Things cyclists should know … POV driver who's incapable of cycling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

Red Herring?

Mrs earthloop you write like a bloke
As does mr earthloop
Why u on a bike forum?

No, I am very happy to sit behind a cyclist, with plenty of space between us, for as long as it takes for an opportunity to arise for me to overtake the cyclist safely. I'm happy to do this for however long it takes.

What I'm not happy about, and what causes me to become impatient and frustrated with a cyclist, is when a cyclist positions him/herself on the road in such a way that it is not possible to overtake the cyclist in a safe manner. Those times when the cyclist could have been safely overtaken if the cyclist had positioned themselves a foot or two to the left of the position they are taking. The first couple of times there is a missed opportunity due solely to cyclist position, I pretty much go "Oh well, he/she probably hasn't realised, isn't aware", but when there are opportunities to overtake safely, every few minutes for 15-20 minutes or so, I start to think the cyclist is taking the piss and being rather inconsiderate to the rest of us.

If the difference between being able to pass and not is a matter of a foot or two then perhaps there wasn't really enough space to pass safely. Speaking as a cyclist I only tend to take the lane when I feel that cars might be tempted to sqeeze past on the same side of the road when there's not really enough space to do so. If there is a gap on the other side then they'll still be able to pass, as they would if they were overtaking a car. Yes, the situation can be frustrating, but so can being stuck in a traffic jam, or behind a learner driver, or a tractor. It's not an excuse to stop driving considerately.

Speaking as a driver, in the same situation when I can't pass with a good amount of room to spare I'll wait until I can overtake by pulling out on to the other side of the road.

Smug mode deactivated

What the hell? moment after that dreadful tv show aired, everyone's an expert?

Can't tell if serious.

You still have an expectation that you must overtake, simply because they are cyclists, not something you seem to do with drivers.
Do not overtake until it is safe.
A 60 mph road should only be driven at 60 mph when safe, it is not a target.
If it is difficult to overtake, therefore unsafe, don't do it. How hard is that to understand?

This.
Not that I'm having a go at Mrs EL but drivers in general. I always give the example of a JCB going along at 12mph with a 17 stone Irish bloke at the steering wheel. Why do drivers not get out out and start giving it the large to this vehicle and it's user?

Though I've ridden with enough riders that come across as selfish by sitting in the middle of a lane that actively block faster moving vehicles from passing without reason and just bring tension.

This image is a lie, that is an Audi and would be 3 inches from the bike, 4 inches if he were to remove his helmet and Miss World sash.

Can't tell if serious.

I'm half under the impression that this whole topic is one giant troll.

As for everything else, Mrs E seems like the exact type of driver we should all hope for on the road, she thinks about other road users and is considerate, no road users behaves in a perfect manner but if we were all at least thinking about others in a positive way then there would be far fewer problem.
Peace and love and trees and shit.
As for the driving test and making progress. The phrase "making progress" is tied in with road conditions, including weather, road surface and other road users, it's meant to encourage driving at a safe speed that is up to the speed limit when safe to do so. It should not be mistaken for getting somewhere quickly. As for hesitation on tests or a juctions or whatever, the phrase in the test and that should be taught is undue hesitation, you will not get marked down on your test if you take 20 minutes to pull out of a side road if there are no safe opertunities to do so, you will if you do not pull out when there are obvious safe opertunities to do so. Going too slow for road conditions (including all the above mentioned things) 'can' be as unsafe as going too fast in some situations, mainly because some twat behind will force his way past unnecessarily, causing other problems. This isn't to say the driving test and instructors can't be improved in many ways. I also agree cycling should be included in learning to drive and encouraged it to every person I taught as a very suitable way to prepare for driving, much cheaper than paying me too.

Just give driving instructor cycle training, best way to make sure the future generation of drivers to be more aware toward other road user on different vehicles.

It's that simple.

It would help, would help more to train all (those that can ride) drivers and not just instuctors.

You can try and train all drivers, which would make a big difference, but training one driving instructor whom will teach their trainees the best way of working with a road user on a bicycles is a sure fire way of educating the future generation.

It's may not be as in-depth as cycle training, but it's defintely the quickest and easiest to just get the basic covered.

That should be obvious to all driving instuctors anyway, they're meant to be advanced raod users, I don't disagree though.

I have seen quite a few cyclists (in dark clothing at night) around our part of the world that are appear to be going out of their way to disguise themselves as a bush swaying in the breeze. My anticipation of what a bush is likely to do and what a cyclist is likely to do are quite different, so knowing that the dark shape ahead of me is a cyclist and not a bush is quite helpful.

If you are coming towards me, it is useful to know if you are cyclist or a pedestrian, cos if you are a pedestrian you are unlikely to reach me as quickly as if you are a cyclist.

If you are going in the same direction as me, if you are a pedestrian, unless you slip and fall into the road or dash out into the road, its unlikely that I'm going to have to change course. If its a cyclist, I'm going to need to move over to give you room, and I would like as much time as possible to see if this is going to be possible at the time I'm likely to reach you, or whether I need to be modifying my speed etc etc.

Identifying what something is is essential to anticipating the things actions or lack thereof, and making a decision as to what I am going to do.

One example that comes to mind: I was driving at night on a dual carriageway with 2 lanes on either side, up way ahead was a single flashing red light on the left, and the cars ahead of me were changing from the left lane to the right. Because the single flashing red light said "probably cyclist" to me I knew why we were all changing lanes. This seemed like win. I'm not saying I would have clattered into him had his light not been flashing, but surely more information about what's happening ahead is a good thing.

My point is that regardless of whether you do identify a cyclist, pedestrian or bush once you* see it you should be slowing down in anticipation of 'something'. Take your dual carriageway example. Upon seeing the single flashing red light did you carry on at 60/70mph until you decided it was a cyclist and action could be taken?

It always sounds to me that the focus on identification is about minimizing any delay to the affected persons rather than ensuring safe passing or safety in general. If a cyclist/pedestrian/kate bush is identified early then any moderation of speed or heading is lessened.

Now I know this probably isn't what you mean when you say "I would like as much time as possible to see if this is going to be possible at the time I'm likely to reach you, or whether I need to be modifying my speed etc etc." And I know that this isn't what my family and friends mean when they say roughly the same thing. But it really is how it comes across to me.

The selfish primary position bit also winds me up a little because there seems to be a presumption that you as a driver know when it is safe to overtake or not, regardless of whether the cyclist in front of you believes it is safe. Things like diesel spills, smaller potholes and general road-crappiness may not be obvious from your car, but can make a huge amount of difference to a cyclist to the extent where it may not be safe for you to pass, even if it isn't obvious.

The mirrors/van thing is also interesting because it is by no means a cyclist only issue, pretty much every road user seems to have very little idea of how much of a blind spot vans & lorries have at the rear, I've certainly been surprised before by a smart car that has pulled up almost directly behind my van and disappearing from my view. :(

In regards to the whole attacking/picking apart thing. Personally for me it's in part because I never get any recourse from drivers (I don't live in London and everyone is faster than me. :C ) All of the "Why did you do that?" questions can never be answered because they've beeped and gone, leaving me with a sour taste in my mouth and a soggy backside. Basically it's cathartic!

*I don't actually mean you you, but rather every driver including myself.

On a slight tangent, does anyone know the source of
"90% of UK cyclists also **drive" **
statistic that seems to be floating around now?
Nice (convenient) if it's true but it sounds like spun data to me

In addition to the BC membership, I think CTC quote 94% of their membership have a driving licence. Of course what proportion of cyclists who don't belong to an organisation which records such information have a licence is very open to speculation.

This image is a lie, that is an Audi and would be 3 inches from the bike, 4 inches if he were to remove his helmet and Miss World sash.

Damn right. That's what the passenger mirror is for on an A6 Avant - if it misses the cyclist then you allowed too much room.

oi, that's my wife you're not euphing

William did very well not using the phrase containing any of "smash back doors in"

Not really, I'm having trouble imagining how a cyclist could delay a driver on a rural road for several miles, I've never seen that. Also, I'm mid forties and not angry. More..peckish.

You've never been out on a large club run then!?

meanwhile, this option is going to add £100's per month to my payments, replacing my tools which will keep getting stolen

ftfy

Just read most of this thread and from the first few lines knew which way it would go which is a shame as it's always useful to see things from other's perspectives.

On the subject of the tinted rear window who's legality has been questioned a few times. It is completely legal. The rules on tints only applies to the side windows beside and in front of the drive and the windscreen. The others can be totally blacked out if so desired. It may not be ideal but it is legal.

That should be obvious to all driving instuctors anyway, they're meant to be advanced raod users, I don't disagree though.

It wasn't when I was taught, even when I finish my lesson, still no mentioned of cyclists at all.

Yeah, should.

visibility is about being in someone's line of sight. if he is looking at a girls arse then hi viz will make no difference to getting him to look at you.

One morning when I was working on the coffee stall on Old Street, it was raining to noone was stopping to buy coffee. However it let me watch the drivers going about their business. I can't remember exact numbers but it was around 1 HGV for every 3 cars, and of those HGV's about 80% were on their phone, having a smoke, reading a paper or many other things. I counted 4 HGV drivers who were actually looking at the road, out of about 20.

Great pic. The cyclist is positioned in the left hand side of the lane and there is space for other vehicles to pass it. The cyclist in the pic not causing any frustration to me on the roads at all.

Now shift the cyclist closer to the white line, in the right hand half of the lane. Is there still enough room for the cyclist to be overtaken safely, leaving a safe space between cyclist and car? The closer the cyclist is to the white line/central median, the less space there is for overtaking with a decent gap. Its those cyclists that are frustrating.

Sometimes, there is a reason for the cyclist to be on the right hand half of the lane, eg in autumn when there are huge amounts of leaves on the sides of the roads. No problem. Don't want the cyclist ahead riding over the leaves and possibly slipping off etc. Sometimes there are potholes/draincovers etc. No problem. Don't want the cyclist ahead of me bumped/bounced off their bike either, but on a bit of road, as portrayed in this pic, why is it necessary to cycle in the right hand half of the lane?

Because there's a guy in the middle of the road taking photo's and it's not safe to overtake.