7 cyclist....3 wide no wonder we are hated.

[Pale Rider]

Neither of your matters of fact are matters of fact. Next!

OK, so by extension, a wound up, impatient driver is a safe driver?

Not so, in my view, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Dayvo]

And from you I would learn exactly what?.....what the law is ? or how to consider other people before yourself?

I doubt you would learn anything from me.

I doubt you've learned anything from 52 years of driving.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Better make that 5...

Are you going to engage with any of the counter arguments put to you by people who rides bikes... a lot?

 

[growingvegetables]

.... There are times to stand your ground and make your point, but that situation is not one of them.

To be fair, we don't know that. We only have one side of the story expressed as, shall we say, an unsympathetic rant?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

OK, so by extension, a wound up, impatient driver is a safe driver?

Take a false premise and extend it? Keep digging!

Many drivers encounter the behaviours described, understand them and don't get annoyed.
Many drivers have better ways of managing their annoyances than via driving dangerously.

 

[Dave7]

I doubt you would learn anything from me.

I doubt you've learned anything from 52 years of driving.

Do you always think you will prove your point by being nasty.
My point was (as stated) to think of other people. Your point seems to be .....be nasty and not consider other people.
Fine......enjoy your life.

 

[Cuchilo]

[QUOTE 4243692, member: 9609"]if they are 3 abreast and the out most one is just inside the white line, how do you give him 3 foot of space with the pass ?[/QUOTE]
Drive in the cycle lane .

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Im a driver a motorcyclist..a pilot and a cyclist....not bad at decorating either

I'm also a driver, motorcyclist, pilot, and a cyclist. And I still disagree with you.

Are you able to say what issue was being caused by the riding of 3 abreast?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4243692, member: 9609"]if they are 3 abreast and the out most one is just inside the white line, how do you give him 3 foot of space with the pass ?[/QUOTE]

This may be semantics, but something always rolled around in my mind. I was nervous of asking the question on here as I may get ganged up on. But this thread seems appropriate, and the hate of @coco69 may deflect from me a little.

BUT, cyclists say "Give as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car, use the next lane'. But with a car you're actually only giving it maybe 3 or 4ft of space in the next lane due to it's width.

For secondary position, this is half in the lane half out, and is the same space as has been given to the car?

 

[Dayvo]

And from you I would learn exactly what?

Do you always think you will prove your point by being nasty.
My point was (as stated) to think of other people. Your point seems to be .....be nasty and not consider other people.
Fine......enjoy your life.

I wasn't trying/intending to be nasty. I was replying in kind to your comment.

The number one most important factor in driving is, IMO, to avoid hitting/damaging/injuring other road users (in whatever form of transport they may be using).

There have been a spate of serious/fatal collisions recently in professional cycling where motorbikes and cars have not given any/enough regard to the safety of the cyclists. Everyday on British roads (and all around the world) the same applies: drivers (mostly) and motorbikers giving too little room or thought for the safety for the most vulnerable of road users.

My comment (tongue in cheek, hence the 'winking' smiley) was poking fun at you for not giving enough clearance to cyclists in your 52 years of driving. No malice was intended, and apologies if you felt slighted, but surely, as a cyclist and a motorist, I'd have thought this was glaringly obvious.

 

[lutonloony]

How many of the riders had 3 breasts? I've lost the plot here

 

[Sea of vapours]

BUT, cyclists say "Give as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car, use the next lane'. But with a car you're actually only giving it maybe 3 or 4ft of space in the next lane due to it's width.

For secondary position, this is half in the lane half out, and is the same space as has been given to the car?

I've always interpreted that (i.e. especially when driving) as 'the same total space that a car would take up, including the gap to it'. That's as distinct from 'pass at the same distance as you would from a car'. In other words: act as if the cyclist takes up as much space as a car. In practice, there is no reason not to overtake as far across the road, thus as far from the cyclist, as possible - you, as the driver, lose nothing by doing this. And if you can't do that due to oncoming traffic or visibility then it's not a safe overtake anyway.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

And if you can't do that due to oncoming traffic or visibility then it's not a safe overtake anyway.

What if I have electrically folding mirrors so I could squeeze past

 

[KneesUp]

But both require overtaking by moving into the next lane right (do the maths with the figures I mentioned above if you'd like to check), so there's no practical difference to motorists in giving three cyclists as much room as they should give a car, so what's your point?

My point is that whatever 'gap' is left should be between the outermost cyclist and the car, so a car overtaking three cyclists needs to be further over. Here is some crude clip art. In one image there is room to get past. In the other there is not. The gap between the car and the outer rider is the same in both.

 

[mjr]

Here is some crude clip art. In one image there is room to get past. In the other there is not. The gap between the car and the outer rider is the same in both.

That car is disproportionately wide so that misleads. Standard lane width is 3.65m and typical car width is about 2m, or about 1.5 cyclists abreast. If the lanes are wide enough for 3 cyclists abreast, the other lane is wide enough to overtake with plenty of room unless one drives like a dick.