Abused For Defending a Group of Cyclist's Whilst Driving

[Tonyf33]

IMHO that's clearly not what the picture shows though - and I don't think it was the intention of the author either

Seconded, the picture is very very clear... sadly the picture cannot be easily quoted.

WHY? The arguement I'm making is that cyclists in single file are far easier to traverse & IMO safer for the cyclist too.

Maybe if you are talking about 2 bikes, singled out maybe easier to overtake than 2 side by side (maybe!), but when you are talking about 30 cyclists in a row, that is a very long line you need to clear before pulling in and "completing" the overtake.

What you need to understand from what we are trying to say... is that a single cyclist sits out further than the left cyclist in a pair, thus the cyclist on the right is around about the secondary to primary position, where a single cyclist would probably be anyway... thus taking up almost no extra room than a single line.

Something like this...

Sorry but I do not agree with your diagram, a single rider on roads where it is possible to ride two abreast (ie not town roads) will not/should not take up more space than two riders abreast.
Think I'll stick to what I know to be the safest approach from first hand experience as a both a cyclist and a car driver.

As for 30 cyclists in one group, think we can safely say this is a rare occurance for a motorist to come upon.

[CREPELLO]

I too came across a group of about thirty people side by side today, all laughing and joking and going very slowly. I had to wait to overtake as it was impossible to pass at that point due to oncoming traffic. Fortunately however they all pulled over at a bus stop and I was able to cycle on my way unobstructed. Later on however I came across several couples side by side and had to go well onto the other side of the road to overtake. I think motorists have to realise that although they may want to chat etc, by driving two abreast they make life very difficult for cyclists trying to overtake.

[reohn2]

Unfortunately, I have always seen the highway code as meaning leave the same distance between you and the cyclist as you would between you and a car.
It is thoroughly ambiguous and gives people ample wiggle room for anything except actually hitting you.

Theres a diagram in my copy and it shows a lot of room ie the car straggling the white line with majority of the car in the other lane,and about the distance of a cars width between the cyclist and the nearside of the car,It is a 2004 copy so could haave been revised again since .

[thirdcrank]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314

Scroll down to rule 163

[reohn2]

What you need to understand from what we are trying to say... is that a single cyclist sits out further than the left cyclist in a pair, thus the cyclist on the right is around about the secondary to primary position, where a single cyclist would probably be anyway... thus taking up almost no extra room than a single line.

Something like this...

I don't agree with the diagram either,primary position is not used all the time but only for specific purposes,ie to stop a car overtaking when its obvious to the cyclist that if the motorvehicle could put the cyclist in danger,like a lefthand bend,I use primary pos mainly when I have bad road to my left.
Secondry IMHO in the diagram is shown slightly further out than needs be,I like to have 2ft to 2ft 6in(0.6m to 0.8m) to my left when in secondry pos.
IMO in a group of upto say six riders they should be prepared to single out to help passing cars with their overtaking manouvre ,when it is felt its safe for all concerned,if not use the outside rides as primary pos.
In big groups of say thirty rides IMO they should stay abreast and break into two groups of fifteen again to aid the overtaking manouvre of motorvehicles (these would be about tractor sized clumps).
IMO some car drivers don't understand cycling at all,they don't like a big presence of cyclists on the road as they, wrongly ,think cyclists hold up traffic,they're sort of right but its never more than a few seconds(I'm thinking of open road situations here).
Our problem with motorists is their self importance,everything smaller than them is insignificant and therefore either shouldn't be there or should move out of their way, this of course is an erronious,and selfish attitude that unfortunately prevails throughout our society and is therefore IMO a social problem.
As I've voiced before on hear what motors will do to save a few seconds is beyond belief,though cyclist aren't all crowned with a halo either,I watched one such rider tonight hop on the curb to pass a line of cars 500m long then skip through a red whilst I waited, three sets of lights later he had gained 50m on me,he was half my age slim with good bike handling skills I had 90miles in my legs at this point,if I'd had 30miles in I'd have passed him easily.

[reohn2]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

Scroll down to rule 163

And the cyclist is in what I'd call secondry pos.

[meic]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

Scroll down to rule 163

In the car in that photograph had been overtaking another car he would have been fully over the white lines.
I think the photograph shown could also support someone thinking it meant give as much space between you as you would when passing a car.
It is a pity they didnt see fit to draw a picture of a bad overtake with a cross through it.
However as they didnt the meaning is ambiguous and I can understand that in the rare cases where a driver has read the HC they could come to this opinion.
Also I am subject to overtakes by learners under instruction the majority of which which are much more fitting to the way I thought the HC was saying. You can be sure the instructor has read his HC.

[thirdcrank]

I can only say that I've always felt that the wording was ambiguous as you have suggested: if somebody normally gives a car a couple of inches clearance, that will do for a cyclist, rather than that an overtaker should imagine and observe a safety area around a cyclists of similar dimensions to a car.

My own feeling is that that pic is tending towards the latter interpretation. I'd certainly be happy to prosecute a close overtaker on that basis. FWIW, I think a higher court would take the same view - the recommendation would be redundant if it only meant get as close as you can without breaking a mirror.

Having said that, my prosecuting days are over and in terms of motoring matters at least, nobody else has taken up the baton. I don't suppose it makes much difference what the HC says.....

[reohn2]

.................I don't suppose it makes much difference what the HC says.....

I agree unless drivers either read the HC (and look at the diagram) and have desire to be a better driver in view of that, or if the law is changed to make it illegal to overtake too close to vulnerable road users(VRU),we are stuck with having drivers who have "issues" with cyclists actually being on the road at all, therebye seeing these intruders needing to be taught a lesson by frightening them off the road, or just being too thick to care or realise their effect on other people they share our roads with.

Either way a change in the law and a capability to enforce it is whats needed.
The wind is blowing and I'm whistling whilst facing it!

[drossall]

As I've voiced before on hear what motors will do to save a few seconds is beyond belief...

Some motorists will take considerable chances to squeeze past when both of us can see the queue up the road, and know that they are going to end up in the same place in it either way.

This is the primary proof that motorists love traffic jams, and cannot bear to be deprived of spending a few extra seconds in one.

[[XAP]Bob]

As I've voiced before on hear what motors will do to save a few seconds is beyond belief...

Some motorists will take considerable chances to squeeze past when both of us can see the queue up the road, and know that they are going to end up in the same place in it either way.

This is the primary proof that motorists love traffic jams, and cannot bear to be deprived of spending a few extra seconds in one.

Or primary proof that they can't see an inch beyond their own noses.

I've been "overtaken" by someone who ended up, stopped, facing oncoming traffic (which also stopped) because he hadn't even finished pulling alongside me before we both had to stop for the traffic jam - I would have simply carries on down the outside of the jam, but was wary of getting squished.

[konaboy2275]

I think there's a bit of common sense needed. I drove round Scotland and Wales in a VW camper that struggled to get over 50 on the flat and frequently pulled into laybys to let faster traffic past when it was obvious I was holding them up. I think there is a point in the highway code about slow moving vehicles allowing faster ones to pass and I pressume thins applies to bike regardless of the common courtesy aspect. On my bike if I know I holding someone up I'll try to pull over as I'd rather have a clear road behind me than an unknown quantity in the form of a frustrated driver behind me.

[Pete Owens]

When you say "frequently" do you mean:
A) "As soon as you see a faster moving vehicle in your wing mirror you immediately pull on to the verge" or
B) "After a mile or two if it looks like there is a queue building up you will look for a safe place to facilitate overtaking"

If it is (A) then I don't believe you - yet it is how some drivers expect cyclists to behave.
If (B) then that puts you in the most courteous 5% of drivers - but still causing far more delay than a group of cyclists or single cyclist in primary.

In over 30 years of driving I have frequently been held up by slower drivers driving for mile after mile with a queue in tow (how a truck driver can post complaining of cyclists being road hogs is beyond me). It is very rare for drivers to pull in at laybys to let other vehicles past (the exception being single lane roads in northern Scotland where there are big signs requesting use of passing places)

In all those years I cannot recall a single instance of being seriously delayed by cyclists - (and even when they are riding in the gutter or a narrow cycle lane I will give them the space as if they were taking primary). Overtaking cyclists is easy compared to any other vehicle due to the lower speed, shorter length and better visibility. Yes, I might have to follow round a couple of bends or where there double white lines or a bunch of oncoming traffic before there is an opportunity to overtake safely - but that is rarely for more than a minute or so.

ANY driver who claims to be frequently held up by cyclists is simply too impatient to share the road with other road users and should surrender their licence. I can see how it would be possible in theory for a pair of cyclists to deliberately ride in an obstructive way, though it is not something I have ever seen personally. I have seen plenty of aggressive drivers who are outraged at the thought that they should have to wait more than a millisecond for an opportunity to overtake.

[konaboy2275]

When you say "frequently" do you mean:
A) "As soon as you see a faster moving vehicle in your wing mirror you immediately pull on to the verge" or
B) "After a mile or two if it looks like there is a queue building up you will look for a safe place to facilitate overtaking"

If it is (A) then I don't believe you - yet it is how some drivers expect cyclists to behave.
If (B) then that puts you in the most courteous 5% of drivers - but still causing far more delay than a group of cyclists or single cyclist in primary.

In over 30 years of driving I have frequently been held up by slower drivers driving for mile after mile with a queue in tow (how a truck driver can post complaining of cyclists being road hogs is beyond me). It is very rare for drivers to pull in at laybys to let other vehicles past (the exception being single lane roads in northern Scotland where there are big signs requesting use of passing places)

In all those years I cannot recall a single instance of being seriously delayed by cyclists - (and even when they are riding in the gutter or a narrow cycle lane I will give them the space as if they were taking primary). Overtaking cyclists is easy compared to any other vehicle due to the lower speed, shorter length and better visibility. Yes, I might have to follow round a couple of bends or where there double white lines or a bunch of oncoming traffic before there is an opportunity to overtake safely - but that is rarely for more than a minute or so.

ANY driver who claims to be frequently held up by cyclists is simply too impatient to share the road with other road users and should surrender their licence. I can see how it would be possible in theory for a pair of cyclists to deliberately ride in an obstructive way, though it is not something I have ever seen personally. I have seen plenty of aggressive drivers who are outraged at the thought that they should have to wait more than a millisecond for an opportunity to overtake.

When I say frequently I mean when there was an obvious delay being caused by myself which in Scotland and Wales isn't too often as the roads are qieter and often other traffic is stuck further back behind a Shearings coach! I have been stuck behind cyclists in the Lakes for several miles in places where it is just too narrow to pass even a single cyclist and give adequate room. All I'm saying is a bit of courtesy never harmed anyone and as roads get busier and busier shouldn't we advocate cooperative rather than stubborn 'It's my piece of the road' mentalities?

Also as a LGV driver in a past life - they are limited by law to 40mph on single carriageways, 50 on dual and 60 on motorways so complaining about being held up by LGV driver (pressumably you were in a car) who is obeying the law and may struggle to find a safe place to allow traffic past seems a bit out of place with the rest of your comments.

[Phil_Lee]

When I say frequently I mean when there was an obvious delay being caused by myself which in Scotland and Wales isn't too often as the roads are qieter and often other traffic is stuck further back behind a Shearings coach! I have been stuck behind cyclists in the Lakes for several miles in places where it is just too narrow to pass even a single cyclist and give adequate room. All I'm saying is a bit of courtesy never harmed anyone and as roads get busier and busier shouldn't we advocate cooperative rather than stubborn 'It's my piece of the road' mentalities?

Also as a LGV driver in a past life - they are limited by law to 40mph on single carriageways, 50 on dual and 60 on motorways so complaining about being held up by LGV driver (pressumably you were in a car) who is obeying the law and may struggle to find a safe place to allow traffic past seems a bit out of place with the rest of your comments.

Everything you say about LGVs applies to cycles, except that the law governing their top speed is physics, and they are far more vulnerable.