... but there was a car coming the other way."
Me: "Sheesh...."
Just on my way home from my daily commute, less than 1/2 a mile to go when a Renault Espace driven by one "Old Duffer" passed within 6" of me. He stops on his drive and I asked, politely, if he would please give cyclists a bit more room.
He said: "I gave you plenty of room cocker..." well that was guarenteed to turn my key, so I held my hands 6" apart and said " You were that close, so don't tell me you gave me plenty of room." and then the classic...
"I normally give cyclists plenty of room, but there was a car coming the other way." <slap head emoticon>
Sheesh, time to go home and have a cuppa. On a side note, it was my first commute (14 miles each way) on a totally re-built Dawes Galaxy, what a change from my hybrid.
Score: Brooks B17 - 1, Daves @ss - 0
Mind you, with the M27 roadworks for the next year, I don't think I'll be driving much, and drivers are now using North Baddersley as a rat run (more so than usual). So it could get interesting
Just thought I'd share....
Driver: "I normally give cyclists room...
It must be idiot season. Yesterday a car passed me too fast without much space then pulled in. It looked like a domestic when his missus stormed out. 200 yds further on I was climbing a short 1 in 6 on a narrow lane before a T junction with a 1 year old in the kiddie seat and passing a parked car when he blasted through with inches to spare. My missus behind said she thought we were a gonner.
He got out the car at a shop looking very sheepish as though I might have a go but what can you do with a baby in the back? Fortunately its a very distinctive car and I know where he lives. And yes, it'll be best eaten cold.
He got out the car at a shop looking very sheepish as though I might have a go but what can you do with a baby in the back? Fortunately its a very distinctive car and I know where he lives. And yes, it'll be best eaten cold.
I love this type of comment
My response is to ask who had priority.
They might try and twist it to themselves. But you can usually draw out of them that when travelling the same lane, the person in front has priority.
Then you ask if they don't have the room to pass safely, what should they do?
And they will tell you they should wait.
And they've done it all themselves, you haven't had to tell them.
You might get a tit who will just give you abuse, but the point is made.
Gazza.
My response is to ask who had priority.
They might try and twist it to themselves. But you can usually draw out of them that when travelling the same lane, the person in front has priority.
Then you ask if they don't have the room to pass safely, what should they do?
And they will tell you they should wait.
And they've done it all themselves, you haven't had to tell them.
You might get a tit who will just give you abuse, but the point is made.
Gazza.
Why not Look at Sheila's Wheelers E2E Journal
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.
-
AlbionLass
drossall wrote:Clearance is designed as a safety margin (obviously).
When there is something coming the other way, there is more danger than when there is not (equally obviously).
When there is more danger, a bigger safety margin is needed.
So why do we think it remotely normal to squeeze through gaps?
Because that is how everyone is taught, cyclists included. Cyclists are taught to ride to one side of the road, motorists to pass cyclists without going over to the opposite lane. This three way split of the carriageway is seen as normal (God help us when there are two cyclists travelling in opposite directions). Until the Department of Transport changes it, all driving intructors will be taught this way, all new drivers will be taught this way and all cyclists will be taught this way as well. What cured me of this ridiculous habit is the carrying of panniers on narrow rural roads. These force you out into the road enough to make drivers overtake properly (i.e. wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic and overtake on the other side of the road). The worse thing about all this is that drivers perceive themselves as the wronged party when they are forced to slow down rather than seen as driving dangerously and against the rules when they try to squeeze through. Worse still is that drivers are mentally unprepared to slow down and then squeeze through as the only way of avoiding an accident. I do wonder if anyone knows the name of the person who came up with this suicidal rule and whether he/she knows what they have caused. The right place for a bike is in the middle of the lane, not to the left - don't encourage them to squeeze through.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Odd if they are, because the Highway Code has had clear pictures, showing that the opposite carriageway should typically be used to overtake cyclists, for several editions to my certain knowledge.
Cunobelin wrote:*****RUDE******
Think of it this way
The recommended clearance is 3' or 36"
The average "willy" is 6"
One assumes that therefore the "size of the driver" is 1/6 of the clearance they gave - that explains a lot.....
So the rule is that a driver must not come within 6 willies of a cyclist - what's so hard about that?! ............
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
A lot of drivers have no concept of a running lane (I think it's explained by Franklin.) The most obvious example of this is if there is an obstruction such as a parked car at the nearside. Many drivers believe that a cyclist has no right to pull out to pass the car if it will obstruct them. (The old road safety commercial did not help here) Of course, it can be foolhardy to try to make the point.
I'm not sure whether it's about the concept of a running lane, or about assuming that the running lane is defined by the (overtaking) motor vehicle stream, when actually of course it is defined by the the traffic that is being overtaken.
It's always seemed to me that the old Cycling Proficiency scheme was largely to blame here. It taught child cyclists to stop behind parked cars if there were overtaking vehicles behind. I'm not actually suggesting it should have done any differently - we can't ask children to make judgements in the same way as Franklin teaches adults to do - but child cyclists grow up to become adult motorists, some of whom may expect others to do the same for them.
For me, the children were being taught to deal with a situation in which motorists failed to give them priority as normal road law would expect. I'm not sure that Cycling Proficiency could or should have got this point across so maybe, having inculcated a wrong expectation of subservience in childhood, you need some kind of remedial instruction before the driving test.
That said, this doesn't cause me a big issue in the riding conditions I experience. Most drivers are very reasonable, and road positioning, clear signalling, moving out early, and occasionally being prepared to judge my speed so as not to arrive at the parked car at the same time as the overtaking vehicle (which of course is what the driver is also supposed to be doing) seem to avoid most conflict. I wouldn't want to over-emphasise overtaking when most of the cycle accidents that do happen actually occur at junctions.
Actually, there may be a bigger issue here. Someone once made the point that "normal road law" as I put it does not really ever say that I have right of way. It does say where I should give priority. If I've got it right, the focus is on the places where I should keep out of the way and let someone else through. That's not necessarily saying that, when the position is reversed, I may assume that I may sail through and rely on others to keep out of my way. Which is, I think, a useful reminder for all of us at overtaking maneouvres, junctions and everywhere!
It's always seemed to me that the old Cycling Proficiency scheme was largely to blame here. It taught child cyclists to stop behind parked cars if there were overtaking vehicles behind. I'm not actually suggesting it should have done any differently - we can't ask children to make judgements in the same way as Franklin teaches adults to do - but child cyclists grow up to become adult motorists, some of whom may expect others to do the same for them.
For me, the children were being taught to deal with a situation in which motorists failed to give them priority as normal road law would expect. I'm not sure that Cycling Proficiency could or should have got this point across so maybe, having inculcated a wrong expectation of subservience in childhood, you need some kind of remedial instruction before the driving test.
That said, this doesn't cause me a big issue in the riding conditions I experience. Most drivers are very reasonable, and road positioning, clear signalling, moving out early, and occasionally being prepared to judge my speed so as not to arrive at the parked car at the same time as the overtaking vehicle (which of course is what the driver is also supposed to be doing) seem to avoid most conflict. I wouldn't want to over-emphasise overtaking when most of the cycle accidents that do happen actually occur at junctions.
Actually, there may be a bigger issue here. Someone once made the point that "normal road law" as I put it does not really ever say that I have right of way. It does say where I should give priority. If I've got it right, the focus is on the places where I should keep out of the way and let someone else through. That's not necessarily saying that, when the position is reversed, I may assume that I may sail through and rely on others to keep out of my way. Which is, I think, a useful reminder for all of us at overtaking maneouvres, junctions and everywhere!
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm