Was this bus driver bad?

[Cab]

but what is your definition of a safe distance for vehicles passing you?

If, at even slow speed, I could reach out and touch the vehicle, it has passed too close. In an ordinary lane the car overtaking should be comforably over on the other side of the road. If not, the driver overtaking has given less room than he would a car he's overtaking and has passed too closely. Practically, whether I'm in primary or secondary position, anything less than 1m from my outside elbow is murderously close, preferable would be 2m.

 

[BentMikey]

I think I have an issue here, surely a good driver/road user could be described as one who looks far up the road, building a picture and anticipating any hazards along the way. Your logic suggests that it is okay to only look a very short distance up the road.

That would depend on how big you personally would define "interaction zone". For me, I don't need a cyclist to be wearing hiviz to spot him/her as far ahead as you need to be planning, and I don't believe any other driver needs that either.

 

[col]

If, at even slow speed, I could reach out and touch the vehicle, it has passed too close. In an ordinary lane the car overtaking should be comforably over on the other side of the road. If not, the driver overtaking has given less room than he would a car he's overtaking and has passed too closely. Practically, whether I'm in primary or secondary position, anything less than 1m from my outside elbow is murderously close, preferable would be 2m.

About three and a half feet is a decent gap,im in agreement with you.I think anything near seven feet is not practical,in most situations,due to raod widths and other things.

 

[BentMikey]

On this issue, Cab's right I'm afraid. Col, you're adopting the less than ideal approach. Just because your experience lets you get away with it, doesn't make your approach as good as it could be.

 

[domtyler]

Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.

 

[col]

Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.

Im not saying my feelings dictate my riding,im saying i have not been made to feel in danger by cars being too close to me as they pass.Im sure it will happen at some point,but up until now,i havnt.

 

[Cab]

Im not saying my feelings dictate my riding,im saying i have not been made to feel in danger by cars being too close to me as they pass.Im sure it will happen at some point,but up until now,i havnt.

Yet demonstrably you feel safe with cars passing closer than is safe; three and a half feet is, at any decent pace at all, too close. Your definition of safe overtaking distance is poor.

 

[BentMikey]

Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.

Exactly! Like the ferociously powerful brakes on my recumbent - all I end up doing is going faster and braking later.

 

[col]

Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.

 

[Cab]

Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.

When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?

 

[domtyler]

Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.

Anecdotal, irrelevant. Collisions are still mercifully rare events, you may be able to go for a hundred years and never have one, even cycling in the gutter. It is the statistics that show that you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured cycling like that.

As long as you accept that and admit that you are prepared to sacrifice a little of your safety in order to avoid any kind of confrontation with impatient car drivers then all is well. You are putting the convenience of strangers driving cars above your own life.

 

[domtyler]

When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?

No, he feels that it is safe to only leave one foot at anything less than seventy.

 

[nethalus]

My point is that it's a bit like noticing the moon - it might be very visible, but it's so far away it's not necessary. You only need to notice traffic and other items once they get into your interaction zone.

Don't know if you drive BentMikey, but when driving, particularily if you are in charge of a large vehicle we're always told to look as far ahead on the road as you can see. That way you are prepared for approaching hazards.
When driving you have to have eyes everwhere and are constantly asking yourself things, like is the woman with the pushchair 300 yards ahead about to try cross the road? Is that cyclist a few hundred yards ahead who keeps looking round preparing to make a turn? Are them parked cars far up ahead going to cause me any problems when I reach them? Is there anyone approaching that zebra crossing up ahead?
This is one reason why driving is mentally knackering. Just because something is far up the road does not mean it should be ignored. Traveling at 30,40 or 50 mph it's not going to be long before you reach the potential hazard, and if you haven't spotted it already and prepared you could end up in a pickle!

 

[col]

When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?

If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not,but if i cant pass safely,i wont pass.Thats in my car too.
Do you ever have a debate,where you dont introduce other things,or dissect everything?

 

[Cab]

If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not,but if i cant pass safely,i wont pass.Thats in my car too.

Now that you've found out that your definition of a safe distance to overtake isn't really as far as it should be, will you be passing further away?

Oh, and except for really wide roads (where theres room for two lanes) you really must cross on to the other side to overtake a cyclist.