Doubling Up On Road

[Red Light]

See the quotation in my signature bar.
______________________________
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument. (Julian Assange)

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

 

[Red Light]

Yes maybe.
I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.

You are only having trouble overtaking them because you selfishly insist on driving round two abreast, mostly with an empty seat next to you. Most of the time you don't even have the excuse of having a conversation to justify it. So who exactly is being selfish?

 

[dellzeqq]

Dan B,


You propose that the decision on when it is safe for a car to overtake a bicycle is better made by the cyclist.

I'm not sure quite what you're proposing, but it seems slightly improbable to me.

it's a decision that the cyclist must exercise control over. That's one of the reasons why we ride in the primary position, that's why those at the back of group rides need to be assertive.

 

[Dan B]

Well... I've never made that decision for a passing motorist when cycling and a cyclist has never made it for me when I'm driving. Never.

I'm sure that you have many times and you have had it made for you as well: it's a simple matter of road positioning. If you don't want people to pass you ride further out: if you do want them to pass, you move towards the kerb. Perhaps you do it unconsciously and aren't aware of it.


But for all the reasons you give that a motorist apparently should be better placed to judge a safe overtake, empirically we can observe that many don't - and if it's never happened to you personally that someone's misjudged your speed and cut you up before turning left or on the approach to a traffic island or pulling in at a bus stop, go and look at some Youtube videos. Whatever aspects of his vehicle the motorist may be more familiar with than the cyclist, fundamentally the decision to overtake is one in which he receives the benefits if he gets it right, and the cyclist receives the majority of the penalty if he gets it wrong. For that reason, it's somewhat foolhardy to leave it entirely to him

 

[PK99]

No, it doesn't. As already posted, it says "at least as much room as you would a car" and not "allow the same space between you as you would a car".
The snail has already posted the pretty picture if you have trouble comprehending the written word.

And the rest of it, here : http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_070314
Also

• Road users requiring extra care (204-225)

which includes
"213Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."

The logic of what you say the picture implies is that it is impossible to overtake a car.

3 feet is a reasonable space to leave and require

 

[Bicycle]

I'm sure that you have many times and you have had it made for you as well: it's a simple matter of road positioning. If you don't want people to pass you ride further out: if you do want them to pass, you move towards the kerb. Perhaps you do it unconsciously and aren't aware of it.

But for all the reasons you give that a motorist apparently should be better placed to judge a safe overtake, empirically we can observe that many don't - and if it's never happened to you personally that someone's misjudged your speed and cut you up before turning left or on the approach to a traffic island or pulling in at a bus stop, go and look at some Youtube videos. Whatever aspects of his vehicle the motorist may be more familiar with than the cyclist, fundamentally the decision to overtake is one in which he receives the benefits if he gets it right, and the cyclist receives the majority of the penalty if he gets it wrong. For that reason, it's somewhat foolhardy to leave it entirely to him

No. The decision has never been made for me and I've never made the decision for another road user.

If a cyclist is riding in primary, he or she may be doing so to discourage me from passing, but the decision is not being made for me. This is not a matter of semantics or syntax. The person in control of the overtaking vehicle makes the decision, whether that is me in my car or another driver when I'm on my bicycle.

The decision whether to pass or attempt a pass or not lies with the driver behind. It cannot be otherwise.

Your second point: Of course these things have happened to me. They do not happen because I am better placed than the motorist to decide when the overtake should be made.

Nor do they happen because (as you suggest in an earlier post) I have had a better view of the road ahead or a better awareness of my own speed.

They happen because the motorist is either a poor driver or exhibits a momentary lapse in concentration or judgement.

There are many poor drivers and many poor cyclists. Similarly, many of both suffer occasional lapses in judgement.

This does not mean that a cyclist is better placed than the passing motorist to judge (or decide) when the pass should be made.

Nor does it imply that the road user to the front makes that decision. Occasionally they will behave in a way that might affect the decision made by the passing vehicle, but that is not the same thing,

I have never had a bicycle decide when I overtake it in my car. I have never decided (as a cyclist) when a car can pass me.

I am fortunate (in comparison with many users of this forum) in having had no harsh words with cyclists when driving and none with drivers when cycling. I ride frequently in London and the sticks.

It's a matter of courtesy, awareness and (up to a point) skill and experience - not that I have much of the former... I have been very lucky. For over forty years.

 

[Hip Priest]

Occasionally, I'll find myself in a situation where a pass would be dangerous, but the driver behind is in two minds whether to 'go for it'. I like to think that by riding assertively, I can help him make the right decision.

 

[freecyclist]

Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.

I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.

But the point is one of perception - the tractor is regarded as an unavoidably irritating tractor whereas the cyclists are liable to be regarded as a a group of cyclists choosing to be an obstacle rather than being considerate and riding single file. Right or wrong thats liable to be how it is perceived. Again the cycling hardliners will say who cares how were perceived .
I think cyclists attitudes will have to alter as well as society generally before we reach a continental style cycling eutopia.
Unfortunately as soon as the oil dries up electric vehicles will fill the void and everyone will be working like trojans to pay for the nuclear powered electricity and everyone will be in even more of a hurry.

 

[freecyclist]

it's a decision that the cyclist must exercise control over. That's one of the reasons why we ride in the primary position, that's why those at the back of group rides need to be assertive.

Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.

 

[Red Light]

Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.

Says the man driving round two abreast with the empty seat in his car. Pots, kettles etc.

 

[400bhp]

[attachment=5819:dg_070531a.jpg]

1. Yes, it is a bit close,

On the other hand, if the driver passed a car with the same amount of clearance as the one in the picture is giving the cyclist, they would be at least half on the grass verge and may well have collided with the lamp post. Now that is patently absurd.

1. Well, you've photochopped one car in the gutter. Position the overtaken car correctly then it's obvious the original picture shows that the idea is that a gap between cyclists and overtaking car is about 3ft. Not what you thought.
h
2. Unlikely. And, on the road in question you would overtake in the same space as a passing car would have been in if coming the other direction.

This is a bloody stupid discussion.

 

[Andy84]

<br />Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.<br />So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?

Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?

 

[Bicycle]

Says the man driving round two abreast with the empty seat in his car. Pots, kettles etc.

This isn't really a 'pot & kettle' situation.

That is just the way cars are.

I rarely hold up cyclists when in my car and am rarely held up by cars when on my bicycle.

From Paddington to Whitehall at 08.40 on a Monday, nothing can touch my bicycle and I whizz past cars.

From my home to a nearby Cotswold town at 0840 on a Monday, little can touch my car and I whizz past bicycles.

In the (rare) event that two-abreast bicycles hold me up when I'm driving, I tend to think they are slightly thoughtless.

When a car with seating for two across the vehicle (but only one occupant) holds me up as I cycle, I find myself unable to get in a huff about it.

Most cyclists are not upset by cars having two seats across their width. Many drivers and many cyclists find some

instances of two-abreast cycling perverse, selfish, discourteous or thoughtless.

 

[Dan B]

If a cyclist is riding in primary, he or she may be doing so to discourage me from passing, but the decision is not being made for me. This is not a matter of semantics or syntax.

If your decision is to stay behind them or to run them off the road in the process of passing because there is not space to go round them, it is not much of a decision. Sounds entirely like a semantic argument to me, and as such I shall bow out

 

[dellzeqq]

Single cyclist assume primary where safety demands it however you have stated that you generally ride 2 abreast , big difference.
So long as there are cyclists with such a brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude then dont be surprised if cyclists have a bad reputation.

do not ever, ever assume any responsibility for any other cyclist on an organised ride. You're not up to the job