In defence of motorists

[Mad at urage]

Hmmm, some of the slap downs are a bit harsh/pompous

I agree with most of your post, but not (unsurprisingly perhaps) this bit. I don't think it is harsh or pompous to expect someone trained in driving a couple of tons of metal on the road to (a) know and (b) comply with the rules of the road. To post a mistaken overtake is one thing, to try to justify it with some "entitled to overtake" was another.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

The road is wide enough for two cars to be parked opposite and for two cars to safely pass each other.

On my overtake I had given the cyclist at least 6 feet of room much more than the other 2 cars I had just watched overtake.

I don't understand some of the points some people are making. When I started my overtake it was safe to do so, i.e. no oncoming traffic, I was giving plenty of room to the cyclist, had checked the road ahead for pedestrians and any cars wanting to move into my space, ie.e parked cars and side roads. I felt that my manoeuvre was not dangeous in any way.

What changed was a car pulling out further down the road as I was overtaking. I then felt I needed to speed up (to the speed limit because I had slowed down whilst preparing my overtake) to ensure that I did not cut into the cyclists space. If the car had not pulled out down the road I would have just pootled past the cyclist having made what I would have felt was a safe and justified overtake.

That's the clincher. As a driver, you should reaally be well aware of the presence of any junctions ahead of your vehicle, and you should be prepared for something to come out of one. It's not in the highway code that you shouldn't overtake near a junction for nothing, you know ...
The only person doing anything wrong here is you, I'm afraid. I'd have hung back and waited for a stretch of road with no junctions, especially at 25mph.

 

[Philk]

This is just the case where you should have applied risk management
1) Identify
2) Assess
3) Plan
4) Implement

as part of this necessary activity, you should have pulled over, created a risk management policy, created a process guide and management strategies. then embed them into your culture, by this time you will have mitigated the risk and ensured that if the same scenario event is identified in the future it will be managed......

OK ill get my coat

 

[asterix]

He shouldn't have been so close, then. And so what if he wasn't impressed? I don't think you should value another driver's opinion over safety.

I think the lesson to take away from this is that you should probably not post "n defence of motorists" on a cycling forum unless the cyclist involved in the incident was doing something bloomin' daft.

Sam

Although it is an interesting revelation of how some drivers regard the situation when they encounter a cyclist.

Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre and does not save a great deal of time in most situations and yet drivers still think they have to do it! Why?

RT's explanation as to the OP's error is a good one and I do hope the OP takes it on board.

Lee101:

FFS the amount of crap that people have posted in response to what is imo a relatively safe overtake. Because as you said you can't tell the future.

If the overtake is only 'relatively' safe then don't do it! Otherwise the only relative's involved may be those of the deceased.

 

[davefb]

I'm assuming the cyclist slowed down, assuming the saw the problem as well? After all , if this was a car you overtook, then they should slow down to help the car overtaking out.

Thats why it can be dangerous to slow down ( as some people have said), the person being overtook is already slowing down and you do and they do.. You end up stuck next to them...


Rule 168.
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.


This isn't a cycling thing , this is a driving thing and drivers being overtaken often keep accelerating to try to make it difficult for those overtaking.

 

[2Loose]

[QUOTE 1340247"]
...
Posting the event from a motorists point of view deserves respect imo. After cd did not have to. People say I have hindsight but f*** me this is nothing compared to what some people have posted on this thread. Suggesting that the OP does some advanced driving? What ****ing planet are some people on and how dare people judge the OP based on one overtake which they have been perfectly open about.

I suggest seriously people put themselves at the wheel and ask could they have done better before cut n pasting hugh swaffs of the HC and suggesting they take some sort of advanced training. What a bunch of condescending *****.
[/quote]



I'd suggest everyone who rides\drives and cares takes advanced training. I thought I was a perfect driver before I did it and I have no doubt it makes a big difference. I still make mistakes, but get myself in far less 'clenched' situations.

Kudos for cd365 for posting this, however I am firmly in the 'there are no mistakes, only lessons' camp as opposed to it was outside my control (and I have made more than my fair share).

Next time a similiar situation arises I have no doubt he\she will attempt to properly assess the speed of the other road user before committing.

 

[Rollon]

I'm assuming the cyclist slowed down, assuming the saw the problem as well? After all , if this was a car you overtook, then they should slow down to help the car overtaking out.

Thats why it can be dangerous to slow down ( as some people have said), the person being overtook is already slowing down and you do and they do.. You end up stuck next to them...


Rule 168.
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass.


This isn't a cycling thing , this is a driving thing and drivers being overtaken often keep accelerating to try to make it difficult for those overtaking.

Exactly.
I was driving last week in my van and being tailgated by a young female driver in a little car. Another car was a couple of hundred yards ahead but traveling towards us. Checking my door mirror I saw that the car behind had swung out into the other side of the road to overtake me. The little car didn't have the acceleration to safely make the move and I expected it to tuck back in behind me to save ahead on collision with the fast approaching car. But no she kept on coming and clearly was not going to give way. Not wanting to witness carnage I braked hard and allowed her to, just in time to nip in, in front of me. I doubt she realised the favour I had just given her, and probably thought she had managed the manovre without any help. That's inexperience for you.
However my point is that every road user has a duty to be aware of what is going on around them. In the case in question the cyclist should have realised the danger and slowed down to allow the overtaking car to complete its manovre. Cyclists being the more vulnerable must be prepared to give way if neccesary even when its other who should be doing so. Its better to survive to argue because you can't argue if you dont.
Dave.

 

[2Loose]

Exactly.
I was driving last week in my van and being tailgated by a young female driver in a little car. Another car was a couple of hundred yards ahead but traveling towards us. Checking my door mirror I saw that the car behind had swung out into the other side of the road to overtake me. The little car didn't have the acceleration to safely make the move and I expected it to tuck back in behind me to save ahead on collision with the fast approaching car. But no she kept on coming and clearly was not going to give way. Not wanting to witness carnage I braked hard and allowed her to, just in time to nip in, in front of me. I doubt she realised the favour I had just given her, and probably thought she had managed the manovre without any help. That's inexperience for you.
However my point is that every road user has a duty to be aware of what is going on around them. In the case in question the cyclist should have realised the danger and slowed down to allow the overtaking car to complete its manovre. Cyclists being the more vulnerable must be prepared to give way if neccesary even when its other who should be doing so. Its better to survive to argue because you can't argue if you dont.
Dave.

Although I agree (mostly) with the point, it really does sound like a licence for every driver to forcibly push cyclists off the road. You can't expect everyone to see the same things as a van\car driver while the cyclist is generally in the left hand half of the road, therefore people shouldn't assume that the person they are overtaking will compensate for their mistakes. Fair enough if they do, but it shouldn't be expected.

Saying that the cyclist must 'make allowances for every cretin who tries a dodgy overtake' is victim blaming without doubt.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

I don't buy the "because they are more vulnerable they should give way" line

Yes, in some situations, "right of way" should go out of the window when a situation develops whereby someone may be involved in a collision, but I get sick and tired of people trotting out (not on here btw) the line that "it's common sense" that cars are always going to win so you should just keep out of their way

"Common Sense" is generally the biggest load of twaddle going and is little more than a euphemism for "populist, ill-informed assumption"

Presumably every child should volunteer their dinner money to the school bully on the same grounds of the bully being bigger and them being more likely to come off badly.

 

[deggers]

a

 

[JonnyBlade]

What I can not fathom is in a 30 zone why 25 mph is not enough for some? More often than not it's a prestige thing, that and the fact that motorists hate to wait behind bikes no matter what the speed. After all we might slow them down! I'm a regular car driver and most of us are sadly lacking where cyclists are concerned. IMO of course

 

[subaqua]

What I can not fathom is in a 30 zone why 25 mph is not enough for some? More often than not it's a prestige thing, that and the fact that motorists hate to wait behind bikes no matter what the speed. After all we might slow them down! I'm a regular car driver and most of us are sadly lacking where cyclists are concerned. IMO of course

its the must get past attitude prevalent in a large percentage - not ALL drivers. perception of speed is the issue , most car drivers expect cyclists to be pootling along at 15mph tops , the nodders speed , when in reality we can be tanking along quite merrily at 22 plus . thats what causes problems , slipping into closed mind syndrome rather than observing the road ahead correctly.

roadcraft is a great book , not got round to cyclecraft yet


i have always waited patiently behind cyclists when driving until its safe to pass with as much room as possible. it delays me ooh 10 20 seconds in general.

the horns and abuse you get from divers behind is unbeleivable sometimes ( actually its not) .

 

[JonnyBlade]

its the must get past attitude prevalent in a large percentage - not ALL drivers. perception of speed is the issue , most car drivers expect cyclists to be pootling along at 15mph tops , the nodders speed , when in reality we can be tanking along quite merrily at 22 plus . thats what causes problems , slipping into closed mind syndrome rather than observing the road ahead correctly.

roadcraft is a great book , not got round to cyclecraft yet


i have always waited patiently behind cyclists when driving until its safe to pass with as much room as possible. it delays me ooh 10 20 seconds in general.

the horns and abuse you get from divers behind is unbeleivable sometimes ( actually its not) .

It can actually sometimes be frustrating when they don't pass!!!! There's always someone further down the queue willing to blame the cyclist. Especially the builders lorry on Privett Road in Gosport

 

[cd365]

I have found this thread fascinating. Some of the comments have been highly amusing.
Reading the Highway Code for what some people seem to assume is for the first time, the only error I made was "move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake". Seeing a car appear 200 yards down the road made me follow that instruction.

The rest of that instruction reads "Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in". This I did.

At what distance does the advice "approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road" come into play? At 200 yards away with NO traffic in front of me I judged this to be perfectly safe. The same as I judged that pulling in behind the cyclist was not the safer option for the cyclist.

I pulled in well in front of the cyclist and well before the car got near. The cyclist was not in any danger and did not slow down. If I had put the cyclist in any danger I'm sure he would have taken action like slowing down, but he did not.

Some of the reactions on here would give the "they're only a cyclist" brigade all the justification they need for the "it doesn't matter how I overtake they wouldn't be happy, they just expect them to sit behind the even though that would hold up traffic" comments.

All motorists need to share the road, peds, cyclists, motorbikes, cars, lorries, buses etc. and every road user should try and see the road how another user would see it. This is my point, this is my reason for this thread. I had tried to do the safest overtake I could do, all of the road conditions made it acceptable for a safe overtake, and it was safe, at no point was anyone in danger. The only thing I did wrong was misjudge the speed of the cyclist which did surprise me being a cyclist myself hence me realising that non-cycling motorists will find it a lot harder to judge a cyclists speed. As a cyclist that is something I know I will have to come to terms with. Matbe others should to!

 

[rich p]

So let me get this straight. You went out in your car, overtook someone, no-one was inconvenienced or put in danger.

Great story, thanks for posting