Narrow lanes - do not overtake cyclists

[glenn forger]

It was a pretend flounce and you fell for it. Like Hitler.

 

[Hip Priest]

I bet the driver felt suitably embarrassed. Looks like he was just trying to follow the silver car through. Nice of the cyclist to check on him.

 

[Dave the Smeghead]

Exactly my point, he overtook without a clear line of sight and he should have made sure there wasn't an obstruction before overtaking (like the guy in my video who nearly hit the bollard... the car in front obscured it). It's basic driving skills, it doesn't matter which position the cyclist was in, you don't blindly follow another car when overtaking.

I had to do a driving standards course due to driving too early in the morning and my anticipated annual mileage at a previous job, and the first question asked was "how far down the road do you have to look?" My answer was as far as you can possibly see, and scanning from close in to as far as you can see. The instructor said that was the best answer he had heard in many years of running the course. Most of the company drivers apparently answered "the car in front"!
He also said that my cycling experience showed massively when driving in the simulator, as I was trying to look down side roads to see what might be coming.

 

[Bazzer]

May be seen as a bit callous, but personally I wouldn't have checked on the driver. He ignored the unbroken white lines and hit some cones.
I'd have stopped if he had hit another road user or pedestrian, but only to act as a witness for the person the driver had hit.

 

[Drago]

It was a pretend flounce and you fell for it. Like Hitler.

You caught out Hitler too?

 

[buggi]

Why are you riding so far towards the edge of the road? Those double yellows aren't a cycle lane.

I did it on purpose. I wanted to use the footage as part of training, to show what happens if you don't ride assertively. Stuck the camera on the back of my bike and rode like a novice, taking extra care not to look back or give any clues to the drivers what was going on around me. In essence, leaving it totally up to them how they behaved around me. Got my footage at the first hazard I came upon and it wasn't the only time it happened on that road! The only reason I wasn't angry was coz I got what I wanted on film. There are bollards all the way down that road and I normally take the lane. When my bosses saw the footage, they made me call the police.

 

[buggi]

I had to do a driving standards course due to driving too early in the morning and my anticipated annual mileage at a previous job, and the first question asked was "how far down the road do you have to look?" My answer was as far as you can possibly see, and scanning from close in to as far as you can see. The instructor said that was the best answer he had heard in many years of running the course. Most of the company drivers apparently answered "the car in front"!
He also said that my cycling experience showed massively when driving in the simulator, as I was trying to look down side roads to see what might be coming.

When I took my driving lessons, after the first lesson my instructor asked me if I rode a bike. Said he could always tell because cyclists have better observation skills.

 

[gaz]

Exactly my point, he overtook without a clear line of sight and he should have made sure there wasn't an obstruction before overtaking (like the guy in my video who nearly hit the bollard... the car in front obscured it). It's basic driving skills, it doesn't matter which position the cyclist was in, you don't blindly follow another car when overtaking.

You see this a lot when a bus has stopped. The person behind the bus can see that the way is clear for them to pass, so they do so. Then everyone else behind follows, just presuming that the way is clear without checking them selves.

 

[_aD]

Parts of my commute look like a bomb's gone off in a cone factory

*steals for signature

 

[Dave the Smeghead]

When I took my driving lessons, after the first lesson my instructor asked me if I rode a bike. Said he could always tell because cyclists have better observation skills.

Sounds like a perfect reason why drivers should have to spend 6 - 12 months on a bicycle or motorcycle before being allowed behind the wheel of a car

 

[Milkfloat]

It's got nothing to do with how the cyclist is riding or his position and everything to do with the fact that both drivers ignored more than one clear sign and the second driver followed the first driver overtaking without checking he has a clear line of sight and the way is clear...

I disagree, yes the drivers are at fault, but the cyclist could have done better to protect themselves. The cyclist tempted the drivers onto overtaking by poor positioning. You may scream that this is victim blaming and you are probably right, but I would rather not see the cyclist squashed under a vehicle claiming in their dying breath that they are right, it would be better to force the vehicles to wait. This is the same way as not letting my daughter walk home alone at night though an unlit park, entirely legal and we would all love to live in a society where it could happen, but in reality crazy. A simple case of self preservation and risk reduction.

 

[buggi]

I disagree, yes the drivers are at fault, but the cyclist could have done better to protect themselves. The cyclist tempted the drivers onto overtaking by poor positioning. You may scream that this is victim blaming and you are probably right, but I would rather not see the cyclist squashed under a vehicle claiming in their dying breath that they are right, it would be better to force the vehicles to wait. This is the same way as not letting my daughter walk home alone at night though an unlit park, entirely legal and we would all love to live in a society where it could happen, but in reality crazy. A simple case of self preservation and risk reduction.

It is victim blaming. You're an experienced cyclist, some are not, that's why there are signs. It's the classic "she asked for it coz of what she was wearing" attitude when in fact this is entirely the driver's fault. Besides the fact there were plenty of signs on the run up... Cones or no cones, signs or no signs, the twat should have looked before he overtook.

 

[Arrowfoot]

It is victim blaming. You're an experienced cyclist, some are not, that's why there are signs. It's the classic "she asked for it coz of what she was wearing" attitude when in fact this is entirely the driver's fault. Besides the fact there were plenty of signs on the run up... Cones or no cones, signs or no signs, the twat should have looked before he overtook.

I think the point the Milkfloat was trying to make is that for one's own safety, one must be assertive to cover motorists that are incompetent. I no longer take the approach that I have right of way as it will not protect me. I now take the approach that I must show that I have right of way.

 

[Bazzer]

I disagree, yes the drivers are at fault, but the cyclist could have done better to protect themselves. The cyclist tempted the drivers onto overtaking by poor positioning. You may scream that this is victim blaming and you are probably right, but I would rather not see the cyclist squashed under a vehicle claiming in their dying breath that they are right, it would be better to force the vehicles to wait. This is the same way as not letting my daughter walk home alone at night though an unlit park, entirely legal and we would all love to live in a society where it could happen, but in reality crazy. A simple case of self preservation and risk reduction.

Whilst the cyclist's positioning could have been better, they didn't tempt anyone. Look at the width of the road. The driver should have been able to clearly see that his vehicle took up most of the allocated carriageway. Therefore whatever the cyclist's road positioning, the driver was going to have to cross the unbroken line on his side of the road.
Purely speculation of course, but even if the cyclist had taken the lane, based upon the driving skills and disregard of the HIghway Code demonstrated by the driver, my guess would be he would have overtaken anyway.

 

[Origamist]

I disagree, yes the drivers are at fault, but the cyclist could have done better to protect themselves. The cyclist tempted the drivers onto overtaking by poor positioning. You may scream that this is victim blaming and you are probably right, but I would rather not see the cyclist squashed under a vehicle claiming in their dying breath that they are right, it would be better to force the vehicles to wait. This is the same way as not letting my daughter walk home alone at night though an unlit park, entirely legal and we would all love to live in a society where it could happen, but in reality crazy. A simple case of self preservation and risk reduction.

It's not.

When cyclists take a central lane position I guess they are they still "tempting" drivers to overtake them; tailgate them; beep/swear/shout at them; punishment pass them; deliberately squeeze them to the kerb/try to run them off the road; and/or hit them?