. Clearly just an arbitrary number meaning something slow. Not like you wouldn't overtake if the bike was doing 11mph rather than 10mph is it.
As long as the car slows to 10mph and then carefully overtakes I would be fine with that as a cyclist and dream of a day where that sort of driving would be the norm.
I had almost exactly the same thing happen as the OP except the driver didn't slam on his brakes. Double whites, blind brow etc. I have a dashcam and the police are prosecuting.
As long as the car slows to 10mph and then carefully overtakes I would be fine with that as a cyclist and dream of a day where that sort of driving would be the norm.
I absolutely hate slow overtakes. The closer in speed the car is to me, the longer it spends alongside me, getting past etc, the longer it's spending in the danger zone of the opposite lane and then the closer in front of me it is when it pulls in.
Pull out, get past, get the job done.
The worst ones are in 30mph zones when you're doing say 25 (ish) mph (slight downhill or tailwind say) and you get one of those MGIF drivers but they're in the middle of the Venn diagram of MGIF / will never exceed the speed limit. The ones who do 39mph in a 40, then stand the car on it's nose as they come into the 30 zone, accelerate back up to 29mph and so on.
Trying to get past at 29mph ("must not exceed speed limit!") while the rider is doing 25. 🤦♂️
Just ****ing get past, I don't care if it's 40 for a few seconds so long as you're wide. Get past me, and **** off into the distance.
Given you should leave a bike as much room as you give a car this is utter nonsense and if you are doing this then you are making an unsafe overtake
Erm, width, room, irrelevant ... erm
Maybe the difference here isn’t vehicle width so much as differential speed? Overtaking something travelling at walking pace and something doing 40mph are very different propositions.
Ah, thank god. Someone with some sense. The key factor is how much faster you're going than the thing your overtaking (and of course the absolute speed of the thing you're overtaking). If you're in a car that can do 40mph or thereabouts average past the bike doing 15mph or thereabouts then it'll clearly take you about a fifth of the time to overtake than it would do overtake a car doing 50mph when you're doing 55mph. And the distance you cover, and hence the chance of still being on the wrong side of the road by the time you hit the horizon are about 1/7th.
You thought wrong.
Thanks Tips, that was my point!!!
Here's a cautious overtake from Saturday!!
The worst ones are in 30mph zones when you’re doing say 25 (ish) mph (slight downhill or tailwind say) and you get one of those MGIF drivers but they’re in the middle of the Venn diagram of MGIF / will never exceed the speed limit.
That's one of the weirdest phenomena on the road: those who want to drive in front of you, slower than you.
I had one a few months back, on a relatively clear M6 (in so far as the M6 is ever clear, anyway). I had to cruise control set to (an actual) 70mph, a car overtakes me, then pulls in front of me and seemingly lifts off. I change lanes, overtake him and move back over. A minute later he overtakes me again, rinse and repeat. This went one for miles, not once did I touch either accelerator or brake. Very strange.
It's worse on A-roads. There are those who will fling their car into main road traffic from a side street forcing me to drop anchor, despite there being nothing behind me for miles, then proceed to dribble along at 15mph. Like, were you actually in a hurry or what?
Always overtake cyclists, horses and pedestrians if no pavements as I would want to be overtaken. I am however fed-up with those drivers behind who agressively close up to you and weave as if you need to see them more and perform a dangerous overtake so they can follow. Had it Saturday morning between Chatsworth and Bakewell, double solids, blind bends, cyclist doing around 20 mph, so not slow and I gave him distance and held back until it was safe and the double solids ended. The car behind 1m off me and weaving, where do they think you will/ can go. When I did overtake the one behind does so and then drops speed right off. Makes me anxious when you're trying to make sure the higher risk road user is safe and you need eyes in your arse so you're not rear-ended.