Passing Cyclists in UK with a car Genuine help question

[Jacob]

I wish you actually did read my posts. At no stage did I make any comment about how they were cycling, I was simply highlighting you cannot pass and leave the request safe distance between the car (or van in this case) and the cyclists, whilst in coming traffic pass them equally not giving them room.

It's simple. If you can't pass safely you should wait until you can. Even if it's a team of clowns on unicycles, juggling as they go. What the incoming traffic does is not your concern, other than not to collide with them head on by overtaking too soon.

 

[Jacob]

Possibly a map will help, these show bridal-ways which cycles are allowed to be ridden and footpaths which they aren’t.

Do you have a problem telling one from the other?
You can tell bridal-ways from the confetti. Hope that helps.

 

[TRITON]

I wish you actually did read my posts. At no stage did I make any comment about how they were cycling, I was simply highlighting you cannot pass and leave the request safe distance between the car (or van in this case) and the cyclists, whilst on coming traffic pass them equally not giving them room.

I didnt real all your posts I agree, as its a long thread and i didnt see the point of going over the full thing.

But whilst you say you weren't comment about how they were cycling, you did in fact do that with the critical tone, and the point that you couldn't pass,
The 1.5m isnt a maximum, and in passing anyway you would normally be on the other side of the road, so if it were safe with a straight and no oncoming traffic, you had that entire lane to do it with.

If you felt at the time you came upon them and wished to pass, that means you wait til it is safe to do so. By commenting, you not only wished to pass but wanted to do it as soon as possible, which is showing impatience.

I think you need to buy a bike, join a road club and get out to see it from the other point of view. You will feel vulnerable and impatient drivers will make themselves known to you quite quickly.

 

[deema]

@TRITON this is what I said

The issue is the interpretation of the law, I personally have no issue sitting for 30 minutes behind cyclists, I don’t care if we generate 50 miles of tailback, what I want to ensure is that we are compliant with the rules of the road. I leave it for others to judge how safe and appropriate cycling as a pod of sixteen is, or indeed how cycling up to four abreast is appropriate.

I have not said anything that might imply impatience

 

[Scruples]

each one having a different tone., could alternatively press them

Somethings you just can't win with, I have a little bell on my bike for when on cycle paths, folk get angry if you ding it and others get angry if you don't. I think some people just want to get angry at cyclists......

My personal rule, on shared routes, is to walk in the middle of the path with my wife, and or grandchidren, on my left. That way half of the path is mine and half is the cyclists'. I don't get angry at cyclists who use their bell because I don't hear the bell, too high for my hearing.

I don't go for walks anticpating cyclists so my method is a good compromise.
If I'm walking in a shared route that narrows then I take the whole width and ignore the cyclist. Patience is reguired for cyclists as it is expected for drivers.

What people must remember is that cyclists and drivers and walkers are all the same breed, with the same attitudes. A driver is frustrated at cyclists in the way, cyclists are frustrated at walkers in the way and pedestrians are frustrated with both. Although I gave up riding a bike when I matured, I still think there's room for all but with a little consideration for all.

 

[Jacob]

....cyclists are frustrated at walkers in the way ....

Not at all.
I use shared paths a great deal as cyclist and walker. I live half a mile from the High Peak Trail.
Just over the hill from here.
I haven't the slightest objection to sharing with walkers and I also know that some are deaf and may not hear a bell.
It's normal, there is no problem.
Used to be more horses too but they seem to have dropped off. Probably too busy for them on the more popular routes.

 

[Delwood]

I've found that on trails you have to ding your bell at least twice. Once is non directional and people may look up in the sky, over their shoulder, or jump sideways. Twice and it helps them geo-locate it.

Ding your bell as much as you like Jacob, many walkers won't hear it as their ears are stuffed with earphones while we try to avoid their dogs.

 

[TRITON]

I also know that some are deaf and may not hear a bell.

Thats why God invented puddles. You need to time it right though

 

[Jacob]

Ding your bell as much as you like Jacob, many walkers won't hear it as their ears are stuffed with earphones while we try to avoid their dogs.

Usually you get a response if you ring a bell - just a little wave etc. If not you assume you have not been heard and act accordingly. No problem.
Dogs and small children seem blind and deaf to bikes so you have to be very careful.
Horses a bit scary so it's best to wait until waved through
I find these threads a bit weird - so many angry people as though there is a war on.
Well there is, but it's all in their heads - and they are the losers.

 

[TRITON]

@TRITON this is what I said

I have not said anything that might imply impatience

Well yes and no. I appreciate your point, you have every right to make it, but coming up behind a group of cyclists spread out using the single lane and then coming on a non bike forum to point it out in the way you did - Look at this. everybody look at this. These cyclists taking up the whole road etc etc. does imply you came up behind them and i suppose anyone else int he car with you got an ear full of 'look at this, bloody cyclists. I cant overtake. damn them, move over move over' etc.

Heres a pic of a project down in London. They surrounded a bike with a car sized cage.
Say those cyclists you came across all had these cages on. What you'd have is a line of slow moving traffic correct ?.

So its not really any different to that, and any overtake needs the overtaker to only be able to do so when the road ahead is clear, and straight without bends. You might have to wait a few miles before that becomes possible.

 

[Jacob]

Well yes and no. I appreciate your point, you have every right to make it, but coming up behind a group of cyclists spread out using the single lane and then coming on a non bike forum to point it out in the way you did - Look at this. everybody look at this. These cyclists taking up the whole road etc etc. does imply you came up behind them and i suppose anyone else int he car with you got an ear full of 'look at this, bloody cyclists. I cant overtake. damn them, move over move over' etc.

Heres a pic of a project down in London. They surrounded a bike with a car sized cage.
Say those cyclists you came across all had these cages on. What you'd have is a line of slow moving traffic correct ?.

So its not really any different to that, and any overtake needs the overtaker to only be able to do so when the road ahead is clear, and straight without bends. You might have to wait a few miles before that becomes possible.
View attachment 159284

And in fact if passing is impossible anyway, a group of cyclists would be better in a compact peloton, even 3 abreast, in order to pass though more speedily and free up the road space. This also deters inexperienced drivers from attempting to overtake when there isn't enough space.

 

[deema]

@TRITON your simply making things up. You are introducing your biases and reflecting that on me. I took the photos, so if you actually look in on the LHS in the passenger seat next to my wife who was driving. No ranting, shouting, swearing, peeping horns, intimidating driving. Again, rather than just typing a comment about what you think I’ve written I’d encourage you to actually read the posts.

Interesting I’d be happy to see those frames as mandatory. It would solve many issues.

 

[Jacob]

.......

Interesting I’d be happy to see those frames as mandatory. It would solve many issues.

get a grip!
It'd make your compact group of 16 cyclists into a slow moving line of traffic 16 car lengths long and much more difficult to overtake.

 

[Daniel2]

We have a tendency to forget that the roads are a shared space,
especially the more minor roads.
A bit of tolerance and patience from all parties is all that it needs.

 

[Agent_zed]

It's simple. If you can't pass safely you should wait until you can. Even if it's a team of clowns on unicycles, juggling as they go. What the incoming traffic does is not your concern, other than not to collide with them head on by overtaking too soon.

Although you were clearly being flippant, your statement is incorrect. A team of clowns on unicycles juggling would be considered riding without due care and attention. The same way I can't pull a wheelie down the road regardless of how incontrol I believe I am.

From my point of view (and as mentioned by many others in this thread) everyone needs to be a bit more considerate. I rarely bike on the road (I mtb regularly) but when I do I am careful and try and make it safer for cars to pass when appropriate, so everyone wins. If there is a bike lane I use it. I rarely have a problem with someone riding their bike on the road except when it they are using it as a racetrack and refuse to use the provided cycle lane/path and have no intention of applying sense to their own actions.

 

[Jacob]

Although you were clearly being flippant, your statement is incorrect. A team of clowns on unicycles juggling would be considered riding without due care and attention. The same way I can't pull a wheelie down the road regardless of how incontrol I believe I am.

My point it that the only issue is about how to pass them safely, whoever they are, whatever they are doing, whether legal or not.
Their behaviour is quite secondary, but a bit more understanding of how cyclists have to think and behave might relieve some of the irritation!

 

[Agent_zed]

My point it that the only issue is about how to pass them safely, whoever they are, whatever they are doing, whether legal or not.
Their behaviour is quite secondary, but a bit more understanding of how cyclists have to think and behave might relieve some of the irritation!

but the only issue isn't how to pass them safely otherwise you are saying a cyclist can do whatever they feel like doing and it's entirely a vehicle drivers responsibility. How do you think it will relieve irritation if a cyclist is doing something stupid without any care for the situation around them? that is pretty much the entire point of why people get annoyed in the first place.

If I'm on my bike and decide weave randomly back and forth across the road and anytime a car tries to pass I weave right across to the other side of the road and back then it's the drivers responsibility is it? The 5 mile tailback just has to follow me until i decide I'm bored of stopping cars passing?

What about when someone is walking and about to cross the road and a cyclist just races on through. Is the cyclist still able to do what they want with reckless abandon? or does the pedestrian trump them in your set of rules?

 

[Jacob]

but the only issue isn't how to pass them safely

Yes it is

otherwise you are saying a cyclist can do whatever they feel like doing

No it does not follow.

I just think that all this self righteous rage generated by just a few nervous drivers is not a good thing.
The antagonism generated is even worse for women cyclists, who get lots of abuse.
Deema's photos show groups of cyclist pedalling along quite harmlessly and Deema managed to overtake them quite safely. It's all a fuss about nothing.

 

[niall Y]

As other posters have mentioned, many of us do, cover all three bases. And can be - cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. So, for a lot of us this debate cannot be about "them and us".

@deema's original question was fairly reasonable. Perhaps if he had posed it differently and asked - "What instruction would you give a 'driverless vehicle,' to enable it to overtake a cyclist ? " Then we would have been spared the "blame game" and unhelpful detours.

Perhaps, in the future the Highway Code is going to have to be much more prescriptive to avoid ambiguity. Many things in it can be seen as conditional - as you would only act on them " If it is safe to do so ". Which, as others have mentioned, then brings us back to "common sense"

So how do you define this "common sense"?. does everybody have it? or is it a convenient thing to say, after an event, that " If you had any common sense you would have realised " More importantly, can you programme a 'driverless vehicle to have it'

 

[paulrbarnard]

but the only issue isn't how to pass them safely otherwise you are saying a cyclist can do whatever they feel like doing and it's entirely a vehicle drivers responsibility. How do you think it will relieve irritation if a cyclist is doing something stupid without any care for the situation around them? that is pretty much the entire point of why people get annoyed in the first place.

If I'm on my bike and decide weave randomly back and forth across the road and anytime a car tries to pass I weave right across to the other side of the road and back then it's the drivers responsibility is it? The 5 mile tailback just has to follow me until i decide I'm bored of stopping cars passing?

What about when someone is walking and about to cross the road and a cyclist just races on through. Is the cyclist still able to do what they want with reckless abandon? or does the pedestrian trump them in your set of rules?

All your arguments apply equally to all road users. Why single out cyclists?