In defence of motorists

[HLaB]

A non event has certainly done well to get to 8 pages

Will this make it 9 ?








Nope, I'll have toadd some more

 

[som3blok3]

A non event has certainly done well to get to 8 pages

Fair play, lets aim for double figures.

 

[cd365]

It's the most popular thread I have created and I've thoroughly enjoyed it, helped my work day go quicker lol

 

[4F]

Fair play, lets aim for double figures.

OK, cd365 was the cyclist you overtook wearing a helmet and earphones ?

 

[HLaB]

OK, cd365 was the cyclist you overtook wearing a helmet and earphones ?

You forgot Hi Viz/ did they have lights ?

 

[Mad at urage]

starts off as utter rubbish and ends in nastiness, I think this post puts me 100% on the side of CD365

It's certainly not rubbish to say that there is no entitlement to overtake. It is not nastiness to say someone would benefit from advanced training: I believe most drivers would and such training would allow cd365 and yourself to understand why this was a poorly executed manoevre. Or do you believe advanced driver training is some sort of remedial training?


Since it seems to be considered that the pitch-forks are coming out on behalf of aggrieved cyclists, I put cd365's description, as far as I can translate it and using his words (such as "entitled to overtake") into an Advanced Driving forum. I deliberately avoiding naming anyone and also avoided IAM as it seems to annoy some here...

Here are the responses, from advanced drivers of various kinds:
http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3332

Note that the immediate response is "call it off" - then some discussion about assumptions....

 

[cd365]

You forgot Hi Viz/ did they have lights ?

No Hi Viz, no lights and dark clothing

 

[cd365]

So you are on a city street and there is a cyclist ahead. Obviously you are going to overtake as he is slower than you.

The road has parked cars either side, but there is a gap where you believe you can get past, so you are entitled to overtake. You have prepared to overtake when a car pulls out of a side road about 200metres ahead (approaching). You realise at this point that you had underestimated the cyclist's speed and he is doing 22 to 25 mph (limit is 30mph).

This was your post.

I was already overtaking when the car pulled out of the side road, I was alongside the cyclist, I was not in preparation mode

 

[HLaB]

No Hi Viz, no lights and dark clothing

And he didn't pay road tax either

 

[cd365]

And he didn't pay road tax either

Maybe I should have asked him?

 

[Mad at urage]

This was your post.

I was already overtaking when the car pulled out of the side road, I was alongside the cyclist, I was not in preparation mode

Whilst driving last night, I was coming down a road cars parked on both sides, a couple of cars ahead of me and some cars coming towards me, hence a bit of squeezing through. I then noticed the cars ahead of me (about 50m) overtake a cyclist.

The road in front of me was now clear, i.e. no oncoming traffic, so coming up to the cyclist I gave him plenty of room as I prepared to overtake, about 200m down the road a car turns into the road and starts to head towards me.

I then realised the cyclist was going a lot faster than I had anticipated; the road was a slight downhill gradient so he was probably doing 22-25mph. I was probably only going 5mph faster than him. Hence me putting a bit of a squirt on to make sure I can pull in in-front of him at a safe distance.

Did think if I was the cyclist I wouldn't have been too happy but in my defence when I started the overtake the road ahead was clear!

Spot the contradiction?

 

[cd365]

A bad description there from me, I was alongside cause I remember looking over at the cyclist as the car pulled out and shone his lights towards us. My bad!

Maybe I should have paid more attention to my original post when my driving started to be slaughtered!!

 

[Mad at urage]

Maybe. All we had to go on was your description and that's why 'pull back in' was advised. I'd still hope to avoid getting into the alongside position by better forward planning though. It will be educational (to me at least) to see how those drivers continue to respond.

Edit: And really, please do consider advanced training: In the same way that reviewing your own cycling can improve your decisions on the road, advanced training gives you an outside perspective on how well you're judging situations as they develop and gives tools for deciding "How could I have done that better", which (IMO) is how everyone should be approach any potentially hazardous incident on the road.

 

[cd365]

I have recently taken the hazard perception course on the theory test learning DVD and passed all first time? Does that count?

 

[Mad at urage]

Hazard perception and forward planning are not the same thing I'm afraid.

Ever tried to do a commentary of what you see as you drive, what might happen and how you plan to cope with the different possibilities? It's called commentary driving and -unfortunately - is no longer "required" on IAM tests at least, although many observers use it to ecourage the sort of attention to detail that is needed.

I'm an IAM associate member (means I've passed the test) and I've been assessed by a different firm who my employers use (voluntarily, i.e. I decided it was time for another independent assessment of my driving) two years ago (when I was told that there was no point critiquing me as he normally would, he'd give criticism as if I were trying for advanced instructor level). Soon I'll be looking into ROSPA advanced training (too busy right now). All this because I believe that anyone in charge of potentially lethal machinery has an obligation to be as well qualified as they are capable of being.